Ship of Fools: Purgatory: Is the Pope Danish?

Thread: Purgatory: Is the Pope Danish? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000618

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :

I think the pope is going to maybe stir up the Muslim Wrath like the Danish Newspaper did. I am curious what will happen and how this will be resolved since he is viewed as a holy man by many...head of the Catholic Church on earth and he is extremely intelligent. He surely thought much, prayed much, before making his remarks.

What do you think of this? And also, why do you think he said this?

From the BBC News article linked to below:

"Muslim religious leaders have accused Pope Benedict XVI of quoting anti-Islamic remarks during a speech at a German university this week.

Questioning the concept of holy war, he quoted a 14th-Century Christian emperor who said Muhammad had brought the world only "evil and inhuman" things."

Pope Stirs Up Muslim Anger

[eta: One more question to my OP. Thx.]

[ 08. May 2007, 01:48: Message edited by: Professor Kirke ]

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :

Okay, I will let this lame-titled thread drop the bottom. Prediction: somebody will post a duplicate thread somewhere else and much discussion will follow.

I am done now and will...get me coat. [Smile]

[eta: am I the only one left scratching my head?]

[ 14. September 2006, 23:30: Message edited by: duchess ]

Posted by Zwingli (# 4438) on :

Give it time duchess, it's only half an hour since you posted the OP.

FWIW, I agree with the comments you quoted in the OP - it is hard to see anything good having come out of what the Prophet said or did.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

Predictably, the successor of St Peter rocks. [Biased]

The full text of his speech is here: "Faith, Reason and the University" (German audio here).

Islam has certainly become a major worry in the Vatican, as it is a major worry for the current pope. We can expect an overall tougher line in the future. Read this analysis of Benedict XVI's thoughts by Samir Khalil Samir, S.J. (a name to watch): Chiesa Article. The basic change in attitude has been expressed by absorbing the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue into the larger Pontifical Council for Culture. This is squarely aimed at Islam, recognizing that Islam does not distinguish sufficiently between religion and society. Rather than to dialogue with Muslims about religion directly, the main effort will now be to come to a common agreement about society first - a society which will allow coexistence without religious subservience. This also means that we will hear increasing complaints about the lack of reciprocity, i.e., that Muslims enjoy such a society in the West, but many Christians do not enjoy such a society in Muslim countries.

And if it comes down to that, expect the RCC to be the last bulwark against Eurabia. Certainly there's no fight left in the seculars...

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
Okay, I will let this lame-titled thread drop the bottom. Prediction: somebody will post a duplicate thread somewhere else and much discussion will follow.

Well you sure got that right. Perhaps you are a prophet ....

Here's my comment from my duplicate OP. "My own initial reaction is that the full address will repay some detailed study (there was much in it which I found illuminating and sensible). However, the BBC report shows how difficult it is becoming to discuss anything controversial seriously without the risk of instant, polarising, reaction."

Like IngoB, I read what the man said and my initial reaction was also very positive. I'd say "read the address, not the headlines".

Posted by m.t-tomb (# 3012) on :

I think it proves how dangerous sophistry can be to the mission of the church. The sophist seeks to display his cleverness in the rarified environment of the academy without a thought for the unsophisticated who will seek to display their displeasure in the streets of Cairo.

Respect Duchess! I've come over to this thread to offer my penny's worth

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

They can express their displeasure all they want. The truth is the truth. No lies for an easy life. Speak while you can.

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :

I think there seem to be an awful lot of muslims who want to stir things up (as there clearly were with the cartoons).

quote:

code:

 O
 +    <--- Muhammed
 /\

[ 15. September 2006, 08:05: Message edited by: Custard. ]

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Good on Papa Ratzi! At first I though this was a typical, Prince Philip-esque gaffe ie:"What you heard is not what I meant to say", but then I read the full text and the context. Apparently the Pakistani Lower House have passed a motion of censure...watch this space.

Posted by m.t-tomb (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
They can express their displeasure all they want. The truth is the truth. No lies for an easy life. Speak while you can.

Father Gregory, I agree with you. However, what I don't agree with is the overly sophisticated and highly nuanced language that is often used: Rowan Williams is particularly guilty of this. Truth doesn't have to be delivered in academic - and therefore somewhat inaccessible - terms. We have to remember that the language we use is supposed to communicate truth as clearly as possible; not obscure it behind sophisticated rhetoric and unnecessary complexity.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Online dictionary definition of sophistry.

m.t-tomb, do you really believe that the pope is indulging in "a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone"? Or perhaps you are applying a different definition of sophistry? After a more considered reading, it's pretty clear to me that BXVI is seeking the exact opposite of the above definition of sophistry.

If there is sophistry here, why could the boot not be on the other foot? The Pope attacked nobody in his talk. If the "unsophisticated" display displeasure on the streets of Cairo or Ankara, following this most reasonable of talks, who or what is winding them up? Is it not those who would prefer them to have an entirely negative view of Christianity? Linking their grievances to a "demonised" enemy and his "false religion" cohort? What good does that do?

Posted by Hazey*Jane (# 8754) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
code:
O
+ <--- Muhammed
/\

What are you trying to achieve with that?

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :

Picking up on Barnabas's thoughts, I have to say I'm getting a little bit tired of the perception that we must avoid criticising other faiths at all costs. It's dishonest unless we're true pluralists - that is, that Christianity is neither truer nor better in any way than any other faith.

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

I agree with Barnabas62. I did not at all find the Holy Father's speech to be sophistic or unduly complex ... challenging yes, as much to the inheritors of Duns Scotus as to those of Ibn Hazn.

Do we theologise from our "belly" (that is from our "passions") or from an enlightened nous? If an extremist rabble in Cairo or Lahore prefer the former to the latter should we exchange truth for platitudes? Most certainly not.

In 1977 the notorious "Myth of God Incarnate" hit the streets of Cairo in an Arabic text within a few short months of its publication in the west. The then Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, expressed surprise at the reaction. Aside from his naivete the work itself was a propaganda "god"-send to the rising class of populist Islamists. What characterises the Pope's contribution here is that it is neither naive nor comfortable reading for many Christians in the west and these self styled Islamic propagandists. Rather, it is masterly and timely.

There will always be outrage but first there must be truth.

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hazey*Jane:
What are you trying to achieve with that?

It was meant to be a semi-humourous self-referential comment that while I think a lot of the blame is attributable to the rabble-rousers in the Islamic world, Christians, myself included, often aren't much better by the way that we display so little sensitivity.

On the other hand, of course, sometimes a lack of sensitivity is the right quality to display.

It was also meant to be mocking the Islamic stupidly legalistic extension of the Quranic prohibition of images. Oh no, I'm going to be sentenced to death for drawing poor ASCII art and putting the world's most common first name next to it.

Oh, plus I'm tired.

Posted by m.t-tomb (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Online dictionary definition of sophistry.

m.t-tomb, do you really believe that the pope is indulging in "a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone"? Or perhaps you are applying a different definition of sophistry?

In a sense the ambiguity of my terminology and use of allusion is precisely my point. I was picking up on the Pope's praise of greek philosophy with the word sophistry. Incidentally, I disagree with the definition that you have provided; I was using the word in the original sense of the word in Ancient Greek culture meaning: one of a class of public teachers of rhetoric or philosophy known for their wisdom and skill with words.

quote:
[b]If there is sophistry here, why could the boot not be on the other foot? The Pope attacked nobody in his talk. If the "unsophisticated" display displeasure on the streets of Cairo or Ankara, following this most reasonable of talks, who or what is winding them up? Is it not those who would prefer them to have an entirely negative view of Christianity? Linking their grievances to a "demonised" enemy and his "false religion" cohort? What good does that do? [/QB]

My point was that the unsophisticated - which I consider to be the majority of the Islamic world - have no love of wisdom or skilled reasoning. They merely want to get angry at the surface meaning of the Pope's words without giving any dues consideration to the flow of his argument or the context of his statements concerning jihad.

So my objection is this: the vast majority of the Islamic world is made up of poorly educated and ignorant fundamentalists who would be able to understand the Pope for toffee. This is why i think we need to careful about what we say to the Islamic world. It's not because sophisticated reasoning is wrong per se; it's because Muslim fundamentalists have no interest - or even the ability - to think in a sophisticated way.

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :

Added to which, the quote tags were meant to be exploring the relationship between quoting someone else expressing an opinion (as +Rome did) and expressing that opinion oneself.

Because if quoting an opinion is wrong, then reporting the quote is presumably also wrong. If quoting is wrong, and what I did was wrong, then what you did in quoting it was also wrong, as is the action of everyone's computers in displaying the page.

Posted by m.t-tomb (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Online dictionary definition of sophistry.

m.t-tomb, do you really believe that the pope is indulging in "a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone"? Or perhaps you are applying a different definition of sophistry?

quote:
If there is sophistry here, why could the boot not be on the other foot? The Pope attacked nobody in his talk. If the "unsophisticated" display displeasure on the streets of Cairo or Ankara, following this most reasonable of talks, who or what is winding them up? Is it not those who would prefer them to have an entirely negative view of Christianity? Linking their grievances to a "demonised" enemy and his "false religion" cohort? What good does that do?

My point was that the unsophisticated - which I consider to be the majority of the Islamic world - have no love of wisdom or skilled reasoning. They merely want to get angry at the surface meaning of the Pope's words without giving any dues consideration to the flow of his argument or the context of his statements concerning jihad.

So my objection is this: the vast majority of the Islamic world is made up of poorly educated and ignorant fundamentalists who wouldn't actually be able to understand the Pope for toffee. This is why I think we (Christians) need to careful about what we say to - and about - the Islamic world. It's not because sophisticated reasoning is wrong per se; it's because Muslim fundamentalists have no interest - or even the ability - to think in a sophisticated way. Christian thought and radicalised Islamic thought have no comparison.

[arrgh! bad code moment]
[not one to disagree...}

[ 15. September 2006, 19:24: Message edited by: John Holding ]

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :

Forgive me, have I got this right? The head of the organisation that invented the Crusade is quoting an Emperor of a Christian state that readily used violence and occasionally carried icons into battle about how wrong it is to mix religion and coercive violence?

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

Dear m_t. tomb

But isn't that a bit like saying that the South is full of red-necked Baptists so we must be careful what we say about gays? I think it is also a dangerous characterisation of Islam as ONLY comprising irrational bigots (although I know that is NOT what you mean and your intentions are honourable). I just think that we must always speak the truth. It doesn't always have to be in "cartoon speak." Plus, remember that there are SOME in Islam who are spoiling for a fight and they will always find something to use.

Dear Dyfrig

Yes, the irony of that hadn't passed me by either .... also the Crusades come to mind.

[ 15. September 2006, 09:12: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
So my objection is this: the vast majority of the Islamic world is made up of poorly educated and ignorant fundamentalists who wouldn't actually be able to understand the Pope for toffee. This is why I think we (Christians) need to careful about what we say to - and about - the Islamic world. It's not because sophisticated reasoning is wrong per se; it's because Muslim fundamentalists have no interest - or even the ability - to think in a sophisticated way. Christian thought and radicalised Islamic thought have no comparison.

The pope was delivering a theological and philosophical talk to academics at the University Regensburg where he used to be a professor. He who cannot deal with "sophisticated reasoning" has no business judging a lecture at an university. Agitators who misuse such material to deceive the uneducated are responsible for the reaction themselves.

But let's be clear about this: the pope was surely aware that his words would echo not only in the lecture room, but also in the world. I think this was a trial balloon, floated in the most deniable of circumstances. Let's hope we are in for more of the same. It's high time to challenge the combination of intolerance and radicalism towards others and whinging about being victimized themselves which characterizes much of Muslim "public policy".

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Forgive me, have I got this right? The head of the organisation that invented the Crusade is quoting an Emperor of a Christian state that readily used violence and occasionally carried icons into battle about how wrong it is to mix religion and coercive violence?

The First Crusade was "invented" by Pope Urban II after an urgent request by Byzantine emperor Alexius I who was getting overrun by Seljuk Turks. It was largely a defensive measure, and the way for it had been prepared by the sacking of the pilgrimage hospice in Jerusalem and the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 1009 by Caliph al-Hakim. That the crusades ended up being not perfectly just wars is of course regrettable, but hardly surprising. But one can hardly claim that these clashes were started by the Christians.

Posted by m.t-tomb (# 3012) on :

Posted by IngoB:

quote:
The pope was delivering a theological and philosophical talk to academics at the University Regensburg where he used to be a professor. He who cannot deal with "sophisticated reasoning" has no business judging a lecture at an university. Agitators who misuse such material to deceive the uneducated are responsible for the reaction themselves.

But the original assertion from Father Gregory was that the pope was speaking truth. I have no objection to what the pope had to say about the divine logos in relation to the irrationality of certain parts of Islam and Islamic thought; if that is what he was saying.

What I was suggesting is this: if the pope wishes to communicate truth about - or even to - the Islamic world he'd better choose his words wisely. Of course that doesn't mean that some within the Ummah won't read something offensive into what he says. I know that the giving offense isn't always wrong; Jesus did it often and well. But what he should do is give due consideration as to how what he says can - and inevitably will - be transalated by the radicalised Islamic mindset. He needs to careful that his statements contain the unmistakeable challenge of truth and not the ambiguity of the academy not because sophistry is wrong but because the intrinsic superiority of Christian truth needs to displayed clearly and openly.

Posted by Zealot en vacance (# 9795) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It's high time to challenge the combination of intolerance and radicalism towards others and whinging about being victimized themselves which characterizes much of Muslim "public policy".

Tell it, Ingo. This assymetry seems to be inbuilt to islam, particularly with respect to judaism and christianity. I would be glad to learn differently, but all I have read confirms that it derives from core doctrine.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Rather like IngoB, I believe that the Pope did choose his words, and the location for their delivery, carefully. Not as an act of provocation but as a test of the water.

It looks like the "hair-trigger" reactions are growing. The world is in a hell of a mess if what the Pope said is considered unspeakable, simply for fear of the reaction it might provoke. The "hair-trigger" reactions are themselves a sign of a deep, deep malaise. I'm a peaceful soul, but not an appeaser of the unreasonable. I'm rather hoping BXVI is the same.

My wife observed this morning that reactions like this are normally associated with people who are "way up themselves". Inelegant but not a bad summary. I'd say the reactions are disproportionate. Something similar happened over a recent cricket match - and the reaction then was "way over the top" as well.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Forgive me, have I got this right? The head of the organisation that invented the Crusade is quoting an Emperor of a Christian state that readily used violence and occasionally carried icons into battle about how wrong it is to mix religion and coercive violence?
The First Crusade was "invented" by Pope Urban II after an urgent request by Byzantine emperor Alexius I who was getting overrun by Seljuk Turks. It was largely a defensive measure, and the way for it had been prepared by the sacking of the pilgrimage hospice in Jerusalem and the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 1009 by Caliph al-Hakim. That the crusades ended up being not perfectly just wars is of course regrettable, but hardly surprising. But one can hardly claim that these clashes were started by the Christians.

And thus, ineluctably, do we move to the morality of the playground. But Miss! He started it!

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

I read the Pope's homily.

The Pope speaks about the Hellenes. By speaking thus he does great injustice to them. You will ask why the injustice, since he speaks so highly of the Greeks. He might be speaking about the Greeks, but the things he attributes to the Greeks are not Greek.

He speaks about logos being reason. He does not say anything about John writing in Ephesus, the city of Heraclitos, the first who put forth the notion of logos. He does not say anything about the centuries of Greek cultivating the concept of logos, from Heraclitos in the late sixth century BC, to the Stoics of the Hellenistic times, to Saint John the Apostle, to Justin the Martyr, to Maximos the Confessor.

In a way, the Pope is bound by the same spirit that gave birth to the secular civilization of our times. He speaks about Christianity being retained in "Europe" as opposed to the "East", while he does not say that it is secularism that got developed in "Europe", but not in the "East".

He attributes today's mistakes in a few men's opinions, yet he cannot point out the spirit that gave birth to these men's opinions.

He speaks about God being transcedent, as an Islamic over-emphasis. He reminds me of something the Archbishop of Albania, Anastasios, a man who has worked with the Muslims for decades, has said. Orthodoxy is much closer to Islam, than it is to Western Christianity. The Pope fails to understand the East and the influence Christianity had on Islam.

It is a pity that he starts his ecumenical call by approaching the Lutherans, because he came to know them, but he stops that open-up, by rejecting the Muslims, whom he does not know.

The Pope is Danish only in appearances. In truth, he is another Western Christian, as Roman Catholic as those Popes that gave birth to the schism of the Church.

[ 15. September 2006, 10:56: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

Suggesting that, considered in context, a Byzantine Emperor was unlikely to be straightforwardly advocating smiley happy Christian pacifism against a bellicose Islam is not engaging in 'the morality of the playground'. It is stressing that the Pope's sources may not do the work he wants them to.

I've always tended to disagree with whatCardinal Ratzinger/ Pope Benedict has to say about Islam. It is worth pointing out, however, that within the breadth of Catholic theology there are legitimate and orthodox positions which are far more optimistic about what Christians have in common with Islam (and people of other faiths and none). I suspect this may boil down to questions of the relationship between grace and nature, faith and natural reason, and the extent to which both grace and unthematic faith are possible outside the visible boundaries of the Church. The Augustinian Pope has particular views on these questions which condition his approach to inter-faith issues.

[ 15. September 2006, 11:00: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]

Posted by Cusanus (# 692) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
The Pope ...is another Western Christian, as Roman Catholic as those Popes that gave birth to the schism of the Church.

And our next item is an expose of ursine defecatory habits in the forest regions.

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

Andreas

I'm sorry but this really isn't really about the pre-Christian Hellenes; it's about all fundamentalists who despsre rationality in favour of a God who is capricious and utterly inscrutable in his will. B16 has a good point. Try not to be so sensitive and defensive please!

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

You have a point about Muslim fundamentalism. However, I am not going to use what I consider a completely mistaken homily, just because the Pope seems to agree that Muslim fundamentalism is "bad".

Like you said, we have to stand up for truth, while we can.

The Pope attributed fundamentalism to Islam as a whole. He said that while the earlier sunnas were more peaceful, later, when Mohammed gained power, he became more aggressive. Is this an argument against historical Islam? The Pope seems to think so.

However, this is flawed thinking. It's like saying that historical Christianity is fundamentalist, because, although the bible is pro-peace in some books, in other places, when the writer belongs to a community in power, there is much violence.

I think that he does great injustice to Islam, quoting things he does not understand.

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

I have to agree with Andreas. I find the idea of 'Christian Europe' in some current circles very disturbing. I think it is theologically flawed - really just a high-brow version of all those US evangelicals who harp on about being God's nation; dominionism with Mozart rather than bluegrass as a backing track - and flows seemlessly into a scary Right-wing political agenda.

[ 15. September 2006, 11:39: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

Dear Andreas

I would go along with most of that but I do think that there is an absolute qualitative difference between Christianity and Islam in one important respect ... to which the Pope alluded.

Mohammed was not a prophet of peace, absolutely ... Jesus was. (He's more than than that but I am occupying a smaller christological space for this argument).

So whereas when Christians become cruel others can say "is this in the spirit of Jesus?" and be met with a thundering "NO!" in Islam the answer is much more difficult. Can one justifiably kill humanely in defence of Allah and the Ummah? It's a very different understanding of martyrdom and the use of force for sure and it is not, I believe, unconnected with the second phase of Mohammed's work and character. B16's comment is, therefore, legitimate historically.

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
when Christians become cruel others can say "is this in the spirit of Jesus?" and be met with a thundering "NO!"

Has this been true at all times, by everyone, always, Father?

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

In the Muslim history there are centuries of peace. The people that lived during those times experienced the wholeness of the Koran as a peaceful way. Therefore, to them, the answer was easy.

You say that in theory Christianity is peaceful. However, Christianity is not judged by Christ, but by Christians. Not individual Christians, but by the way entire societies experienced the Christian message. Was the wholeness of the gospel unknown to those Christian societies that cultivated violence? I say no. This means that the Christian gospel was not as clear to them, as it is to us.

The Spirit of Jesus has been abused by many. We know it. They thought otherwise. Eastern Orthodoxy managed to live in peace with Islam for centuries and we even got to influence Islam on a great degree. Perhaps the West should learn a lesson by the people that lived in the East during those times.

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

Father Gregory, I think charity demands that we accept in good faith the account the majority of Muslims give of how they read the Koran. There is a sense in which the reading of a holy book by people outside of the faith community whose book it is will never 'get it' - think of all those secularist websites going on about 'contradictions in the Bible'.

But even if the Pope was correct, does that necessarily mean he had to say it? The scriptural injunction is to speak the truth in love. Perhaps love demands not making sweeping comments about Islam at a time when many Muslims in Europe are feeling incredibly victimised and where there are all too many unpleasant people around who would be eager to take the Pope's words as a green light for bigotry. Personally I believe the Jewish religion to be incomplete in its knowledge of the truth. For much of European history, to make that (abstractly true) belief a programmatic theme in one's preaching would have been to be criminally complicit in persecution.

The problem is, you see, that there is no such thing as abstract Islam floating around in some Platonic ether, blissfully removed from human relationships, which can be the object of dispassionate debate. Islam exists only in as much as there are Muslim people. And once 'Islam' becomes one of Europe's major problems we are uncomfortably close to suggesting that a good proportion of my neighbours are themselves a problem.

[ 15. September 2006, 12:01: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
And thus, ineluctably, do we move to the morality of the playground. But Miss! He started it!

If George Bush and Tony Blair had retained that morality we wouldn't have got into the mess we got into in Iraq.

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

The Pope says in effect that those who do not see things his way are unreasonable. How is that different (especially since he links reason to God) from the fundamentalists' saying that those who do not see things their way are godless?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
In a way, the Pope is bound by the same spirit that gave birth to the secular civilization of our times. He speaks about Christianity being retained in "Europe" as opposed to the "East", while he does not say that it is secularism that got developed in "Europe", but not in the "East".

Were you reading a different speech? His "second" and "third" stages of "de-Hellenization" are blamed on Western Europe.

quote:

the Archbishop of Albania, Anastasios, a man who has worked with the Muslims for decades, has said. Orthodoxy is much closer to Islam, than it is to Western Christianity.

That just goes to show that even an Orthodox bishop can talk bollocks.

quote:

It is a pity that he starts his ecumenical call by approaching the Lutherans, because he came to know them, but he stops that open-up, by rejecting the Muslims, whom he does not know.

I hate to break the news to you like this, but the Pope is a Christian bishop. The Lutherans are Christians, even if according to the Pope they heretical ones. The Muslims are not Christians, even if, according to the same Pope, they worship God and have recieved some light from God.

In the normal usage of the word in English (maybe we misborrowed it from Greek, but it has a life of its own in English now) Roman Catholics talking to Lutherans (or Orthodox, or Baptists, or any other Christian denomination) is "ecumenical", but RCs talking to Muslims is not "ecumenical", its "inter-faith" (horrid bastard word).

quote:
In truth, he is another Western Christian, as Roman Catholic as those Popes that gave birth to the schism of the Church.

Gosh. Who'd a'thunk it?

Posted by m.t-tomb (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
The Pope says in effect that those who do not see things his way are unreasonable. How is that different (especially since he links reason to God) from the fundamentalists' saying that those who do not see things their way are godless?

He is saying that God is faithful to his character and will as revealed in Christian Holy Scripture and the person of his Son. He is saying that God will not 'change the rules' by acting in contradiction to what he has reasonably revealed of himself in Scripture and ultimately in Chrst who is the eternal logos. I think that's a perfectly reasonable thing to say for a pope: I just wish he'd said it a bit more clearly. But, on the other hand, I'm now beginning to appreciate how deep his words really are, and how profoundly affirmative of the gospel of Christ incarnate they are in the face of the horrid monism of Islam.

[ 15. September 2006, 12:41: Message edited by: m.t-tomb ]

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
What do you think of this? And also, why do you think he said this?

I think the key is to be found by clicking on the 'exerpts' link on the BBC webpage you provided. The pope opens by saying:

quote:
It is a moving experience for me to be back again in the university and to be able once again to give a lecture at this podium.

It was an academic lecture and the context of the quote that has been cited as offensive is just, well, not offensive. I don't understand how anyone reading even the exerpts can possibly be offended. It's not even remotely Danish paperesque.

But then I will readily confess, at the risk of sticking out my neck and losing my head in the process, that I am getting bored and tired of hearing how angry the Muslim world is at almost anything that is said which is not praiseworthy with regard to their faith.

I have no idea whether Muslims really are angry. Most of them might not give a shit what the pope says. I'm just sick of the reports that "the Muslim world is angry" [again]. The media should start examining the way they report stuff: I'd just love to know who was the first to stir the pot on this occasion. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

Dear DOD

So it all boils down to Muslims know the Quran best and was it a timely intervention?

Your first point might convince if it were not for the fact that the military engagements of Mohmammed are an accepted historical record. It is not a matter then of doubt that Mohammed wielded the word as an instrument of God. I do not know of a Muslim who can, with integrity, say ... "well we'll skip over that bit."

Was it timely? Personally, I think, yes. Muslims do need to know why we (some of us at any rate) have a problem with Islam. We don't take to the streets when we are on the receiving end. If the violence is to be stopped it must be identified, assessed and its root traced. If that strategy increases violence in the short term that might be a price we have to pay. The Ummah needs to look at itself a little more honestly ... like we have been during the last few centuries. Too much is at stake now for that NOT to happen. Let the true friends of Allah stand up and speak. Then we shall have a dialogue, and, hopefully, resolution. Being mealy-mouthed isn't going to achieve anything.

By the way Andreas ... I agree with most of what Ken said in reply to you. To suggest that the Orthodox are closer to Islam than the west is complete, utter and total bollocks ... as much as I respect the missionary endeavours of the Archbishop of Albania who on all other counts speaks much sense.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

But but but but -

Anyone reading this thread would think that B16 had been delivering a lecture on Islam.

He didn't. He used it as an example to illustrate his main thesis which revolved around the concept of reason and how/why that is bound to the self-understanding of Christianity.

Whilst I disgree with Andreas' analysis overall, he has a point about western christianity needing to examine its own decrepitude. It's odd, then, that a lot of the lecture was about that very thing. One could almost be excused for thinking that this thread was a kind of displacement activity - let's talk about Islam instead!

re the issue of violence in Islam and Christianity - yes, of course it has flared up in both. But the point B16 is making is - expressed in system terms - that Christianity has a negative feedback loop built in, Islam doesn't. Also - so far as I understand it - he was not following the proof-texting route in citing the suras; the issue of Quranic texts covering the same subject is almost always covered in fiqh by assigning prominence to the later text, as more complete revelation. If you want to claim that sura 2:256 states that there is to be no compunction in religion - which it does - and leave it at that, then it is you who has to answer the charge of prooftexting, not the Pope. Islamic jurisprudence just doesn't work that way - as B16 points out, it's not that clear.

If a genuine Islamic scholar wants to correct me, I will cheerfully stand corrected. Until then, that's my best shot at it.

Ian

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

I would have thought some strands of hyper-Calvinist protestantism were closer in many ways to Islam - at least in their understanding of God. Just a personal observation you understand.

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Eastern Orthodoxy managed to live in peace with Islam for centuries

Er... like when? The emperor Manuel II Palaeologos, quoted by the Pope, would not recognise your statement, I would imagine. By the time he lived at the end of the 14th century the Orthodox Eastern (Byzantine) Empire had been on the receiving end of islamic aggression for about 750 years. During his reign Constantinople had to withstand a 5 year siege from the muslim Ottoman Turks and towards the end of his life the Empire had to pay tribute following another Ottoman attack.

Or do you mean that the Orthodox lived in peace with Islam after 1453? After the sack of Constaninople and the massacre of Christians in Hagia Sophia? The peace through submission which to an extent still exemplifies the Oecumenical Patriarchate's relations with the Turkish state?

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Were you reading a different speech? His "second" and "third" stages of "de-Hellenization" are blamed on Western Europe.

Sarcasm aside, the Pope a) does not explain why secularism was born in the West and not in the East. He just attributes it to a few individuals, over the course of all these many centuries, and b) the Pope talks about Europe keeping the Christian faith. This is historically false, and I am surprised that an Antiochian priest agrees with your post.

quote:
That just goes to show that even an Orthodox bishop can talk bollocks.

Anastasios has an intimate knowledge of both Orthodoxy and Islam. Yet you know that he doesn't know either of them. Father Gregory has not spent decades working with Islam. However, I am surprised that he does not agree with Anastasios. The way I see it, Orthodoxy is in fact more similar to Islam than it is to Roman Catholicism or Protestantism.

quote:
The Muslims are not Christians

The Pope cannot claim the authority of a world-leading moral figure while at the same time he speaks so lowly of Islam. The Muslims might not be Christians, yet they are of the Abrahamic faith. His homily does not only close doors on an international level; he closes doors between what Orthodoxy has been saying for centuries, and Roman Catholicism.

quote:
Gosh. Who'd a'thunk it?

I would have thought that after centuries of the Orthodox clarifying their faith, he would have stopped attributing them Roman Catholic worldviews.

Posted by Amethyst (# 11068) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:

quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
What do you think of this? And also, why do you think he said this?
I think the key is to be found by clicking on the 'exerpts' link on the BBC webpage you provided. The pope opens by saying:

quote:
It is a moving experience for me to be back again in the university and to be able once again to give a lecture at this podium.
It was an academic lecture and the context of the quote that has been cited as offensive is just, well, not offensive. I don't understand how anyone reading even the exerpts can possibly be offended. It's not even remotely Danish paperesque.

But then I will readily confess, at the risk of sticking out my neck and losing my head in the process, that I am getting bored and tired of hearing how angry the Muslim world is at almost anything that is said which is not praiseworthy with regard to their faith.

I have no idea whether Muslims really are angry. Most of them might not give a shit what the pope says. I'm just sick of the reports that "the Muslim world is angry" [again]. The media should start examining the way they report stuff: I'd just love to know who was the first to stir the pot on this occasion.

I am going to join Littlelady in sticking my head over the parapet and say that I too am fed up with hearing and reading this. I am also fed up with ‘Muslim leaders’ who refuse to acknowledge their part in being able to influence young Muslims out of violence.

I live in a highly multi-racial area with many Muslims, some Christians and recently a few Jewish families. We use each other’s shops, go to the same schools, and try to get along in an area full of drug dealers and poor families living in crappy estates. This kind of stuff does nobody any good.

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

Before the Fall of the Empire: There were long periods of peace INSIDE the occupied territories. There were also periods of peace between the Empire and the Arabs.

After the Fall of the Empire: Islamic Law provided for the self rule of each of the Jewish and Christian societies called a Milet.

Today: The Patriarch faces many problems because the Turks influenced by what they see in Rome think that he wants to make Phanar a Vatican-like territory inside Turkey. The Patriarch, of course, says in an explicit manner that Orthodoxy is incompatible with such views, but the Turks are not interested in what he is saying, because they are under the impression that the Vatican is something other Christians want to imitate.

Plus there is co-operation in places like Africa, etc.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
The Pope says in effect that those who do not see things his way are unreasonable.

No he doesn't

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
The Pope attributed fundamentalism to Islam as a whole.

No he didn't

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
He said that while the earlier sunnas were more peaceful, later, when Mohammed gained power, he became more aggressive. Is this an argument against historical Islam? The Pope seems to think so.

No he doesn't say that. Nor does he give any impression that he believes this is an argument against historical Islam. This all comes from dialogue between the Byzantine emperor and the educated Persian. The Pope simply observed that he had found the dialogue interesting. These are his exact words.

quote:
In this lecture I would like to discuss only one point -- itself rather marginal to the dialogue itself -- which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason," I found interesting and which can serve as the starting point for my reflections on this issue.

andreas1984, the dialogue he reviews at the start is simply a preamble to his arguments and conclusions about the relationships between faith and reason in Christianity. None of his conclusions set out any specific agenda for dialogue with Islam, or any particular parts of Islam. Here are the conclusions.

quote:
The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur -- this is the program with which a theology grounded in biblical faith enters into the debates of our time.

"Not to act reasonably (with logos) is contrary to the nature of God," said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.

I recommend that you read the talk again. By all means criticise his "broad strokes" summary and in particular the way it draws on his understanding of Greek thought. But that has very little to do with Islam and is not really within the scope of the OP.

You seem to me to have jumped to some unjustified conclusions. As have those passing resolutions/demonstrating on the streets. Hair trigger reactions. Seeing offence where none was offerred or intended.

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

"Still better the Sultan's turban than the Cardinal's hat" eh Andreas?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
the Pope talks about Europe keeping the Christian faith. This is historically false

No it isn't. Most Europeans who profess any religion at all are Christians and have been for maybe 1200 years.

Or are you are suggesting that the Roman Catholic church is not a Christian organisation?

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

I read an official translation of the homily made by the Vatican. They mention that a book with footnotes will be made available. I think that the Pope knew that the entire planet would hear about his homily.

He was supposed to speak about faith and reason. instead, he made a political address. He used the opportunity not to talk about the compatibility of his faith with reason, but to attack one of the world's biggest religions.

It's naive to assume that the Pope was not endorsing openly and explicitly the stories he used in his homily.

The Pope attributes fundamentalism to Islam as a whole in these ways: he says that the Koran is pro-violence. He does not mention anything positive in the things Mohammed, the man whom Muslims respect as the Prophet, brought to humanity. He uses the Muslim history to talk about periods of wars and violence. He gives no examples of peaceful periods in the Muslim history. He even implies that Islam has forgoten the "breadth of reason".

We should not fool ourselves into thinking that he was either talking about the title of his talk, or he was talking to prominent intellectuals.

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
the Pope talks about Europe keeping the Christian faith. This is historically false
No it isn't. Most Europeans who profess any religion at all are Christians and have been for maybe 1200 years.

Or are you are suggesting that the Roman Catholic church is not a Christian organisation?

I meant that he says that Europe kept that faith while the "East" lost it. It is this "only Europe" that is historically false.

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
"Still better the Sultan's turban than the Cardinal's hat" eh Andreas?

I don't change one fundamentalism for another. That's all.

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
I meant that he says that Europe kept that faith while the "East" lost it. It is this "only Europe" that is historically false.

I just downloaded the Holy Father's speech and checked. He says nothing of the sort. He asserts that Christianity assumed its historically decisive character in Europe, which is debatable. But he does not say that Europe kept the faith while the East lost it; nor would he, I think.

T.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Andeas, You would make a good Dalek.

Or maybe Ulsterman.

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

quote:
Given this convergence, it is not surprising that Christianity, despite its origins and some significant developments in the East, finally took on its historically decisive character in Europe. We can also express this the other way around: This convergence, with the subsequent addition of the Roman heritage, created Europe and remains the foundation of what can rightly be called Europe.

If the convergence created Europe, then what happened to the East? If the East was also grounded on that convergence, then why isn't he saying so? The fact that the East has been under occupation for centuries does not mean that there was no historically decisive Christian character in the East. Or is he talking only about the middle ages? Because he is certainly not speaking about the certain state of Europe. Unless today's character of Europe has its origins there. But he says that it has its origins to some individuals.

Anyways, it's like saying that he talked to a few intellectuals in a University. Well, he did that. Fine. But he spoke so that the whole planet can hear, in a carefully designed homily. I suppose that one can accept the pretenses of his homily. But don't expect everyone to do so.

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :

Andreas, I find your extrapolation of the Pope's words literally incredible. You are putting words into his mouth so hard and fast it's a sight to behold.

I do not think that what you have posted is in any way a rational interpretation of what was said.

T.

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

If, to you, the faith of the nine ecumenical councils is "some significant developments in the East", then fine.

By the way, I don't question your right to have a different opinion than mine. I see a political address against Islam. You can have a different opinion.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

Pot calling the kettle black, disingenuous.

The Roman thesis, confirmed by Boniface VIII and practiced for centuries whenever it had the power of control in the world was that of eccliastical supremacy over the secular giving it the divine right to wield also the second sword, and to be used to exterminate heretics.

Islam and the RCC hold the same doctrine...

Myrrh

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

Or, like Bernard of Clairvaux in his sermons "De Laude novae militiae ad milites Templi" said: "who kills for religion commits no evil but rather does good, for his people and himself. If he dies in battle, he gains heaven; if he kills his opponents, he avenges Christ. Either way, God is pleased"

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
By the way, I don't question your right to have a different opinion than mine. I see a political address against Islam. You can have a different opinion.

I see an address which certainly contains political sentiments which are critical of Islam. No particular quarrel there.

But no matter how I turn it, I can't seem to see an attack on the Eastern churches, in any way at all. It's just not there.

T.

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

Even if my comment on the East was mistaken, this would have nothing to do with the rest of my comments, because they are not based on that one.

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :

I am trying to read all the material IngoB put up. I will say more afterwards. I think my thoughts are that many of the world's Muslims are thoughtful people who can handle things. But there are those who jump all over anything remotely negative towards their religion (prophet, Koran etc.) and use it as an excuse to hate the West more. How will it help to stir the pot?

That is what I am wondering...

(I will be back after I read Ingo B's linked to articles [Smile]

)

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
the nine ecumenical councils

Nine?!

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Honest Ron Bacardi

Your post crossed with mine (which took a time to do) and I was glad to see it. The temptation to read between the lines should always be resisted until we have read and considered the lines.

How did a critical resolution get through the Pakistani parliament? I was thinking when I got back in that I might quite enjoy working in the Vatican, whether communications or diplomatic services, responding to criticisms of that text. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
"Still better the Sultan's turban than the Cardinal's hat" eh Andreas?

It's almost ironic that you made that post. Had things taken a different course, you would have been a Roman Catholic priest thinking that those ancient practices can fit within the Roman Church, and I would be, how should I put it, ah, I found one of your expressions, "one of the lads".

However, since you enjoy quotes, I will give you one that I prefer better than the one you gave. "It is better than the Empire of my brother gets destroyed, than the purity of our faith gets lost".

Not that I dislike mudbloods or Muggle-borns that is.

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Muslims do need to know why we (some of us at any rate) have a problem with Islam. We don't take to the streets when we are on the receiving end.

Who are 'we'? We, meaning Christians, may not take the streets if by 'we' you mean Orthodox Christians in the north of England. If, however, we include 'Christian Action' or any number of US evangelical organisations amongst 'us' then it's not quite so clear.

The concept of a culturally conherent 'us' who can be counterposed to an equally homogenous 'them' is the last refuge of bigots everywhere.

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
the nine ecumenical councils
Nine?!

Nine signed by the Roman Emperor and put into force as laws of the Empire on the spot, yes.

[ 15. September 2006, 15:15: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

Oh, and to add to what I said in response to Fr G, I don't have a particular 'problem' with Islam. I don't think it is true; but in terms of untrue things which are damaging I would place it some way down the list from the contents of the Daily Mail, and in terms of untrue assertions which get on my tits I would place it leagues below the one that James Blunt is a talented artist.

[ 15. September 2006, 15:19: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :

My reading of Orthodox apologetics consistently refers to seven Councils - 325, 381, 430, 451 552, 681 and 787. What are the other two?

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

I guess it depends on when the texts were written. If they were written after the latin influence in Russia, then you will probably hear of seven. If they were before, then you will hear of nine.

Anyways, from a legal (hence ecumenical) point of view, there are undisputably nine.

8th condemned those who rejected the icons and added the filioque in the Creed (at the time: the Franks). It was accepted by Rome as an ecumenical, but later it was rejected.

9th condemned Barlaam of Calavria, who articulated the idea that God can only be known through reason. It stated that God can be known only by His uncreated energies, and that the Word was thus known by the prophets before the Incarnation.

[ETA] 879 AD, 1341 AD, if I am right.

[ 15. September 2006, 15:29: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

Any other Orthodox want to enlighten us?

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Anyways, from a legal (hence ecumenical) point of view, there are undisputably nine.

Whose law?

And in what sense undisputed, if the eighth was subsequently repudiated as not ecumenical by the Western church?

T.

[ 15. September 2006, 15:34: Message edited by: Teufelchen ]

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

This is what I found on a site called the Orthodox Wiki:

quote:
Others, including 20th century theologians Fr. John S. Romanides and Fr. George Metallinos (both of whom refer repeatedly to the "Eighth and Ninth Ecumenical Councils"), Fr. George Dragas, Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos, and the 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs (which refers explicitly to the "Eighth Ecumenical Council" and was signed by the patriarchs of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria as well as the Holy Synods of the first three), regard other synods beyond the Seventh Ecumenical Council as being ecumenical. Those who regard these councils as ecumenical often characterize the limitation of Ecumenical Councils to only seven to be the result of Jesuit influence in Russia, part of the so-called "Western Captivity of Orthodoxy."

As far as I know the info in that paragraph is accurate. Note that it gives a few examples mostly from the 20th century, and it does not deal with the issue extensively. I think that of great importance is the Encyclical letter from all the Eastern Patriarchates the par. above mentions. I have read the text, and it is an important document.

[ETA] The councils were called ecumenical because, well, they were the laws of the state for the entire ecumene. So, by the Roman Emperor's written word, they are ecumenical. Nobody disputes that the Emperors passed them as laws of the Empire on the spot. The fact that when the Franks took over the papacy rejected the council that condemned them is irrelevant to their ecumenicity.

[ 15. September 2006, 15:37: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

Am I the only person who suspects that this

quote:
Those who regard these councils as ecumenical often characterize the limitation of Ecumenical Councils to only seven to be the result of Jesuit influence in Russia...

places us in Fruitcake Zone territory?

[ 15. September 2006, 15:37: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

Well, there must be a reason why some people say that there are seven councils, while, their forefathers (along with the legislation) said there are nine. The same applies for a formula "I absolve you etc." which is not to be found e.g. in the Greek Churches, upon which, once, the Russian church was established (and reformed). The reforms in the Russian Church are far from being easy to follow.

The influence of the Roman Catholic Universities to many Orthodox students (that later became theologians) that went there is also not to be missed.

[ 15. September 2006, 15:42: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Am I the only person who suspects that this

quote:
Those who regard these councils as ecumenical often characterize the limitation of Ecumenical Councils to only seven to be the result of Jesuit influence in Russia...
places us in Fruitcake Zone territory?

No.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

The Jesuits are usually a sign of bogosity in these matters. Not quite up there with the the Atlanteans or the the Ancient Egyptians but comfortably in the same league as the Masons and the Knights Templar.

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

Mousethief, can you remind us in which church you belong to pastorally speaking?

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Mousethief, can you remind us in which church you belong to pastorally speaking?

No. I'm not going to play that game with you. If you don't like me, call me to Hell.

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

Don't be rough on me man. I remember that you belong to a church founded by Russians. That's all.

What does the fact that the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem (i.e. 3 synods with their Patriarchs and one Patriarch) spoke officially of an 8th council say? Or they didn't know their stuff?

[ 15. September 2006, 15:51: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

If a council was rejected by the West, it's not ecumenical. Not sure where the problem is. The Latins still call Florence an ecumenical council; we do not because we rejected it.

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Don't be rough on me man. I remember that you belong to a church founded by Russians. That's all.

I happen to believe that Mousethief, and I, and Ingo, all belong a church founded by Jesus. Andreas, I'm trying to work out what you're getting at with today's posts. Your attempts at western European history haven't really panned out too well, and your baiting of orthodox shipmates who don't agree with you isn't really inclining me to believe your version of orthodoxy, much less your account of what leaders of the western churches past and present have said and meant.

T.

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

This is not the traditional Orthodox explanation. Or are you really saying that we can't make an ecumenical (in that sense) council right now?

I am afraid that your views on the councils are different from mine mainly for cultural reasons.

Perhaps that's why you place a greater emphasis on ecumenical than local councils, while I keep saying that a council is a council is a council...

[ETA] cross-posted with Teufelchen.... I don't have a hidden agenda. But perhaps I have no place here.

[ 15. September 2006, 16:04: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
This is not the traditional Orthodox explanation. Or are you really saying that we can't make an ecumenical (in that sense) council right now?

You emphasised the important of the legal aspect before. What emperor is there now who could authorise the decisions of such a council?

quote:
[ETA] cross-posted with Teufelchen.... I don't have a hidden agenda. But perhaps I have no place here.

I didn't suggest you had no place here. And I didn't mean to suggest that you have a hidden agenda. But I can't make sense of the things you're claiming in your posts. If there is an agenda at all, it's hidden from me.

T.

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
You emphasised the important of the legal aspect before. What emperor is there now who could authorise the decisions of such a council?

None. Hence our last ecumenical council was shortly before the Empire fell. We had other councils since then, but they were not ecumenical, since they were not pur into force as laws of an empire that claimed for herself the title of "ecumene".

quote:
I didn't suggest you had no place here.

I didn't want to imply that you did. It's a thought I am having. I have been called a tritheist, I have heard that we all know that I am not really Orthodox, I have been dismissed without consideration. Why should I continue posting? Is there anything out of it, besides me getting hurt?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:

Others, including 20th century theologians Fr. John S. Romanides and Fr. George Metallinos (both of whom refer repeatedly to the "Eighth and Ninth Ecumenical Councils")...

"Others". Implying that some don't. That their status is disputed. Some say it is, others say it isn't.

If, after more than a thousand years, the Orthodox churches still cannot agree amongst themselves whether or not the 8th council counts, I don't see why it should trouble the rest of us.

One suspects a revisionist agenda trying to rewrite history as a sort of defensive measure against an apparently self-aggrandising Roman Catholic church. And the mirror image of the Roman practice of calling a council "ecumenical" even though only their own bishops were invited or attended.

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
It's a thought I am having. I have been called a tritheist, I have heard that we all know that I am not really Orthodox, I have been dismissed without consideration. Why should I continue posting? Is there anything out of it, besides me getting hurt?

I'm sorry to hear of anyone considering leaving. The debate in Purgatory can be robust at times. I should know. As a believer in filioque and non-user of icons, I've been described as a heretic by you several times today alone. I certainly don't feel I or many others dismiss you without consideration. I sometimes find such consideration baffling, but then that would be true of what many users say.

T.

Posted by m.t-tomb (# 3012) on :

Andreas1984 beleives that:

quote:
Orthodoxy is in fact more similar to Islam than it is to Roman Catholicism or Protestantism.

This statement is truely ridiculous. To be quite honest with you, following this logic, I have to say that Calvinism (at an extremely superficial level) is closer to Islam that any other brand of Christianity.

[ 15. September 2006, 16:26: Message edited by: m.t-tomb ]

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

ken, that's what I said. Some (including MT) think we have 7 councils. Others (including me, but I don't count since we know that my Orthodoxy has nothing to do with the venerable tradition of the East) think that there are nine ecumenical councils, but all councils including the local ones are equally binding. Incidentally, this is also what I have been taught while at school.

Whose position is more consistent, the people have to judge for themselves.

T, many thanks for your post. I have nothing against you (or against anyone else here for that matter) and I want to point out that it is one thing to say that an ecclesiastical body is heretical, and another to be personally picked on.

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Andreas1984 beleives that:
quote:
Orthodoxy is in fact more similar to Islam than it is to Roman Catholicism or Protestantism.
This statement is truely ridiculous.

Incidentally, this opinion is expressed by a leading figure inside Orthodoxy. Leading, both for his holiness and for his work concerning Islam.

From my limited experience with Western Christians, I can agree with this opinion and I think that it tells much about the life of both parties and the ways we use to approach our God.

[ 15. September 2006, 16:33: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
T, many thanks for your post. I have nothing against you (or against anyone else here for that matter) and I want to point out that it is one thing to say that an ecclesiastical body is heretical, and another to be personally picked on.

The two are not always separable. You asked Mousethief which church he was part of. This was presumably for the purpose of making some personal point about him on the basis of his affiliation. Similarly, I feel entitled to object on personal grounds if I feel that I am being expected to argue from the basis that my church's beliefs were justly condemned as heretical. Faith and church membership are matters of personal identity, and relate to who we feel we are.

T.

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

Does any other Orthodox Shipmate agree?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Gawd, I know certain Christians are just as bad, but honestly... how can the Muslim world have enough energy for such constant outrage? Every week someone in Pakistan or Iran or something is burning someone else's effigy for some vaguely offensive remark. Why even report it anymore?

Zach

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

I believe that the current state of affairs reflects historical developments that sometimes go back in time more than one thousand years. I also think that God does not miraculously intervene to prevent human societies from erring. I do not share what I call a strange "monophysitism" to think that God does His part irrespectively of what we do. So, I think that my Church, my society, my entire worldview can be really fucked up without me realizing it.

This is why I think that the study of what actually happened is important.

Let me give you an example. We speak about Greece and about the Byzantine Empire. If you ask an average Greek what nationality he is he will reply "Hellene". If you ask them about the empire that existed in these grounds before the Turks, they will reply "Byzantine".

Does this make it so?

I remember reading a testimony of a foreigner from around 1850. He said that while in Smyrna, he asked a local man how many Greeks live there. He replied that the Greeks are around 1000. But the Romans are thousands (don't remember the exact number, but the ratio is really big). That man identified as Greeks the citizens of the newly established Greek state. However, the Greeks themselves, always called themselves Romans. We still do sometimes.

Had you asked a Byzantine man what his nationality is, he would be proud to tell you that he is a Roman. The term Byzantine was unknown to them.

So, we see that what once was the norm, now it's almost forgoten. Why did this change happen? How did these new names found their place in our lives? Who introduced them and why?

I find these questions interesting. However, have I been insisting on being called a Roman, I would be called idiosyncratic. Luckily for me, I would not be alone. But, I would be alone here on Ship.

It is true that I made other claims equally interesting. I spoke for example against what I understood as unitarianism (as opposed to trinitarianism) from the side of many Westerns. I got called a tritheist for that.

But what if I am not a tritheist? Then many people are screwed. Well, not really screwed, since God in His ineffable love cares for everyone. But still, they are not getting the wholeness they could get...

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

You got called a tritheist for saying that God is three, but God is not one. The reason you got called a tritheist for saying this is that this is a tritheist position.

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

That's your version of the story. Mine is that I was got called a tritheist because I expressed what once was the faith of the entire church. I suggested Hillary because he was a Western Christian. Nobody cared to read what he wrote. You dismissed my suggestion because it was a long text. As if truth is so evident that all people get it right in their everyday life, because if that was not true, well our world would be seriously flawed.

I stand by what I said. The Triad excludes the Monad. We are not [to be] monists.

I think that it is because the prevailing theology is monist, that I was called a tritheist (much like my forefathers were called).

[ 15. September 2006, 17:01: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
I stand by what I said. The Triad excludes the Monad. We are not [to be] monists.

This is probably the source of the dispute over your theology, andreas. I at least believe that it is the unique property of God to be both triad and monad. I think this is how the modern Western churches understand it, and I am not sure whether or not it is compatible with the Eastern view.

As to being called 'Roman' - as I continue to define myself as Catholic whilst not submitting to Rome and having no intention of doing so, I would sympathise if yoyu did describe yourself as Roman. Many things down the ages have rightly been so called that are generally not now. Germany, for example.

T.

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

This is what I see:

There are some people in the West, who come on different Western fora and ask this question: "how can God be both three and one at the same time. This is illogical". The answer they get is that this is the Christian faith and that the trinity is a mystery.

However, this is not the answer I got when I read through the ancient texts of the Eastern fathers. They explained that "three" has a numerical meaning, while "one" refers not to numbers, but to the fact that the three persons are, like all the human persons are equally human, equally divine.

The same answer was given by e.g. St. Hillary when he wrote a letter to some people in the West. Isn't this the Christian faith, he asked them.

My view is compatible with Christ asking God that we be all "completely one", like they are one. The ID of each person is not lost, yet everyone will be open to communion with the rest. This the-one-lives-in-the-other thing the Easterns called alliloperichorisis.

[ 15. September 2006, 17:20: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

Another example: Chalcedon and the Pope

I have heard Romans brag about that Peter spoke through Leo. They think that Chalcedon re-inforces their point that the Pope has a special status among bishops.

I was reading Romanides. He said that this is propaganda. He explained that the council put the epistle by Leo to the test. A council studied the epistle and examined its Orthodoxy, and only after it has been found Orthodox did they say "Peter spoke through Leo". However, the Romans say that the Pope's authority was accepted, while it was quite the opposite! The Pope's orthodoxy was questioned and examined carefully by the council.

Now, I know that we are not to take Romanides' words as revealed truth. However, because I know he was a holy man, I searched further. I found the minutes of the council and saw for myself that the man was right. The Pope's Orthodoxy was examined. But if Leo was not the leading force behind the council's decisions, then who was?

Romanides explains that it was the theology of St. Cyril that prevailed in that council, and this gives a new spin to our discussions with the churches of the east that broke away after that council!

It also explains the paradox the Roman scholars point out, that the third council was influenced by Cyril, and then the fifth was also influenced by his theology, but how can this be, since there was an interval between them?

Interestingly, I found out today, while skimming though that encyclical letter by the eastern Patriarchates I spoke of above, that the Eastern Patriarchates of the time also pointed out what Romanides' had independently found, in their response to the Roman claims. So, there is a continuity of faith among some Orthodox that is not apparent at first glance!

By the way, the letter can be found here: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

As far as I'm concerned, the Pope (or anyone else with the possible exception of an official of state for reasons of state) should call the shots as he sees them. Trying to appease and tiptoe around Ayatollahs, mullahs, and terrorists is a fool's game. They are implacable and will hem you in just as much as you let them.

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Ayatollahs, mullahs, and terrorists

I'm hoping you're not thinking this is a synonym for 'Muslims'.

[ 15. September 2006, 19:22: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

Or that these three words are synonyms with each other....

[ 15. September 2006, 19:27: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

Of course they are not synonyms for all Muslims, nor identical. But they are the ones with demagogic reasons to make an immediate row over a remark emitted by someone thousands of miles away in the west. And they are the ones with the megaphones (literal and figurative) so that we hear it when they react.

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

I would imagine quite a few ordinary Muslims are a little unhappy about this statement.

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :

I think they might be.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

[hostly Maple Leaf Tuque on:]

I've been reading this thread with growing disbelief. A single red herring grown to the size of a whale. Could we please return to a discussion of the OP or something related to it.

Is it possible to have a thread that isn't turned to a discussion of why (Greek) orthodoxy is right and all the rest of us are wrong? Let's have a try, shall we.

John Holding

[hostly Maple Leaf Tuque off]
[cross posted with some on-OP posts. Thanks for carrying on with the OP. - John]

[ 15. September 2006, 19:48: Message edited by: John Holding ]

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
I would imagine quite a few ordinary Muslims are a little unhappy about this statement.

With what part of it, I wonder? Is it horrible news to them that a medieval emperor of Constantinople didn't care for Islam? Or are they partial to holy wars and don't want to hear them criticized? The first words of the cited report are: "Questioning the concept of holy war, he [Benedict] quoted..." It seems to me that he was not quoting this emperor with particular approval, but as an illustration of what was said and done in those days.

I marvel that such subtle statements would come to the notice of "ordinary Muslims" incapable of appreciating their subtlety. What, do you suppose, was the medium?

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

It seems to me that he was quoting said Emperor in support of a particular position on the wrongness of 'holy war', in other words quoting him with approval. And it seems to me that this is, at least, a plausible reading.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
I think they might be.

Where we read, "Turkey's top Islamic cleric Ali Bardakoglu asked Benedict to apologise and made a string of accusations against Christianity."

No details. Gee, what a shame. The Daily Mail isn't even giving its readers in the west a chance to get offended at a Turkish cleric's statements against Christianity. Do you think that everyday Muslims are glad of that little lapse in western media coverage, or not?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
It seems to me that he was quoting said Emperor in support of a particular position on the wrongness of 'holy war', in other words quoting him with approval. And it seems to me that this is, at least, a plausible reading.

The Beeb has put up the link to His Holiness' talk - having read it, I'm left thinking... what's the fuss about?

The man was constructing an argument on faith and reason, using Paleologus' argument that not only does God choose not compel belief with violence, but that it is His character not to do so.

The context being, at the time of writing, Byzantium was under siege from the Turks, who did compel belief with violence.

Here's hoping that the Vatican sits this one out - the spokesman on R4 this evening was apologetic for any offence, but not for the speech itself which he said had been misread. And he's right.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Three cheers for the Holy Father!

Posted by GoodCatholicLad (# 9231) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
I Eastern Orthodoxy managed to live in peace with Islam for centuries and we even got to influence Islam on a great degree. Perhaps the West should learn a lesson by the people that lived in the East during those times.

Hmm I work with two Armenians who would disagree with you..BIG TIME!
The Armenians paid dearly for their Orthodox faith. Millions died.

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :

[evil jr. hostie mode] GoodCatholicLad and others, please do not Orthodox-ize my thread. Or I will whine a bunch and start crying. STOP IT! Thx. Appreciate it. [evil jr. hostie mode off]

Posted by m.t-tomb (# 3012) on :

These words from the pope's address interest me:

quote:
As far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we find ourselves faced with a dilemma which nowadays challenges us directly. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?

This does indeed seem to suggest that Islam as an ideology - as a monotheism that has not been 'hellenised' in the same way as Christianity - has the potential, perhaps even the propensity, to act unreasonably. So what do we think? Are we going to answer Benedict's question? Does Islam realise that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature? Or is reason a 'foreign' idea to Islam?

[ 15. September 2006, 21:49: Message edited by: m.t-tomb ]

Posted by Steve_R (# 61) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The pope was delivering a theological and philosophical talk to academics at the University Regensburg where he used to be a professor. He who cannot deal with "sophisticated reasoning" has no business judging a lecture at an university. Agitators who misuse such material to deceive the uneducated are responsible for the reaction themselves.

"One of the things history teaches us is that no-one learns from history" - I can't remember who sai this but it is clear in this case. The controversy generated by a former Bishop of Durham (whose name escapes me but I think it was the one before David Hope) by allowing a Bishop to deliver "academic" speeches should have taught the Vatican not to let the Pope do the same. [brick wall]

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

The Arabs helped in the preservance of the Greek civilization. It is absurb to say that they need to be hellenized. They knew the hellenic civilization and they have been influenced by that.

However, reason as logos is not part of the hellenic civilization. This is why a hellenization of the Muslims in that sense, would be nothing but a Roman Catholicization.

Perhaps the Hellenes need to be hellenized too. This is too proud a thought.

It is the West that places reason above everything else. This is both pride and fundamentalism.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve_R:
"One of the things history teaches us is that no-one learns from history" - I can't remember who sai this but it is clear in this case. The controversy generated by a former Bishop of Durham (whose name escapes me but I think it was the one before David Hope) by allowing a Bishop to deliver "academic" speeches should have taught the Vatican not to let the Pope do the same.

If you had but read the next paragraph of my post which you are quoting, you would have seen that I think this was far from an error. It is not believable that the pope did not know that his lecture would be read worldwide. It is not believable that the pope could not have picked some other text to illustrate his point. All this was intentional.

As a matter of fact, my respect for this speech is growing constantly. Not only is it a beautiful and true in its own right. It also is a perfect rheotrical tool in two ways: 1) No reasonable person can possibly take serious offense at it, given the academic circumstances and its careful wording. 2) Lots of unreasonable people will take offense at it nevertheless - in particular radical(ized) Muslims (and perhaps fruitcake ultra-Orthodox tritheists, not that there are any...). Thereby what does this speech do? It demonstrates the point it has made in the very reality of its perception! Muslims around the word are going on record as being violently unreasonable by condemning a speech which hinted that Islam may have a problem with unreasonable violence. This speech is hence almost sacramental, it has a point that realizes itself. [Smile]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

As a matter of fact, my respect for this speech is growing constantly. Not only is it a beautiful and true in its own right. It also is a perfect rheotrical tool in two ways: 1) No reasonable person can possibly take serious offense at it, given the academic circumstances and its careful wording. 2) Lots of unreasonable people will take offense at it nevertheless - in particular radical(ized) Muslims (and perhaps fruitcake ultra-Orthodox tritheists, not that there are any...). Thereby what does this speech do? It demonstrates the point it has made in the very reality of its perception! Muslims around the word are going on record as being violently unreasonable by condemning a speech which hinted that Islam may have a problem with unreasonable violence. This speech is hence almost sacramental, it has a point that realizes itself.

I agree. This thought has been growing on me all day. Not only has it tested the water, it has gone some way towards revealing that which it addresses.

More mundanely, IngoB, it also reveals a disturbing inability, not just by the protestors but by the media, to actually read what is said. The notion that, being an academic address, it will of necessity fly over the heads of "mere mortals" is a sort of insulting reverse snobbery. It wasn't that hard to make sense of it.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
However, reason as logos is not part of the hellenic civilization. This is why a hellenization of the Muslims in that sense, would be nothing but a Roman Catholicization.

Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and all the other Greek philosophers were part of a secret Jesuit plot, which used a time machine to infiltrate Hellenic culture with Romish reason?

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Am I the only person who suspects that this

quote:
Those who regard these councils as ecumenical often characterize the limitation of Ecumenical Councils to only seven to be the result of Jesuit influence in Russia...
places us in Fruitcake Zone territory?

Russian history.

The expression was first used by Khomiakov:

quote:
Hopko: The leading Russian theologians of the nineteenth century were the great churchmen, Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow (d. 1867), and the layman Alexei Khomiakov (d. 1860) whose writings - such as the famous The Church is One - were not originally published in Russia due to government censorship. Considered as one of the most original and creative of modern theologians, Khomiakov was among the first to discover the traditional patristic courses of Orthodox theology and spiritual life. He encouraged Orthodox thinkers to break from the "Western captivity" of scholastic theology and to meet the intellectual and spiritual world of the West with a sound knowledge and experience of the genuine Orthodox Tradition.

The Sobor of 1917/18 had this on their agenda for discussion. At the time the Church found itself suddenly free from tsarist control which began with Peter the Great's takeover.

quote:
Church History - The Seventeenth Century

Peter Moglia

In 1615 the theological academy of Kiev was founded. In 1620 Theophanes, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, consecrated seven bishops for the Orthodox in secret from the government. In 1633 Wladyslaw IV, the successor to Sigismund, gave permission for an Orthodox metropolitan of Kiev. Peter Mogila (d.1647), the leading man of the Kiev theological school, was chosen. Mogila was fiercely anti-Roman but he was trained in Latin schools and had a deep respect for Latin scholastic learning. Through his many works, which in- cluded a Slavic translation of the catechism of the Jesuit Canisius and a priest's Service book, Latin influences entered the Orthodox Church in doctrinal formulation and liturgical practices. Mogila's works were judged acceptable by the Orthodox bishops in a council in Kiev (1640) and again in Jassy, in Moldavia (1643). Nevertheless, together with the forced westernization of Peter the Great's policies, they were a primary cause for almost two hundred years of captivity to Western influences in the theology and piety of the Orthodox people.

Myrrh

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :

[Waterworks]

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
[evil jr. hostie mode] GoodCatholicLad and others, please do not Orthodox-ize my thread. Or I will whine a bunch and start crying. STOP IT! Thx. Appreciate it. [evil jr. hostie mode off]

Sorry duchess, saw this after I'd posted.

Myrrh

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Gawd, I know certain Christians are just as bad, but honestly... how can the Muslim world have enough energy for such constant outrage? Every week someone in Pakistan or Iran or something is burning someone else's effigy for some vaguely offensive remark. Why even report it anymore?

Zach

Isn't the real problem that it isn't reported accurately even when there are reports? How many know that Sudan is Muslims against the Christian and another Osama led war?

What I think most interesting about the speech is that it was made by the RCC, isn't this the first criticism of Islam by any 'world power'? And this a relious power equal to that of Islam

Indonesia, a majority Muslim population, has seen a great number of attacks on Christians, many on Catholic villages, and the Philippines, a majority Catholic country is also having to deal with this Muslim ideology.

..and the quote itself couldn't be more direct in answering this world wide Muslim aggression. It shows understanding of how Islam became what it is, when Mohammed became strong it turned into a religion of violence, and it condemns it for this doctrine by calling it evil and inhuman and introduced by Mohammed, making him the undisputed originator. All cleverly wrapped up in a quote from the past..

quote:
The emperor must have known that sura 2:256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion." It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under [threat]. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Koran, concerning holy war.

Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels," he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

How many Muslims and Catholics are there world-wide?

Myrrh

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :

quote:
Originally posted by duchess:

Indeed. Try not to turn this thread into Orthodox v. Orthodox Part Deux (I'm seeing the Mad Magazine Spy vs. Spy, only with beards).

Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
[evil jr. hostie mode] GoodCatholicLad and others, please do not Orthodox-ize my thread. Or I will whine a bunch and start crying. STOP IT! Thx. Appreciate it. [evil jr. hostie mode off]
Sorry duchess, saw this after I'd posted.

Myrrh

Myrrh et al - Please take feel free to take this tangent to another thread. duchess - evil jr hosts make me cry. [Tear]

Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host

[ 16. September 2006, 01:57: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]

Posted by Cusanus (# 692) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Isn't the real problem that it isn't reported accurately even when there are reports? How many know that Sudan is Muslims against the Christian and another Osama led war?

Depends which Sudan conflict. In the one most prominently in the news atm, Darfur, both sides of the conflict are Muslim.

Posted by riverfalls (# 9168) on :

quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
I think the pope is going to maybe stir up the Muslim Wrath like the Danish Newspaper did. I am curious what will happen and how this will be resolved since he is viewed as a holy man by many...head of the Catholic Church on earth and he is extremely intelligent. He surely thought much, prayed much, before making his remarks.

What do you think of this? And also, why do you think he said this?

From the BBC News article linked to below:

"Muslim religious leaders have accused Pope Benedict XVI of quoting anti-Islamic remarks during a speech at a German university this week.

Questioning the concept of holy war, he quoted a 14th-Century Christian emperor who said Muhammad had brought the world only "evil and inhuman" things."

Pope Stirs Up Muslim Anger

[eta: One more question to my OP. Thx.]

If the Pope wants to make a speech about islam why shouldn't he. Are the islamics so insecure about there faith that if someone dares to say one word that they become inflammed. I mean you don't get christians burning things down or killing people.

They say they are not violent but the protests sparked by such comments shows that they are.

Posted by centurion (# 11759) on :

Hiya All,
I would just like to say that I woke up this morning and saw the news and there was burning effigies of the pope and muslims arguing for an apology from the pope. Are muslims beyond any form of criticism at all for radical Islam?

This is all to true that the radicals within Islam always want to use the uneducated to raise a riot over the slighest comment about Islam.

Has Christianity been mainly spread by forced conversions only? No it has not. Islam has used the Sword to force others to convert, be beheaded or pay taxes, such they even have a concept called DHIMMI STATUS whereby the minority have to pay for a protected status and thus pay taxes. The COPTS in Egypt have suffered much persecution historically and thus Islam shows itself to be historically immune from a show of HUMAN RIGHTS TO OTHERS while itself trying to HOLD ALL THE HUMAN RIGHTS FOR ITSELF.

It it not plain that in todays climate that Islam holds itself beyone criticism of any sort for they hold that Muhammad was a prophet and he is not such. If it were so, would the west not the Christian church have historically accepted him as such.

It is not as if we say there is not truely peaceful versions of Islam, but this is just typical of the mindset of some Muslims that Islam is to be held to be beyond any criticism for the methods that they use.

They dont offer the freedoms they receive in the west to Christians in their society's. Historically they never did and maybe they never will.

Its surely hipocrisy to ask for such an apology from the Pope over what is he has said about Islam. Can anyone make a critical statement about Islam while being in a position of influence without Muslims being driven into a orgy of violence of demonstrations and burning effigy's.

Thanks
Centurion

Posted by centurion (# 11759) on :

For a list of the problems with Persection of Copts in Egypt:

quote:

Present situation:
"The Egyptian government discriminates against the Copts and hampers their freedom of worship: it enforces onerous restrictions on building or repairing churches; applies religiously discriminatory laws and practices concerning family law, conversion, and education; restricts Copts from senior government, military, and educational positions; and subsidizes media which are used to attack Copts.

The police at the local level frequently harass and sometimes even persecute Christians, particularly converts. In 1998, police detained up to 1200 Copts in the village of el-Kosheh. Many were tortured, beaten and subjected to electric shock. This is exacerbated by terrorist violence and the imposition of an extortionate jizya "tax" on thousands of Copts, primarily in Upper Egypt. According to the International Coptic Federation, the situation facing Copts in Egypt has worsened over the past three decades." 1

A Muslim who converts to Coptic Christianity may be forced to divorce his/her spouse. Although the government contributes financially to the construction of mosques and pays the salaries of Muslim clerics, no such aid is given to Copts. Rather, even the most trivial maintenance projects in churches or church-owned buildings require a building permit to be signed by the President. Many such applications have been delayed for decades. Copts are restricted from senior government, military, educational, and diplomatic positions.

A full report of the tragedy in Egypt can be found in the Egypt Report by the Center for Religious Freedom. They have a mail-in order form accessible from their web site at: http://freedomhouse.org/religion/

They want our western freedoms but then they dont offer the same to Christians, they never do.

This is an honest critique of ISLAM.

Thanks Centurion

Posted by centurion (# 11759) on :

They Muslims come on TV and say that they respect all Religions and this is just a fabricated lie. Speak to the Copts and others. All you have to do is look at what is happening in places around the Globe to see that ISLAM does not play nicely with other Faiths and it never has.

I support the Pope right to speak openly about Islam and Jihad.

Thanks
Centurion

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

As we saw with the cartoons of the prophet, nowadays nobody anywhere in the world is allowed to criticise Islam or there will be street protests, violence, criminal damage and civil unrest as a result. His Holiness made an honest speech which I agree more with each time I read it.

No-one should overlook the good things Islam has brought to the world. Its preservation of the knowledge of the ancient world while Europe had slid backwards into the Dark Ages. Nor its combination of religion and science as a single entity. But Islam has a history of violence. It has been spread at the point of the sword and it is incapapble of living in peace with any other culture except where its numbers are so small as to necessitate this.

The Pope didn't actually say this, but by quoting someone who did he subtly got the point across. He is right and the whole world should not be held to ransom by the fear of confronting Islam with its shameful past. As they did over the cartoon issue perhaps they'll take to the streets worldwide, burn effigies of the Pope and perpetrate even more violence. This will merely prove the point that Islam is the biggest threat to world peace and that it is incapable of any reasonable tolerance of other people's views.

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
...duchess - evil jr hosts make me cry.

Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host

Sorry about that Duo Seraphim. I will cease the jr. hostie role.
[Hot and Hormonal]

[edited blasted code]

[ 16. September 2006, 06:56: Message edited by: duchess ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

PaulTH

What I am hoping for and praying for is that there will be, within Islam, a few voices raised against these extreme over-reactions. Just a few people saying this is no way to respond to a talk by the spiritual leader of over a billion people. The most that anyone can accuse the Pope of doing is of gently, and indirectly, dropping a little hint that in cultural dialogue, the subjects of reasonableness and non-violence might be worth talking about. Reasoning through. Particularly if in any of our cultural traditions there may be a certain - shall we say - ambiguity about these things. No finger pointing here. All of our cultures and traditions have "form".

Recently, Flausa quoted in Heaven a response to the question "Growing up is?" in these terms.

"Growing up is when you realise its not all about you".

I think that is very wise. So I think it not unreasonable to say that a welcome development to these increasingly habitual "hair trigger" reactions would be for a high-ranker or two within Islam just to stand up and say to these folks. "Time to grow up". Taking offence at the least thing is a very bad habit to get into.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

I think the pope is wrong to equate logos with reason. The meaning of logos seems to be very rich and complex: reason is a narrowing of meaning; at some points the pope uses 'thought' as an even smaller equivalent.

The logos in John 1 isn't just a cerebral logic, but is revealed as full of grace and truth. Jesus is shown as rather cerebral in John's gospel, but in the synoptics he often thinks with his guts.

I think logos has to be understood in ways that include love and not as a cold rationality, which is what I hear from the pope. (Winning over heretics with argument alone?) The effect of the pope's lecture shows that he is a man who does not understand the ways of the heart.

I think logos should include the sense of respect for the other. The Word coming to live among us in grace and truth is seeking us out, not with a considered utterance, but with friendship and compassion. To speak so as to wound the (admittedly touchy (to an often amusing degree)) sensibilities of Muslims, and inflame relations between Christian and Muslim at a time when they are at the centre of the world's dangerous business, and to do so from the heart of Christendom where Christianity has eagerly put on the weaponry of secular power, is actually not to seek but to confront the other (Islam) in bellicose posturing (and lead your onlookers to write in impossibly convoluted sentences).

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

hatless

"Come let us reason together ....". The construction of your impossibly convoluted sentence made me smile.

I get you point. I also think "Logos" is richer than reason. But there is reason, as opposed to unreason, in the "Word made Flesh". I suppose the question is where to start. When some followers of Islam behave in unreasoning, unreasonable and unloving ways, there is indeed a Christian imperative to "turn the other cheek", "repay to hatred with love", "go the extra mile". Where I live we call this "coming in the opposite spirit". An appeal to reason seems to me very much in line with "coming in the opposite spirit". I do not see that as cerebral or unloving at all.

I suppose my concern about the way you expressed this is that you have equated "reason" with "cold rationality". "Coldness" is pretty pejorative. Reading it as a heart attitude out of that address is an awfully big assumption, given the particular audience to which it was, primarily, addressed. Of course it would be well constructed thought, and thoughtful. In any case it did no more than trail the possibility of a starting point. Why should the Pope's warmth and goodwill be doubted?

I dont think it is loving, in any wider sense, to kow-tow to the "hair trigger reactors". To quote Lewis (from "The Great Divorce" I think), that way the dog in the manger becomes Lord of the universe. I see a silencing going on, in the name of cultural sensitivity. And it is not the Pope who is doing that.

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

Italy, for the past few years is under threat of attack because of the Crusades. What did the Pope do now? He attacked Islam, again (one should not forget that this is not the first time this Pope shows anti-Islamic feelings). I am curious what he would have done, had he had the secular power he once had. Had he wanted to oppose violence, now that would be an honourable thing to do. But he did not do that. He attacked Islam. Had he wanted to oppose violence, he would have started by the violence his church had done. Instead, he talked about Islam.

Opposing Islam and impoverishing Christian theology (by his references to the Logos) at the same time... Needless to say that equating logos with reason is the spirit that gave birth to the secularism he so strongly opposes. Which is why secularism is a Western phenomenon in origin. When the sanctity of the Holy Spirit is lost, man tries to substitute it with the things he has, and reason is one of these things.

In this sense, it's no wonder that the Pope at another instance has said:

"From the beginning, Christianity has understood itself as the religion of the Logos, as the religion according to reason... In this connection, the Enlightenment is of Christian origin and it is no accident that it was born precisely and exclusively in the realm of the Christian faith."

However, he makes the mistake to equate Christianity with Roman Catholicism. He is accurate that the Enlightenment was born and developed in the Western Christian world. However, He is mistaken, in so far the East never knew an Enlightenment. Why is that? Had the logos = reason be inherent in Christianity, one would have guess that one from of Enlightenment would exist in the Eastern Christian world as well... But it never happened.

Posted by centurion (# 11759) on :

Hiya Andreas,
Did the Pope really attack ISLAM,

quote:

The Vatican has claimed that the Pope had been quoted out of context and that he had not intended to insult Islam. The gist of the matter is that the Pope was saying that VIOLENCE IS NOT JUTIFIED BY ANY RELIGION.

I do believe that the Pope is and was quoted out of context merely because of the way he introduced the item of what a previous Emperor had said.

Im sure the Pope upholds respect for Islam as a faith and has merely condemned VIOLENCE as a legitimate force within the realms of Religion.

Is Christianity today Violent? NO

Harping on about past Crusades is irresponsible. Muslims would like to think that the West is involved in some kind of Crusade against Muslims but is the current Pope to blame for the War in IRAQ?, NO.

The Last Pontiff made 56 Press releases against this war in Iraq and that was probably at the behest of the Current POPE who was very close to the last Pope.

Thanks
Centurion

[ 16. September 2006, 09:43: Message edited by: centurion ]

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

If "violence is wrong no matter which religion practises it" is what he meant, then he should have been vocal about it DURING THE HOMILY.

And yes, since the crusades are such a big issue for the fundamentalists today, having the Pope attacking Islam once again is a hell of PR.

[ 16. September 2006, 09:51: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

andreas1984, this constant repetition of the statement that the Pope attacked Islam in his address is doing my head in. It is how some folks are representing it, reading "into" his words an intention. But it is not what he did.

If you wish, I will listen to an argument which states that the words he used laid him open to the accusation by others (shall we say those made sensitive) that he was seeking to attack Islam. That it was innuendo or something similar. But the plain fact is that the words he used do not support an accusation that he did attack Islam. I know I am having to apply reason to text in order to come to that conclusion, but it is a very reasonable one, based on the words said.

(I'm out for the day, but I'd be interested in your view).

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
And yes, since the crusades are such a big issue for the fundamentalists today, having the Pope attacking Islam once again is a hell of PR.

Perhaps a little trip down memory lane...

quote:
Thursday, March 6, 2003, Washington (CNN) -- A Vatican envoy who met with President Bush Wednesday said he "clearly and forcefully" conveyed a message from Pope John Paul II that a war against Iraq would be a "disaster."

"You might start, and you don't know how to end it," said Cardinal Pio Laghi said after his half-hour meeting at the White House. "It will be a war that will destroy human life. Those people that are suffering already in Iraq, they will be in a really bad situation."

and

quote:
National Catholic Reporter, March 21, 2003
Concerning Islamic public opinion, Vatican officials expressed satisfaction with the March 7 comments of Syrian Foreign Minister Faruq al-Shar’a and Iraqi Ambassador Muhammad al-Duri before the Security Council.

“Muslims and Arabs must highly value the recurrent calls for peace and for averting war made by all the leaders of the churches of the world over the past months,” al-Shar’a said. “These calls were crowned by a letter from the envoy of His Holiness the Pope to the U.S. president two days ago, explicitly stating that war on Iraq is illegitimate and unjust.”

and last but not least (please note the source)

quote:
VATICAN CITY, March 26, 2006 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – The United States-led wars on Iraq and Afghanistan should not be viewed as crusades launched by Christian countries against Muslims, and "Western" is not synonymous to "Christian," the head of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Interfaith Dialogue said on Sunday, March 26.

"This is a very damaging confusion," Cardinal Paul Poupard, also the Vatican's Culture Minister since 1988, told Reuters.

"Pope Benedict XVI, like his predecessor John Paul II, never ceases to say this and show it by his acts, such as opposition to armed intervention in Iraq," he said.

He said that the church is not "western."

"It is catholic," he stressed, using the term derived from the Greek word for "universal."
<...>
Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Sheikh Mohamed Sayyed Tantawi has objected to the description of the US military aggression on Iraq as new "Crusade."
<...>
Pope Benedict XVI said earlier this month that Muslims, Christians and Jews must collaborate to teach respect for religions and their symbols in view of the Danish cartoons that lampooned Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him).

The Pope strongly condemned the cartoons, first published by a Danish newspaper and later in other European papers.

But I'm sure that Greek Orthodoxy has been much more active, given that they are so close to Islam - right?

Given this rather recent history, I think the objections of the raving Muslim protesters are rather - what shall we say - unreasonable.

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

One might say that all the parliaments, the prime ministers, the kings and the peoples that found his homily as deeply insulting are unreasonable. This, however, would mean that one closes his eyes and that the damage already made is allowed to become even worse.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5348436.stm

Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :

When I see a quote from a Christian (and yes, I'll use that word VERY loosly at this point) condem what the Pope had to say, then I'll believe that what he said was unreasonable.

What is fact is that the Pope said something historical, and now is being asked to retract what he said. Are people allowed to rewrite history? The Roman Catholic Church was forced to look at its own history of violence toward those who did not agree with it, and has tried to come to terms with its own history. Why is it wrong to ask for others to do the same?

What it seems is being called for is for the Pope to say that what is truth (Islam has in the past at times furthered its own goals through violence) and say that it never happened? Does that mean that the Pope can also then say that his own church's blindness to the holocaust never happened because it is not inline with its current beliefs? I would say no. That unless you honestly face truth you will never learn from it.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
One might say that all the parliaments, the prime ministers, the kings and the peoples that found his homily as deeply insulting are unreasonable. This, however, would mean that one closes his eyes and that the damage already made is allowed to become even worse.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5348436.stm

They are unreasonable. To say otherwise is to close one's eyes (note the grammatical construction, Andreas), lie back, and repeat something on the order of 'fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong'.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

Well, I still think he didn't mean to 'insult', but he did mean to make it clear he understood what Islam is and so their actions around the world here and now have been noted as being part and parcel of its doctrine, intrinsic to Islam. I think it's a warning.

And, sorry duchess but without going into the detail, it's also interesting that he quoted an Orthodox analysis of Islam. Orthodox lands were conquered by the Muslims and the people well understand, centuries of experience, what it's like to live under Islam as a coherent nation (irrelevant which races make up that nation at any given time), so perhaps this was also a reminder to the Orthodox now, especially Russia which has good relations at the moment with Islamic countries. It has to be taken into account that until very recently Islam was the dominant nation with much of Europe in its control. This is a political statement from the Pope.

Myrrh

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

As others have indicated, his holiness was quoted out of context. All the stuff which the newspapers picked up, about Islam beringing nothing but vilolence, is quoting from a Byzantine emperor.

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

I am not saying that. I am saying that adding another insult won't help.

Did the Pope spoke in general about violence and religion as Vatican "officials" claim, or did he give a very specific message about Islam? In this thread, we have people saying that he did give such a message, and that they agree with that.

You say that my saying he attacked Islam is mistaken. Therefore I am unreasonable to get offended. However, the Vatican says that I am unreasonable, not only because he did not offend Islam, but also because he spoke generally about faith and reason, and about religion and violence. However, even those that claim that no offence was made, say clearly in this very thread that he gave a message about Islam in particular. If we accept the official statement, then these people are unreasonable as well because there was no message about Islam in particular.

[ 16. September 2006, 11:46: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

If I quoted Luther in a Roman Catholic forum saying that Romans are donkeys, would the Roman Catholics be unreasonable to get offended?

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

What was he thinking?

We say that he gave a message about Islam. To whom did he give that message?

If he gave that message to the West, then what are his expectations from us? I think that the only effect linking Islam as a religion with violence can have is for us Westerns to be even more afraid of Muslims and be descriminatory against them.

If he gave that message to the Muslims, then how did he expect them to react? Did he expect them to denounce their Prophet because he linked unreasonableness with religion?

I find his homily stupid and I doubt it can have any positive effect.

Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
If I quoted Luther in a Roman Catholic forum saying that Romans are donkeys, would the Roman Catholics be unreasonable to get offended?

If you can find me the quote, then I would say yes. If you make it up, then I would say no.

Can you show me that the Pope made his quote up?

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

As for God being bound by His word, I will remind you that "when God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil ways, God changed His mind about the calamity that He had said He would bring upon them; and He did not do it." (Jonah 3.10, NRSV)

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

The quote is this:

"If your papist makes much useless fuss about the word sola, allein, tell him at once: Doctor Martin Luther will have it so and says: Papist and donkey are one thing; sic volo, sic jubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas. For we do not want to be pupils and followers of the Papists, but their masters and judges."

If I made a thread on faith and reason on a Roman Catholic forum and used that quote, I think that the Roman Catholics in that forum would rightly get offended, unless I said explicitly that I condemn the content of the quotation. If, on the other hand, I used my thread to show that Roman Catholics lack reason for their opposing the addition of the "sola" in Paul's "justification through faith", then that would be an attack on Catholicism.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

I would really like to quote the following article entire, please head over to the link. The piece is short enough and worth your time:

quote:
Translation from the Italian via Me Monk, Me Meander:
(Magdi Allam is a leading Muslim commentator in Italy.)

It is desolating and preoccupying to see Muslims who have given life to a unified international front to attack the Pope and demand public apologies. From Bin Laden to the Muslim Brotherhood, from Pakistan to Turkey, from Al Jazeera to Al Arabiya, there has risen anew the widespread and universal alliance that first emerged on the occasion of the events surrounding the cartoons about Mohammed. It testifies, in an unequivocal manner, that the root of the evil is a blind ideology of imperious hatred among Muslims, one that violates the faith and darkens the mind. <...>

I recall that one of the most notable contemporary Islamologists, the Egyptian Mohammad Said El Eshmawi, said to me in the mid-nineties that he simply did not sympathize with the military conquest carried out by the Arab tribes in the Christian lands of the Mediterranean, and that he would have preferred to have had Islam spread peacefully as came about in Southeast Asia. And now the Pope is being punished and threatened for having said what every honest and rational Muslim should accept: the historical reality. <...>

The pretexts that can set off their fury change, from the Israeli occupation to the American war, from the Mohammed cartoons to the declarations of the Pope. But the problem is entirely internal to an Islam transformed by the extremists from a faith in God into an ideology bent on imposing a theocratic and totalitarian power upon all those who are not in their image and likeness. And it frightens me to note that even the so-called moderate Muslims have renounced the prudence of reason, and have aligned themselves with the “holy war” of which they will be the principal victims.

One can but hope that moderate Muslims will start to stand up against the relentless radicalization of Islam in the world. One can but hope that the Western press will stop magnifying the voice of the violent and crazed Muslim fringe. One can but hope that a certain poster stops playing "the Muslim enemy of my Roman enemy is my dearest friend" real soon. Otherwise all those Byzantine saints rotating ever faster in their graves may cause a major earthquake in the Middle East...

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
I find his homily stupid and I doubt it can have any positive effect.

I have to take issue with this. I hold no brief for Roman Catholicism, but do have respect for the office holder of Pope.

His lecture - a homily takes place in a church, no? - was an argument about whether or not it is reasonable to use violence. His conclusion is that since it is out of character for God, it is not Christian for us to do so. Furthermore, in using the Byzantine emperor's quote as the starting point for his thesis, he was showing that not all people of faith agree about the character of God.

IngoB has nailed this already: a reasonable person will not disagree. An unreasonable one will respond with violence.

Posted by m.t-tomb (# 3012) on :

Barnabas62 said:

quote:
The notion that, being an academic address, it will of necessity fly over the heads of "mere mortals" is a sort of insulting reverse snobbery. It wasn't that hard to make sense of it.

Barnabas, you'll no doubt be aware that I've argued exactly this point despite my admiration for what Benedict says and the way in which it was said. Are you really suggesting that it's not possible for a Christian to appreciate Benedict's words for the truth that they convey while at the same time wishing that he'd said it a bit less academically? Yes, the speech is clear; and yes, I think it contains truth. But accessible it isn't.

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
His lecture - a homily takes place in a church, no? - was an argument about whether or not it is reasonable to use violence. His conclusion is that since it is out of character for God, it is not Christian for us to do so. Furthermore, in using the Byzantine emperor's quote as the starting point for his thesis, he was showing that not all people of faith agree about the character of God.

I used the word homily in a broad sense. Homilo means speak. When Benedict spoke, he drew the line between Christianity, which (as he claims) is based on reason, and Islam, which is based on unreasonableness. If this is not a clash of civilizations, then I don't know what is.

There are three civilizations that clash here. Islam, Orthodoxy and Western Christianity. Western Christianity gives a pre-eminence on reason. What's at stake here, and this is far more important for the future of Europe than politics, is the transcendence of God. In other threads we have seen people attack it. We now know what the source of these attacks is.

[ 16. September 2006, 13:33: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

I will quote from Archbishop Anastasios.

quote:
It is obvious that some Muslims, in this highly complex conflict, are trying to exploit religious convictions by using slogans from the Koran. They are resorting to calls for a holy war to defend Islam and for the glory of Allah. Religious fanaticism is like a forest fire in a strong wind. Yet there is not one, unified Islam, just as there is no united Christian Church...

We cannot allow religion to become caught up in the cogs of terrorism. Terrorism was not invented to support the claims of the believers of one religion or another. The essence of religion has to be protected in every way possible. Religious experience opens the mind and the heart to the eternal, revealing a person’s spiritual potential and leading him to communion with the sacred, with God, in a relationship of respect and love for one’s fellow human beings....

Generally, our attention should not be wholly taken up with the recent terrorist strikes and counterattacks. It is time that our consciences woke from sleep and looked at the problem of terrorism as it is developing around the world. Most people have completely forgotten, if they ever even noticed, that apart from these latest strikes, there are 40 other conflicts going on in the world. Western societies with political, scientific and military power have a duty to engage in self-criticism and to realize their responsibilities in the context of these new world conditions. The peace and security everyone is talking about can only be secured through social justice and development for the Earth’s poorer societies. It would be terrible — spiritually, politically, strategically — out of negligence or arrogance, to allow a new, composite “proletariat” to emerge, which will try to impose its will violently, exploiting the spiritual, individual energy of religion...

And again:

quote:
we are the borderland of Orthodoxy and Islam. We have shown more than tolerance. We have decided to live with respect for one another. And this is resistance in an era in which there is an over bun-dance of hatred

Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
The quote is this:

"If your papist blah blah blah..."

If I made a thread on faith and reason on a Roman Catholic forum and used that quote, I think that the Roman Catholics in that forum would rightly get offended, unless I said explicitly that I condemn the content of the quotation.

Yes, but Pope Benedict didn't give his lecture in a Muslim forum. He was addressing a Roman Catholic audience.

Anyway, the Pope says something that vaguely suggests that Islam promotes violence, and what is Ali's reaction? To get frightfully upset, stage violent demonstrations, burn effigies of His Holiness and bomb some churches. It doesn't do much to prove Benedict wrong, does it?

[ 16. September 2006, 13:39: Message edited by: Fiddleback ]

Posted by Fuzzipeg (# 10107) on :

M-T Tomb, I see your point about accessibility but it is surely quite difficult to make all lectures at an academic level accessible?

I agree with IngoB et al that the quotation was used after a great deal of consideration and for a reason, as it is not really germane to the argument.

The most interesting aspect of this what Benedict's follow up will be. The expected response has already been made, that there was no intention to offend.

I have a feeling that this is in line with his approach to "relativism" and is a hint at "thus far and no further". Inter-faith relations have to be built on equal respect yet no compromise in matters of faith.

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
Yes, but Pope Benedict didn't give his lecture in a Muslim forum. He was addressing a Roman Catholic audience.

I don't have Benedict's power, this is why I spoke about an online forum. Benedict addressed the entire planet.

quote:
Anyway, the Pope says something that vaguely suggests that Islam promotes violence, and what is Ali's reaction? To get frightfully upset, stage violent demonstrations, burn effigies of His Holiness and bomb some churches. It doesn't do much to prove Benedict wrong, does it?

You know what? This is what I hear from atheists who attack Christianity. Every time one mentions the good that can be found in Christianity, an atheist opposing Christianity brings a lot of examples of Christians being violent with each other or with non-Christians. In his mind, there is nothing good in Christianity itself that cannot be found elsewhere; on the contrary, he says that Christianity did more damage in the world.

This is exactly the thinking of Benedict. He is alienated from Islam and therefore he speaks about it the same way one alienated from Christianity speaks about our holy religion. This is why I pointed out the difference between his stance towards the Lutheras; he is not alienated from them because he is a German, but he is alienated from Islam because he lives in the West.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

Meanwhile, the aforementioned expert Samir Khalil Samir, SJ, has written a very good commentary which leads with the following interesting observation:

quote:
AsiaNews.it:
Negative reactions in the Arab and Muslim world to the remarks made by Benedict XVI at Regensburg University are exaggerated and misplaced. Protest marches are being organised everywhere in ways that bring to mind what happened in the wake of the publication of the blasphemous Muhammad cartoons. But one thing is clear. No one, and I mean NO ONE, has fully read what the Pope said.

An English translation of the speech, which was in German, was released yesterday, a French version is not yet ready, and no translation has been made in any Eastern language. Therefore, all the attacks so far are based on a few quotes and excerpts liberally taken by Western news agencies on what the Pope said about Islam, which was only ten per cent of his speech. But this ten per cent must be understood against the whole thing.

Interesting, huh? Just in: Whispers in the Loggia has the official statement of Cardinal Bertone, Secretary of State:

quote:
As for the opinion of the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus which he quoted during his Regensburg talk, the Holy Father did not mean, nor does he mean, to make that opinion his own in any way. He simply used it as a means to undertake - in an academic context, and as is evident from a complete and attentive reading of the text - certain reflections on the theme of the relationship between religion and violence in general, and to conclude with a clear and radical rejection of the religious motivation for violence, from whatever side it may come. On this point, it is worth recalling what Benedict XVI himself recently affirmed in his commemorative Message for the 20th anniversary of the Inter-religious Meeting of Prayer for Peace, initiated by his predecessor John Paul II at Assisi in October 1986: " ... demonstrations of violence cannot be attributed to religion as such but to the cultural limitations with which it is lived and develops in time. ... In fact, attestations of the close bond that exists between the relationship with God and the ethics of love are recorded in all great religious traditions". <emphasis from the original>

Posted by Fuzzipeg (# 10107) on :

Where do you live, Andreas?

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

I live in Greece.

Posted by PeteCanada (# 10422) on :

The Holy Father has apolgised, according to my reading here. I find this whole thing quite distressing, both the reaction from the Muslims in the world, and from other Christians on this board.

Posted by Fuzzipeg (# 10107) on :

At the last count Greece was in the West....very close to Italy, actually.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

A bit of heart to go with the head. A great relief.

Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
You know what? This is what I hear from atheists who attack Christianity. Every time one mentions the good that can be found in Christianity, an atheist opposing Christianity brings a lot of examples of Christians being violent with each other or with non-Christians.

Ho hum. Can you then find me any news pictures of offended Christians waving placards saying 'Death to the enemies of Christianity' and 'Kill those who insult the Lord Jesus'?

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PeteCanada:
The Holy Father has apolgised, according to my reading

Through Vatican officials? Doesn't he consider the issue important enough for a personal apology? Or should the Muslims be thankful that he sent an official, instead of a mere deacon?

"We do not accept the apology through Vatican channels... and ask him to offer a personal apology - not through his officials - to Muslims for this false reading." (Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah, senior Lebanese Shia cleric)

And he apologized for what? For being misunderstood by unreasonable people? Because this is what happened according to many people in this thread.

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
Ho hum. Can you then find me any news pictures of offended Christians waving placards saying 'Death to the enemies of Christianity' and 'Kill those who insult the Lord Jesus'?

I spoke about actual violence. You speak about threats. I have seen pictures of Christians burning books, burning mosques, "waving placards saying" nasty things for their Christian opponents etc etc.

quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
At the last count Greece was in the West....very close to Italy, actually.

Check out Anastasios' saying again: "we are the borderland of Orthodoxy and Islam. We have shown more than tolerance. We have decided to live with respect for one another. And this is resistance in an era in which there is an over bun-dance of hatred."

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cusanus:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Isn't the real problem that it isn't reported accurately even when there are reports? How many know that Sudan is Muslims against the Christian and another Osama led war?
Depends which Sudan conflict. In the one most prominently in the news atm, Darfur, both sides of the conflict are Muslim.

The Sudan conflict that has been going on since 1956 - to enforce Islam on all who aren't.

http://www.persecution.org/newsite/countryinfodetail.php?countrycode=11

Islam is a nation and a religion and it's the national interest which is foremost in its jihad, the holy war incumbent on Muslims to demand the submission of all to Islam. The choices since Mohammed refined them are, resist and die, convert and become a citizen, pay tax to keep identity, but without any rights to uphold that identity, and no rights of citizenship, but forced conversion is not prohibited.

Myrrh

Posted by centurion (# 11759) on :

Hiya Andreas,
The Pope has issued an official Apology something like the following:

He is sorry that Muslims were offended by the contents of his speech, and he never meant to be abusive or to offend Muslim Sensibilities.

The Bristish Muslim council just spoke on BBC1 News 24 and asked now for the Pope to rebuke the words of a Byzantine Emperor.

The above is ridiculous, shall we raise him from the Dead so that the Byzantine Emperor can be rebuked for having a 14th Century view of the Turks and Islam, just who was right here,

Muslims asked for an Apology which the Pope has given, now they want more they want him to repudiate the Words of the Byzantine Emperor, while they themselves burn effigies of the Pope and pile on pressure for Muslims to go on protests over a speech that was not an EVEN AN ATTEMPT EVEN TO INSULT MUSLIMS.

Here I'll show you the love from the Quran,

The Noble Qur'an: Al-Ma'idah 5:51. O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as 'Auliya' (friends, protectors, helpers etc.), they are but friends to each other.

That was love from Islam from Muhammad for the Christians and Jews... its non-existent in the Quran... sillyness from a Man 'Muhammad' PBUH who claimed to be a Prophet sent from GOD...

Does GOD hate the Jews, Christians?

Should we take this religion seriously or just bin the Quran safely.

Muhammad sure was smoking his own shit when that was added to the Quran. He wanted his followers to be separate from Jews and Christians, and they cant take even one sensible speech from a Pope without contorting the words of the Speech into some kind of slur against Islam.

Try rebuking me over the words Ive just printed from the Quran Andrea

I know Islam, Ive read the Quran and Ive seen that Muslims are now approaching a point where they will not tolerate any criticism of their religion or their faith.

Come on and suggest that the Christians burn down mosques and that stuff, just show the pictures and stuff and get the news reports.

Only recently a Western Torist was killed by your friendly Muslims with a shout of 'ALLAHU AKBAR', recently in Turkey a Catholic Priest was murdered for no reason with the same 'ALLAHU AKBAR'

The Tolerant side of Islam doesnt exist. I wish Islam didnt exist.

Thanks
Centurion

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

The Balcans are not Muslim even though they were under Turkish occupation for centuries. This example shows that it is not inherent in Islam the fundamentalists' opinion "convert or die".

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

Some of the balkans are Muslim. There are plenty of muslims in Bosnia and Albania.

But truly, doesn't even one of these people see the irony in saying, "Take back what you said about us being violent, or we'll commit acts of violence"?

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

Dear centurion,

your post is an example of hatred. I cannot but condemn hatred no matter what form it takes.

I am sorry that the Pope's lecture gives rise to such comments.

Posted by centurion (# 11759) on :

Hiya Andreas,
I published what was in the Quran and you call it hatred.

Muslims murder all the time. IS that not hatred. They need to get a handle on their sensibilities.

The last comment I heard from a Jihadist was that he was happy over the 911 Bombing in America.

Is that not hatred?

Thanks
Centurion

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

The Pope has done the right thing in apologising for any offence cased by his speech. He should not and must not apologise for the content of that speech because what he said is demonstrably true both of Islam in history and of Islam today. These are no serious, international conflicts in today's world which don't have an Islamic agenda in there somewhere.

We must not give in to the bullying threats of violence from a backward, repressive culture which loves Western money and prosperity, but loathes our values and seeks to destroy them. We have become seriously decadent in the West and with decadence goes weakness. Islam will exploit every weakness we allow it to and use it as an opoprtunity to oppress and destroy us. Anyone who fails to see this will merely accelerate the process.

Posted by centurion (# 11759) on :

Hiya Andreas,
Please tell us why we should be interested in Islam and the teaching of Muhammad and the Quran or why we should listen to Muslim IMANS,

TALE OF A VISIT TO A MOSQUE:
I once went to a Mosque in Haringey, London UK while I was learning Islam and in the Mosque they pratted on about the Copts in Egypt as if they were doing something wrong.

I believe that the COPTS (Christian Egyptians) suffer a lot over there in Egypt and if you live in a country like Saudi, even if you think of converting from Islam to Christianity you risk your life, its highly illegal and you have to register with the authorities if you want to preach in that country....

They burn the Bible all the time in Islamic Countries. They have no respect for Christians and Muslim Jihadists would gladly shout 'ALLAHU AKBAR' while they have a Christian at the end of an AK-47 with threats of Convert, beheading or pay taxes.

The Muslims come over here and preach their Quran without being registered somewhere or without threat from Christians... yet they are so insensible that they cannot have that happening in their countries.

Thanks
Centurion
PS Please tell us that your really a Muslim and I would believe you. You even tried to link my comments to what the Pope has said about Religion and Violence. If you want to see the truth go and visit the COPTS in EGYPT and experience life as a COPT in EGYPT.

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
These are no serious, international conflicts in today's world which don't have an Islamic agenda in there somewhere.

Dear PaulTH*, "today" is the key-word. A few centuries ago, one could have substituted "Islamic" for "Christian".

Dear centurion, it is your message of hatred I was talking about. It is you who said these horrible things about Islam. Quoting something the Kuran says is meaningless, unless you are prepared to accepts such quotations from the Christian bible.

Posted by centurion (# 11759) on :

Hiya Andreas,
I quoted the Loving Quran, Im already a believer in the Christian faith and Im a Roman Catholic who was outraged by Muslims who recently killed a Roman Catholic Priest in Turkey.

Have you any words to add to that?

What similar quotes from the Bible are there re, Even Leviticus 19:18, Love your neighbour as yourself.

and thats the Old Testament centuries before the New Testament turned up.

The Bible does not teach us to use violence against our enemies Andreas, you should read it some time.

Thanks
Centurion

Posted by centurion (# 11759) on :

Hiya Andreas,
I challenge you to find such comments from the Bible yourself.

If you can find it especially in the New Testament the point me to the Chapter and verses.

I would love to hear you quote such similar things from the Bible as you I quoted from the Quran.

Thanks
Centurion

Posted by centurion (# 11759) on :

Hiya Andreas,

Some more love from the QURAN:

http://religion.krishna.org/Articles/2001/10/008.html

quote:

The Qur'an tells us: "not to make friendship with Jews and Christians" (5:51), "kill the disbelievers wherever we find them" (2:191), "murder them and treat them harshly" (9:123), "fight and slay the Pagans, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem" (9:5). The Qur'an demands that we fight the unbelievers, and promises "If there are twenty amongst you, you will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, you will vanquish a thousand of them" (8:65).

Allah and his messenger want us to fight the Christians and the Jews "until they pay the Jizya [a penalty tax for the non-Muslims living under Islamic rules] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (9:29). Allah and his messenger announce that it is acceptable to go back on our promises (treaties) and obligations with Pagans and make war on them whenever we find ourselves strong enough to do so (9:3). Our God tells us to "fight the unbelievers" and "He will punish them by our hands, cover them with shame and help us (to victory) over them" (9:14).

The Qur'an takes away the freedom of belief from all humanity and relegates those who disbelieve in Islam to hell (5:10), calls them najis (filthy, untouchable, impure) (9:28), and orders its followers to fight the unbelievers until no other religion except Islam is left (2:193). It says that the "non-believers will go to hell and will drink boiling water" (14:17). It asks the Muslims to "slay or crucify or cut the hands and feet of the unbelievers, that they be expelled from the land with disgrace and that they shall have a great punishment in world hereafter" (5:34). And tells us that "for them (the unbelievers) garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods" (22:19-22) and that they not only will have "disgrace in this life, but on the Day of Judgment He shall make them taste the Penalty of burning (Fire)" (22:9). The Qur'an says that "those who invoke a god other than Allah not only should meet punishment in this world but the Penalty on the Day of Judgment will be doubled to them, and they will dwell therein in ignominy" (25:68). For those who "believe not in Allah and His Messenger, He has prepared, for those who reject Allah, a Blazing Fire!" (48:13). Although we are asked to be compassionate amongst each other, we have to be "harsh with unbelievers", our Christian, Jewish and Atheist neighbours and colleagues (48:29). As for him who does not believe in Islam, the Prophet announces with a "stern command": "Seize ye him, and bind ye him, And burn ye him in the Blazing Fire. Further, make him march in a chain, whereof the length is seventy cubits! This was he that would not believe in Allah Most High. And would not encourage the feeding of the indigent! So no friend hath he here this Day. Nor hath he any food except the corruption from the washing of wounds, Which none do eat but those in sin." (69:30-37) The Qur'an prohibits a Muslim from befriending a non-believer even if that non-believer is the father or the brother of that Muslim (9:23), (3:28). Our holy book asks us to be disobedient towards the disbelievers and their governments and strive against the unbelievers with great endeavour" (25:52) and be stern with them because they belong to Hell (66:9). The holy Prophet prescribes fighting for us and tells us that "it is good for us even if we dislike it" (2:216). Then he advises us to "strike off the heads of the disbelievers"; and after making a "wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives" (47:4). Our God has promised to "instil terror into the hearts of the unbelievers" and has ordered us to "smite above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them" (8:12). He also assures us that when we kill in his name "it is not us who slay them but Allah, in order that He might test the Believers by a gracious trial from Himself" (8:17). He orders us "to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies" (8:60). He has made the Jihad mandatory and warns us that "Unless we go forth, (for Jihad) He will punish us with a grievous penalty, and put others in our place" (9:39). Allah speaks to our Holy Prophet and says "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern against them. Their abode is Hell - an evil refuge indeed" (9:73).

Jesus teaches,

LOVE GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART.
Love your neighbour as thyself.

That is the LAW AND THE PROPHETS.

Thanks
Centurion

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Islam is a nation and a religion and it's the national interest which is foremost in its jihad, the holy war incumbent on Muslims to demand the submission of all to Islam.

What do you mean 'nation'?

Islam is a world religion i.e. international.

The only reference I know is 'Nation of Islam' which is regarded as heretical.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Most of the Islamic outrage is, of course, not about the jihad side of the quotation but about the insult to Muhammed. It's not a rejection of an analysis of Islamic militancy, but a defence of Muhammed's integrity.

Andreas, what have you been up to recently? What has been influencing you? There are some seriously offensive slants to many of your statements on this and other recent threads. You have always treated me with courtesy and respect. Now I wonder at the sincerity of that since you are closer to Islam than to me. Perhaps you should be on an Islamic discussion board rather than here then, where you can see how much more you have in common with them than with us sub-Christians from Western Europe?

Personally, I think the Holy Father's speeches have been very thought provoking and if anyone should be insulted, it is Western rationalists. I did not hear about the contents of this speech until fire erupted on the streets of Karachi - I wonder why the ordinary Muslim faithful are paying closer attention to the Pope's words than Catholic priests are. Or are they? Is there not perhaps more truth that something of a propaganda opportunity has presented itself to our modern day jihadists?

[ 16. September 2006, 16:52: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

I find this quote from the Kuran most profound:

‘For had it not been that Allah checks one set of people by means of another, monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques, wherein the Name of Allah is mentioned much would surely have been pulled down. Verily Allah will help those who help His (cause).Truly, Allah is All-Strong, All-mighty.’ (Surah Al-Hajj (22), ayah 40)

I hope Christians are humble enough to get taught God's ways by Islam. When I reflect on the current situation though, I cannot find any reason why I should be optimist.

Posted by centurion (# 11759) on :

Hiya Andreas,
Thanks for the quotes, If I knew you were an Islamic Apologist I might have been more pleasant to you given the current world climate.

I apologise if I offended you.

There is much good also in the Quran and my quotes may seem a bit one sided.

Thanks
Centurion

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Islam is a nation and a religion and it's the national interest which is foremost in its jihad, the holy war incumbent on Muslims to demand the submission of all to Islam.
What do you mean 'nation'?

Islam is a world religion i.e. international.

The only reference I know is 'Nation of Islam' which is regarded as heretical.

It's a nation because it says it is, its own concept. It's members, Muslims, are citizens with rights. Where a whole area is under its rule non-Muslims are sometimes tolerated but have no rights. Also referred to as the Muslim nation.

http://www.freemuslims.org/news/article.php?article=164

http://www.freemuslims.org/news/article.php?article=164

Myrrh

Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on :

Good for the Pope. I'll be upset if he apologises. The fact that the Guardian's pet vicar Giles whathisname is cross is a reasonably good indicator that the Pope's on the right track.

Raspberry Rabbit
Penicuik

[ 16. September 2006, 17:31: Message edited by: Raspberry Rabbit ]

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raspberry Rabbit:
Good for the Pope. I'll be upset if he apologises. The fact that the Guardian's pet vicar Giles whathisname is cross is a reasonably good indicator that the Pope's on the right track.

Raspberry Rabbit
Penicuik

I don't know if I agree...or disagree. I am honestly reading this thread and wondering.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Islam is a nation and a religion and it's the national interest which is foremost in its jihad, the holy war incumbent on Muslims to demand the submission of all to Islam.
What do you mean 'nation'?

Islam is a world religion i.e. international.

The only reference I know is 'Nation of Islam' which is regarded as heretical.
It's a nation because it says it is, its own concept. It's members, Muslims, are citizens with rights. Where a whole area is under its rule non-Muslims are sometimes tolerated but have no rights. Also referred to as the Muslim nation.

http://www.freemuslims.org/news/article.php?article=164

http://www.freemuslims.org/news/article.php?article=164

Myrrh

Your source is quoting the 4 righteous caliphs - i.e. the nation of Saudi Arabia before muslim expansion.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raspberry Rabbit:
Good for the Pope. I'll be upset if he apologises. The fact that the Guardian's pet vicar Giles whathisname is cross is a reasonably good indicator that the Pope's on the right track.

Raspberry Rabbit
Penicuik

Giles Fraser

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by centurion:

What similar quotes from the Bible are there re, Even Leviticus 19:18, Love your neighbour as yourself.

Personally, Leviticus would not be my first port of call in trying to construct an argument about divine non-violence. I suspect there might be a fairly easy comeback.

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

I agree with the final paragraph of the NY Times' editorial:

quote:
The world listens carefully to the words of any pope. And it is tragic and dangerous when one sows pain, either deliberately or carelessly. He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology, demonstrating that words can also heal.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Centurion:

quote:
TALE OF A VISIT TO A MOSQUE:
I once went to a Mosque in Haringey, London UK while I was learning Islam and in the Mosque they pratted on about the Copts in Egypt as if they were doing something wrong.

Not Finsbury Park by any chance? If so I'd no more take Finsbury Park Mosque as being representative of Islam than I'd take Mel Gibson as being representative of Roman Catholicism.

Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :

PC has morphed into IC.

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by centurion:
Hiya Andreas,
Thanks for the quotes, If I knew you were an Islamic Apologist

I'm not sure stating that there is truth in Islam makes someone an 'Islamic Apologist'. After all, a council of the Church of which you are a member has this to say about Islam :-

quote:
Originally posted by the Second Vatican Council
The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.

The final paragraph, in particular, repays meditation in the current context.

Posted by centurion (# 11759) on :

Hiya DivineOutlawDwarf,
If you look carefully on the net you will also see that the last POPE also in the interests of interfaith dialogue kissed the KORAN while entertaining visits from Mulsim IMANS.

Now it is in the interests of Christians to show Christ to their Muslims brothers and sisters, this is true. What we want is to spread the love of Christ around and show therefore to Muslims the light of the Gospel.

The Current Pope is not going to get much manouvreing room from the Muslims as before he became the Pontiff he said remarks that Muslims didnt like very much regarding Turkey and the EU.

Muslims are being very much demanding at the Moment that the Pope somehow disclaims association with a remark from history of a certain Christian Emperor.

We're living in the 21st Century and Muslims sensibilities are offended yet again, before it was the Cartoons, which the Pope said we should be cautious about showing disrespect for Muslims and he did say something to that effect. Meanwhile the Muslims went and walked even over the Crucifix and burned Christian flags and destroyed embassies and burned everything in site.

I hope that the Pope will be guided by GOD so that he can show that he is the Vicar of Christ and so show the Muslims that this deliberate posturing on this is going to work out worse for them in the long run as they will show Islam to be inheritantly hostile and unruely regarding the West while we generally are tolerant and take in Muslim refugees and send aid to people affected by Tsunamis' they are out (Radical Muslims) burning and killing and try to terrorise the west into GOD knows what.

I hope that the Pontiff sits back and lets the Muslim Imans show some concience about their antics and stuff over such a historical remark to Islam. If they want to show that they are not living in the Past them let them teach their Imans to teach Muslims to be tolerant of Christians and let their Imans preach Love of their Neighbour instead of Muslim violence and burnings of effigies.

I dont think Muslims will be tolerant or that they will back down on this and they will probably keep demands up that the Pope strong disassociates himself from the sentiments of the Byzantine emperor. I hope that reasonable Imans will teach young Muslims to understand that Christians dont see all Muslims as evil and twisted bombers hell bent of destroying westerners.

They need to examine themselves first before making demands from Christians I feel they are still trying to put pressures on the Vatican over this matter and it stinks.

Thanks
Centurion

Posted by centurion (# 11759) on :

Hiya All,
IF the Pope does not dissasociate from the Remark regarding the Byzantine Emperor:

We can expect something of the following:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5352404.stm

quote:

"If the Vatican says something dumb about Muslims, people will die in parts of Africa and churches will be burned in Indonesia, let alone what happens in the Middle East.

Muslims will show the violence that is inherent withing their faith and kill Christians over this.

Thanks
Centurion

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

Centurion,

In your penultimate post you said that

quote:

I hope that reasonable Imans will teach young Muslims to understand that Christians dont see all Muslims as evil and twisted bombers hell bent of destroying westerners.

Subsequently, you tell us,

quote:
Muslims will show the violence that is inherent withing their faith and kill Christians over this.

Do you think that one way in which young Muslims might be helped to see that 'Christians don't see all Muslims as evil and twisted bombers' would be through some Christians ceasing to give the impression that they do see precisely that?

Posted by Bonaventura (# 1066) on :

andreas, (and others)

Is this sentiment from the pope's speech, especially the last sentence, the reason you say Orthodoxy is closer to Islam than Western Christianity?

quote:
In all honesty, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages we find trends in theology which would sunder this synthesis between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit. In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which ultimately led to the claim that we can only know God's voluntas ordinata. Beyond this is the realm of God's freedom, in virtue of which he could have done the opposite of everything he has actually done. This gives rise to positions which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazn and might even lead to the image of a capricious God, who is not even bound to truth and goodness. God's transcendence and otherness are so exalted that our reason, our sense of the true and good, are no longer an authentic mirror of God, whose deepest possibilities remain eternally unattainable and hidden behind his actual decisions.

Is the islamic doctrine of God as here described the true, logical endpoint of a truly apophatic approach to theology?

[ 16. September 2006, 19:25: Message edited by: Bonaventura ]

Posted by centurion (# 11759) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Centurion,

In your penultimate post you said that

quote:

I hope that reasonable Imans will teach young Muslims to understand that Christians dont see all Muslims as evil and twisted bombers hell bent of destroying westerners.
Subsequently, you tell us,

quote:
Muslims will show the violence that is inherent withing their faith and kill Christians over this.
Do you think that one way in which young Muslims might be helped to see that 'Christians don't see all Muslims as evil and twisted bombers' would be through some Christians ceasing to give the impression that they do see precisely that?

Hiya DivineDwarf,
The problem is that those who want to manipulate this into a polarised ISLAM Vs the WEST are already doing so.

The Young Mulsims are the ones at risk from the Radical Elements of Islam. I know what they preach and its 'Kill the Americans, kill the Jews and Kill the infidels'

This is not what the Moderate Muslims are like, I hope that the Muslim Imans protect their youngsters by keeping the radical extremists away from their Mosque's.

My last posts shows that Catholics are not deliberately out to spread hatred of Muslims. Its just typical that they the 'Extreme wings' of Islam should try to cause such unrest and violence over a historic remark to a Byzantine Emperor. Soon it will be out of bounds to criticise anything about Islam.

Their History with the Copts of Egypt shows not love of their neighbour. So they can stuff their insistance somewhere else.

I hope that the Pope makes some concilitory remark to quell the unrest as I dont want Christian Churches to be burned down. Thats all.

Thanks
Centurion

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by centurion:

My last posts shows that Catholics are not deliberately out to spread hatred of Muslims.......

Their History with the Copts of Egypt shows not love of their neighbour. So they can stuff their insistance somewhere else.

Who are 'they'?

Posted by centurion (# 11759) on :

Muslims with their DHIMMI STATUS.

Posted by centurion (# 11759) on :

Hiya DivineDwarf,
The Current Pope wanted to see Muslims show some respect for Christians and to allow Christians the same freedoms of preaching within Islamic countrys's that they receive in the west.

Some kind of spirit of reciprocity reciprocal attitude of allowing Christians to preach Christ and the Gospel withing Islamic Countries without 'ALLAHU AKBAR' Bullet in the back.

Thanks
Centurion

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

I would call you to Hell, but you're really not worth it. I merely note that your position is somewhat different in tone with the teaching of the Church on inter-faith relations. You might want to familiarise yourself with the documents of your own faith before passing comment on those of others.

[ 16. September 2006, 19:43: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

different in tone from

Posted by Campbellite (# 1202) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
I hope Christians are humble enough to get taught God's ways by Islam.

And what would that be? What might Islam teach us that Christianity does not already know? What (genuine) new revelation do they have?

If we take your words above literally, you are writing a prescription for dhimmitude or conversion, neither of which seems an attractive option.

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

Dear Bonaventura

This is probably the most difficult question I have ever been asked, because it involves talking about who God is. I will try to give a reply, talking about my personal experience.

I don't see God being bound by anything, because He is not of the universe. We cannot ascribe to Him concepts that belong to the created order. All the good things emanate from Him. Because He is the source, they are not imposed externally to Him. We can be assured that His Grace is freely available to all, because they emanate from Him, and they do not have a beginning in time or space. His Grace is without beginning and without end because it emanates from Him.

God is certainly not bound by human concepts of justice and love. God cares for each and every one of us, and He helps all of us in different ways. Take marriage for example. At the same time, God approves polygamy, monogamy, celibacy and abolishes marriage. I say at the same time, because for God there is no time. Yet, as He deals with the people, He approaches each man on each man's level.

I see apophatic theology as a way for our misconceptions to stop enslaving our heart. As our misconceptions are destroyed, our heart is able to reflect the natural light of God. The heart is to be freed from the things that cover God's gentle and ineffable light.

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Campbellite:

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
I hope Christians are humble enough to get taught God's ways by Islam.
And what would that be? What might Islam teach us that Christianity does not already know? What (genuine) new revelation do they have?

It strikes me that there is a difference between what Christians, in fact, know and what is, in principle, contained in the Christian revelation. This being so, it seems entirely possible for Christians to be taught things by Muslims (or other groups) without that implying the incompleteness of the Christian revelation.

Posted by Campbellite (# 1202) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:

quote:
Originally posted by Campbellite:
And what would that be? What might Islam teach us that Christianity does not already know? What (genuine) new revelation do they have?
It strikes me that there is a difference between what Christians, in fact, know and what is, in principle, contained in the Christian revelation. This being so, it seems entirely possible for Christians to be taught things by Muslims (or other groups) without that implying the incompleteness of the Christian revelation.

Alright then, What is it that we might (re-)learn from Islam?

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

I've no idea, in the abstract. I suppose the question is, what might each of us learn from whomsoever? It belongs to Christians to be open to learning truth. Personally, I find that reflecting on the practice of the many Muslims I see day by day, I am very aware of a high level of commitment to the practice of my faith, and of a need to make this more evident in my own life.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Islam is a nation and a religion and it's the national interest which is foremost in its jihad, the holy war incumbent on Muslims to demand the submission of all to Islam.
What do you mean 'nation'?

Islam is a world religion i.e. international.

The only reference I know is 'Nation of Islam' which is regarded as heretical.
It's a nation because it says it is, its own concept. It's members, Muslims, are citizens with rights. Where a whole area is under its rule non-Muslims are sometimes tolerated but have no rights. Also referred to as the Muslim nation.

http://www.freemuslims.org/news/article.php?article=164

http://www.freemuslims.org/news/article.php?article=164

Myrrh
Your source is quoting the 4 righteous caliphs - i.e. the nation of Saudi Arabia before muslim expansion.

Apologies, I put in one link twice. The second should have been as below, which shows the term is intrinsic to the concept of Islam.

http://huquq.com/WordPress/?cat=2

quote:
Qaradawi called for economic and political boycott of countries that printed the insulting drawings.
“It is a fundamental duty of the Muslim nation to boycott goods of those who dared to insult Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).”
“The Muslim governments should also withdraw their ambassadors from Denmark and shut down its embassies on their territories as part of a political boycott.”

quote:
Preacher Saleh bin Humaid, who gave the Friday sermon at the Grand Mosque in the holy city of Makkah, said a new spirit of defiance has been breathed among Muslims after the worldwide protests over the cartoons.
“A great new spirit is flowing through the body of the Islamic nation … this world can no longer ignore this nation and its feelings,” he was quoted as saying in a televised sermon by Reuters.
“The nation has fought to back its Prophet Muhammad in recent days. It is the right of every Muslim to show joy at this defense of our beloved Prophet.”

One nation, Islam, different governments.

Myrrh

Posted by David Gould (# 11701) on :

I think the Pope is quite right. I am also sick and tired hearing Muslims moan about any perceived criticism of their religion. When you are CofE you get used to it. I have little time for Islam in fact - there I've said it!

Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
The Balcans are not Muslim even though they were under Turkish occupation for centuries.

!!!

Exept for the larger part of Bosnia, most of Albania, all of Turkey this side of the Bosporus, and significant areas of Serbia, Macedonia and Bulgaria.

I think you meant to say Greece isn't Muslim. Thats only because it ruthlessly expelled its entire Muslim population in the nineteen twenties.

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

It was written that the Muslims follow the path "convert or die". Had they followed such a path, then, for example, the Balcans would be Muslim in their entirety. Yet, this is not what happened. Orthodoxy is still here, as is Judaism (although many Jews were sent in Germany at concenctration camps during the occupation) and Roman Catholicism.

This is enough to show that the "convert or die" approach was not used by the Muslims there over the course of many centuries.

Using phrases like "the Muslims either convert non-Muslims or kill them" does injustice to Islam.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

andreas1984

Well I thought this might be a busy thread since I posted to you earlier! My wife and I have had an excellent day with some old friends and I'm feeling very mellow this evening.

I was a little disappointed that your response to my questioning the Pope's supposed attack on Islam (which you have said several times was met by "look at what everyone is saying". Well, they aren't all saying it on this discussion board and reasons have been given. But I'll let that pass. Here is an example of an attack. This is what SALIH KAPUSUZ, DEPUTY LEADER OF TURKEY'S RULING AK PARTY, had to say.

"The owner of those unfortunate and arrogant comments, Benedict XVI, has gone down in history, but in the same category as Hitler and Mussolini.

He seems to have a mindset that comes from the darkness of the Middle Ages. He is a poor thing that has not benefited from the spirit of reform in the Christian world. It looks like an effort to revive the mentality of the Crusades."

I think we can agree that is a direct attack on the Pope. It names him, associates him with two of the most notorious war criminals of the 20th century, attributes a darkened mindset to him and attributes a holy war intention to him. Now that is, by any standards, an attack. Is it an attack on Christianity? Well, interestingly, there is room for argument there. Is is certainly a very insulting and deeply wounding attack on the spiritual leader of over one billion people. Someone whose role as the Vicar of Christ makes him, to those faithful billion plus, the head of the church on earth. However, it seems to imply that from the perspective of Salih Kapusuz, that Pope Benedict XVI has departed from the "spirit of reform in the Christian world". So Salih Kapusuz may be able to defend his words as an attack on a specific Christian, the leader of the church on earth for over 1 billion people, but not an outright attack on the whole of Christianity. One man, a particularly significant and prominent man, has in his view said a particularly bad thing. He does not attack on the beliefs and tenets of Christianity.

Based on what he has actually said, that seems to me to be a tenable analysis. All I am asking you to do is to apply that sort of thinking to what the Pope actually said (third time of asking). The crux of the matter is not the nature of the comments from the 14th century Christian emperor, it is whether the Pope endorsed the comments on Mohammed. It is actually very clear that he did not. As he says with the utmost clarity, his purpose lies elsewhere. Was he wise to use this quotation? Opinions may differ on that matter but his use of that quotation does not make what he actually said an attack on Islam. Was it an inflammatory statement. Opinions may differ on that matter as well, but that does not make what he actually said an attack on Islam.

A final point is worth making. Am I insulting the Pope by quoting the derogatory remarks of Salih Kapusuz about him? Clearly I am not. And it is certainly not my intention to do so. My point in doing so is to demonstrate a truth about the nature of attack to you!

It really isn't rocket science to carry out this sort of analysis. Please demonstrate to me what is wrong with it. My hope is that I may be able to persuade you, not to change your mind, but to see that your understanding is not the only one which can be drawn from the words. IMO, the textual evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of the argument that the Pope did not attack Islam. Prove me wrong. I'm not infallible.

My late dad had a word for situations like this. It was "some people argue black is white and expect to win". Maybe you think that is what I'm doing? I've got a pretty firm opinion that is what you're doing! But we have had many amicable exchanges on these boards and regardless of the outcome of this one, I'll be happy to have plenty others. Please be assured of my goodwill. That is not changed because we have a difference of opinion.

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

Dear Barnabas

What you wrote makes much sense. I still disagree with this analysis. However, I am always assured for your good will, and I don't let difference of opinion on some matters influence the way I see you.

Perhaps you would be interested to read some of the comments I made in Hell while you were away.

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

Barnabas' post touches the core of the problem. I think that three questions arise:

1) Does the Pope think that Islam is an unreasonable religion?

2) Does the Pope think that all the new things Mohammed brought in the world were evil in nature?

3) Does the Pope think that violence is inherent to the Islamic religion?

We can, of course, re-shape our questions by substituting Islam for Mohammed and Kuran.

I think that the answers to these questions can give birth to a whole new set of questions.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Well andreas1984, if I was the Pope (which thank the Lord I'm not sir!) I think I might respond by saying. "Good points! Exactly the sort of questions on which I am encouraging dialogue between us, in a spirit of reasonableness and non-violence!"

(Told you I might quite enjoy being in the Vatican Diplomatic Service and Communications admin at this time [Biased]

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

The real Pope though only made quotations that do give answers to all of the above questions in a way that Islam is portrayed as violent, unreasonable and inhuman in the new ideas it brought.

This is a way to start a third world war, not a serious, open and honest theological discussion.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Well, I don't know. It looks as though out of the noisy downright condemnation (unfair as I see things) there is the possibility of opening some dialogue. By asking the sort of questions you ask. It even looks as though the Muslim Council of Britain and others are going down that line. Maybe a bit nastily and more than a bit suspiciously, but that can be coped with.

Personally, I just wish that people didn't have to get in such a strop about it first. It is very reasonable to ask, calmly, of the Pope, something along these lines. "Most interesting address Your Holiness. A question? To what extent do you endorse these views on Mohammed by this 14th century Christian emperor you quoted? That isn't completely clear to me from reading the text. And I'm sure you realise that it's going to be very important for any reasonable dialogue between us to get that issue out of the way. Given the unique understanding of Mohammed in Islam." I mean, who could resist such reasonableness?

And do you know, andreas1984, I have a feeling that Pope Benedict XVI will not be in the least embarrassed by that question. It might indeed usher in precisely the reasonable dialogue about non-violent approaches he is espousing. All that is necessary is just a smidgeon of goodwill. Like you and I have.

See? When people calm down a bit, it's surprising what might emerge.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
It was written that the Muslims follow the path "convert or die". Had they followed such a path, then, for example, the Balcans would be Muslim in their entirety. Yet, this is not what happened. Orthodoxy is still here, as is Judaism (although many Jews were sent in Germany at concenctration camps during the occupation) and Roman Catholicism.

This is enough to show that the "convert or die" approach was not used by the Muslims there over the course of many centuries.

Using phrases like "the Muslims either convert non-Muslims or kill them" does injustice to Islam.

When there became too many to be killed Mohammed introduced a system of taxing those who refused to give up their religion, paying this tax gave them the right to maintain their identity as whatever, Jews, Christians, as people of the book, but showed they had in fact submitted to Islam. This dhimmi status did not give them rights as equal citizens of Islam and their treatment was very much dependent on those in authority over them as a subjugated peoples.

This concession, allowed to live, was not given to Pagans, but when Islam invaded India as the Moghul Empire it also found there were simply too many to kill, those who continued resisting conversion, and a special law was written giving Pagans, in this case Hindus, the same option of dhimmi status as is given to the people of the Book, Jews and Christians.

quote:
The emperor must have known that sura 2:256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion." It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under [threat]. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Koran, concerning holy war.

For an explanation of this well known aspect of Islam see first link below. In constitution Islam is a warrior nation intent on subjugated every other nation until it has complete dominance. Jihad, holy war, is its ethos in the whole and not as some would have us believe a minority fanatic view currently know as 'terrorists' or 'radical Islam', and the second link shows how this is taught to 11th grade boys, outlining the tactics of the army Islam according to its strength at any particular time. This includes subterfuge, such as pretence that it is not a threat for example, or the claim that its name shows its intentions because it means 'peace'.. It does mean peace but as a derivative, its primary meaning is 'submission'.

The second link is also interesting in that it's a very recent example of the Islamic nation imposing dhimmi status on the rest of the population when it has taken complete control of an area, in this case 'Palestine'. Since 2003 the Muslims have control over all the people in the Palestinian Authority areas and the minority peoples are without equal rights. The Christians in the PA areas are also 'Palestinians', they have had a presence there since their ancestors first became Christian when Christ began teaching, but they are now non-citizens of the Islamic nation in Palestine.

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sr&ID=SR2203

This is how the Emperor understood Islam, in the Pope's quote.

Myrrh

http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=94748

Posted by centurion (# 11759) on :

Hiya Andreas,
You really need to get real with our Pope, he is not some Xenophobic spreader of slander and insults against Muslims.

There is nought to be gained from Polarising the Muslim world against Christians. I feel that Muslims already feel as if there is some organised crusade against Islam, its not real but the Muslim people perceive it to be real.

When there are hundreds of Sunni and Shia killing each other regularly over in Iraq... I dont think our Pope needs your accusations and sensationalist agenda over a historic remark from a long dead Christian Byzantine Emperor.

It does not show love to continually try and persuade us that the Pope is slurring Islam when he didnt even intend to do such a thing. And also he apologised for hurting Muslims. I believe he will in the fullness of time maybe within a week issue some conciliatory remark to heal hearts and I hope he does so.

I hope you look back on this in a year and realise that Roman Catholics have not some hidden agenda to slander Muslims and spread hatred against Islam. I have at least read the Quran and I have family who are Muslims, but I am also a Roman Catholic and I think that Muslims are not above being a bit provocative and manipulative when they want to. Muslims have channelled this innocent speech throughout the world as our Pope being slanderous and insulting to Islam.

I have heard worse since then from so called Muslims who likened our Pope to Mussolini and Hitler, which is Muslims getting their own back against the Pope for a remark he made on Turkey entering the EU. I personally support Turkeys entry into the EU, most british people do. If the Pope has a personal opinion about Turkeys entry to the UK then that is his opinion and he's entitled to it.

Thanks
Centurion

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
I don't see God being bound by anything, because He is not of the universe. We cannot ascribe to Him concepts that belong to the created order. All the good things emanate from Him. Because He is the source, they are not imposed externally to Him. We can be assured that His Grace is freely available to all, because they emanate from Him, and they do not have a beginning in time or space. His Grace is without beginning and without end because it emanates from Him.

God is certainly not bound by human concepts of justice and love. God cares for each and every one of us, and He helps all of us in different ways. Take marriage for example. At the same time, God approves polygamy, monogamy, celibacy and abolishes marriage. I say at the same time, because for God there is no time. Yet, as He deals with the people, He approaches each man on each man's level.

Well, thanks for that andreas1984. It sure clears things up. It was difficult to understand why a Greek Orthodox would post five pages of Muslim apologetics. The real reason is of course that the pope's speech actually attacked your beliefs. Precisely what you describe above is what the pope actually critiqued. And not only did he do that, he claimed that it was the very Greekness of Christianity which puts your beliefs in question. So not only is he saying that you are wrong, he's saying that you've abandoned your own cultural heritage in being wrong in this manner. And worse, you find no reasonable way to refute him. Small wonder then that you are waging a campaign against him by proxy of defending Muslim rioters and propagandists.

We should have picked it up when you claimed that Orthodoxy is closer to Islam than to RCism. Since your equation has always been "Orthodoxy = my opinion", this meant nothing but "my opinion is closer to Islam than to RCism". OK then, you are apparently a quasi-Muslim tritheist. Congratulations. Can we move on now?

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Well andreas1984, if I was the Pope (which thank the Lord I'm not sir!) I think I might respond by saying. "Good points! Exactly the sort of questions on which I am encouraging dialogue between us, in a spirit of reasonableness and non-violence!"

(Told you I might quite enjoy being in the Vatican Diplomatic Service and Communications admin at this time ).

And how would you answer from the VDS that the RCC has the same doctrine of forced conversion or death? The Croatian Serbs were divided for ease into three groups, a third exiled, a third killed and a third forced to convert. The VDS no doubt has a hand in promoting to sainthood the RC priest who encouraged putting this doctrine into practice. Doesn't this also make the RCC evil and inhuman in believing it has the right to promote its view of Christianity by the sword?

Myrrh

p.s. a look at the RCC from the 1930's: Contemporary Orientations of Catholic Thought on Church and State
in the Light of History JOHN COURTNEY MURRAY, S.J.

Myrrh

Posted by Marinaki (# 343) on :

Pope was spot on with what he was saying when taken in context, and not hyped up by the media for a useful soundbite. He could probably have chosen a less provocative example - given the historic circumstance within which it was made, but certainly for the 'Byzantines' in the 15th Century that was very much their experience of Islam.

I recommend the book:
"The Sword of the Prophet" by Serge Trifkovic as an alternative look at Islam.

Also, in Greek (for Andreas) 'Islam' by Archbishop
Anastasios of Albania (this was his major study and the subject he taught at the University of Athens. (Andreas has mentioned Archbishop Anastasios a few times in this thread):
In my view it is perhaps the best scholarly study made by a Christian and its a pity it's not in English). The list of contents exist in English and I would be happy to pass them on to anyone who wants - as they alone are an indication of the depth of this book. While the study is overall positive, it does discuss the more problematic aspects of Islam, i.e. the position of women, aspects of Sharia law and jihad.
In discussing Jihad he writes (page 208):

quote:

"Under the influence of peacemaking sermons and the cultivation of a friendly atmosphere between peoples today there is a tendenct to keep quiet about this chracteristic episode of muslim tactic. Nevertheless, even putting aside the actual historical events, the sacred texts remain. The exhortations of the Qur'an encouraging powerful, and aggressive dealings with the 'infidel' are many and direct "And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression." Qur'an 'The Cow' 2:193 also in footnotes "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things." 2:244 and [quote] "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." (Repentance 9:5)[\quote] and [QUOTE] "Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah.s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.

5. Soon will He guide them and improve their condition,

6. And admit them to the Garden which He has announced for them.

7. O ye who believe! If ye will aid (the cause of) Allah, He will aid you, and plant your feet firmly.

8. But those who reject ((Allah)),- for them is destruction, and ((Allah)) will render their deeds astray (from their mark).

9. That is because they hate the Revelation of Allah. so He has made their deeds fruitless.

10. Do they not travel through the earth, and see what was the End of those before them (who did evil)? Allah brought utter destruction on them, and similar (fates await) those who reject Allah."

He then follows this with more references.
Plus a reference to the section detailing the historical battles to found Islam within the same study.

Posted by Marinaki (# 343) on :

p.s. I wouldn't consider Andreas a representative of Orthodoxy - whatever he may think on this.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

Politics is the key to all this.

I find it inconcievable that the Pope would not have known that his quote would be picked up and transmitted round the world. Everything he says is public, anything vaguely controversial he says will be news. I think he probably knew exactly what he was doing.

He used a very controversial quote, but he used it very cleverly indeed. He used it to condemn the spread of religion by violence, thus impliedly condemning many acts of Christians. He also impliedly said that the source was biased against Muslims (the arguments of the emperor's opposition being somewhat truncated). He didn't say that there was nothing but evil in Islam, he only quoted someone who naturally said such a thing given his situation. A thoughtful person might consider that to be an admission on the part of the Pope that Christians have committed their share of hatred.

Nevertheless, the predictable response followed, thus giving credence to the Emperor's (not the Pope's) words.

He has followed it up with a sort of ECUSA / +Robinson type apology delivered through his minions, not a "sorry I was wrong" but "I'm sorry that you're so hypersensitive".

So, the Pope has come out smelling of roses, while his Muslim objectors smell more of camel dung.

Much as it depresses me to put it like this; Islamic fundies went one round with Europe's journalists and won. The pope has gone a round with the Muslim fundies and has won. Look at the comments on the BBC's website. Opinion is on his side.

[ 17. September 2006, 01:31: Message edited by: Cod ]

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

Again, apologies, somehow missed the 'first link' to an explanation of the development of Islam re "There is no compulsion in religion." It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under [threat]. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Koran, concerning holy war."

http://tellthechildrenthetruth.com/blog/2006/03/13/the-two-faces-of-the-quran/

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
It was written that the Muslims follow the path "convert or die". Had they followed such a path, then, for example, the Balcans would be Muslim in their entirety. Yet, this is not what happened. Orthodoxy is still here, as is Judaism (although many Jews were sent in Germany at concenctration camps during the occupation) and Roman Catholicism.

This is enough to show that the "convert or die" approach was not used by the Muslims there over the course of many centuries.

Using phrases like "the Muslims either convert non-Muslims or kill them" does injustice to Islam.
When there became too many to be killed Mohammed introduced a system of taxing those who refused to give up their religion, paying this tax gave them the right to maintain their identity as whatever, Jews, Christians, as people of the book, but showed they had in fact submitted to Islam. This dhimmi status did not give them rights as equal citizens of Islam and their treatment was very much dependent on those in authority over them as a subjugated peoples.

This concession, allowed to live, was not given to Pagans, but when Islam invaded India as the Moghul Empire it also found there were simply too many to kill, those who continued resisting conversion, and a special law was written giving Pagans, in this case Hindus, the same option of dhimmi status as is given to the people of the Book, Jews and Christians.

quote:
The emperor must have known that sura 2:256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion." It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under [threat]. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Koran, concerning holy war.
For an explanation of this well known aspect of Islam see first link below. In constitution Islam is a warrior nation intent on subjugated every other nation until it has complete dominance. Jihad, holy war, is its ethos in the whole and not as some would have us believe a minority fanatic view currently know as 'terrorists' or 'radical Islam', and the second link shows how this is taught to 11th grade boys, outlining the tactics of the army Islam according to its strength at any particular time. This includes subterfuge, such as pretence that it is not a threat for example, or the claim that its name shows its intentions because it means 'peace'.. It does mean peace but as a derivative, its primary meaning is 'submission'.

The second link is also interesting in that it's a very recent example of the Islamic nation imposing dhimmi status on the rest of the population when it has taken complete control of an area, in this case 'Palestine'. Since 2003 the Muslims have control over all the people in the Palestinian Authority areas and the minority peoples are without equal rights. The Christians in the PA areas are also 'Palestinians', they have had a presence there since their ancestors first became Christian when Christ began teaching, but they are now non-citizens of the Islamic nation in Palestine.

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sr&ID=SR2203

This is how the Emperor understood Islam, in the Pope's quote.

Myrrh

http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=94748

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

It seems to me that whenever Islam is discussed, a lot of verses from the Koran start getting thrown around. I'm not inclined to think that they really help the debate as they generally aren't accompanied by any of the juristic principles that aid interpretation of them.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Well andreas1984, if I was the Pope (which thank the Lord I'm not sir!) I think I might respond by saying. "Good points! Exactly the sort of questions on which I am encouraging dialogue between us, in a spirit of reasonableness and non-violence!"

(Told you I might quite enjoy being in the Vatican Diplomatic Service and Communications admin at this time ).
And how would you answer from the VDS that the RCC has the same doctrine of forced conversion or death? The Croatian Serbs were divided for ease into three groups, a third exiled, a third killed and a third forced to convert. The VDS no doubt has a hand in promoting to sainthood the RC priest who encouraged putting this doctrine into practice. Doesn't this also make the RCC evil and inhuman in believing it has the right to promote its view of Christianity by the sword?

Myrrh

p.s. a look at the RCC from the 1930's: Contemporary Orientations of Catholic Thought on Church and State
in the Light of History JOHN COURTNEY MURRAY, S.J.

Myrrh

Well, so far as I can see from the Pope's controversial address, he uses some of the emperor's words in repudiation the notion that the use of force is legitimate in the pursuit of such religious ends. Here is the extract.

quote:

The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably ("syn logo") is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats.... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...."

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry.

Now the Pope has been criticised for not repudiating immediately this emperor's views of Mohammed. That is a different point on which debate still continues and we may hear more today from the Pope. But on the above comments, it seems to me that the Pope specifically endorses the spirit of them in this further quote.

quote:
"Not to act reasonably (with logos) is contrary to the nature of God," said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.

It really is a very interesting and very deep address, well worth further calm study and reflection. I repeat "calm". It seems perfectly possible to unpick from the emperor's remarks those which were offensive to Muslims and those which were entirely reasonable and worthy of much deeper consideration. The emperor had no claims to infallibility and, so far as I can tell, the Pope was not either implicitly or explicitly speaking ex cathedra here. The Pope is said to be in favour of more robust debate on these matters - I am sure that the promotion to sainthood to which you refer might very well feature in such a debate. Thanks for the link by the way, still digesting some of that.

Will you now endorse my application for the VDS? I'm doing all this stuff for free at the moment. Mind you, I suppose a radical nonconformist Protestant might not get past the initial sieve? [Big Grin]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Apologies for the double post but I've only just noticed this. It contains the following extract.

quote:
(This relates to) a Darfur Day of Action in 30 cities around the world, including London.

Senior members of the Muslim, Jewish and Christian faiths will gather outside Downing Street to read prayers.

I'm heartened by that.

[ 17. September 2006, 06:15: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :

One point I haven't seen mentioned so far I heard in a comment on, I think, BBC Radio 4:

As Cardinal Ratzinger, B16 has led a rather secluded and sheltered life in the Vatican; he is a brilliant academic, yet very much a theorist when it comes to applying some of his views to the real world.

IMHO, one should also look at the Pope's age. With all due respect: he is nearly 80, and as I've repeatedly found with some (not necessarily all) people of that age group, their reactions are slowing down, as is in many cases their thinking.

It is in no way my intention to ridiculise B16 - quite on the contrary. I believe this view will make his action look somewhat more human, and more comprehensible, and in fact I rather feel compassion for him here.

I believe he was honestly surprised and shocked at the Muslim reaction, and may really not have taken into account that he might need some quite advanced inter-cultural skills when it comes to sensitive areas.

One may indeed wonder if he has got these skills, or if his advisers have - because, as the BBC reports, B16 has already fired (well, moved to another, less prominent post) Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, a distinguished expert on Islam and the Arab world, one of those who could have been of considerable help in the matter.

To summarise, I don't see B16 necessarily as anti-Islamic, rather as someone who doesn't always quite realise what he's doing; with his advancing age, this danger might sadly even be on the increase. On the other hand, it cleary looks to me as if many Muslims seem to be much too easily offended, and, as Mousethief says earlier in this thread:

quote:
But truly, doesn't even one of these people see the irony in saying, "Take back what you said about us being violent, or we'll commit acts of violence"?

I think 'accidental', unreflected utterings by someone in B16's position are of quite some danger, and he would be wise to gather advice from knowledgeable, experienced, widely-travelled experts, rather than from a narrow in-circle of Vatican theoreticians.

To summarise: One might feel the need to defend one party not against another party only, but also against themselves, as it happens ever so often unfortunately. This of course needs to be said about both parties in this case - and I really hope there are some reasonable, understanding, influential people on the Muslim side as well.

This looks like just another, giant pissing contest to me - with potentially dire consequences, one might hasten to add.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J:

This looks like just another, giant pissing contest to me - with potentially dire consequences, one might hasten to add.

Not sure about the earlier part of your post, but this sentence looks pretty good to me. It seems to happen to everything these days. "Stuff the arguments, lets get down to some serious shouting to see who can shout the LOUDEST. [Mad]

(I do like that surge of adrenalin associated with righteous indignation [Snigger]

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by David Gould:
When you are CofE you get used to it.

In spite of the fact that the modern CofE, pretty uniquely amongst current religious organisations, came into being by an act of State power, and had a quite splendidly bloodstained infancy, very few people these days accuse English Anglicans of being suicide bombing fanatics.

What would the provisional wing of the CofE look like, I wonder?

[ 17. September 2006, 08:39: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]

Posted by Bonaventura (# 1066) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:

I don't see God being bound by anything, because He is not of the universe. We cannot ascribe to Him concepts that belong to the created order. All the good things emanate from Him. Because He is the source, they are not imposed externally to Him. We can be assured that His Grace is freely available to all, because they emanate from Him, and they do not have a beginning in time or space. His Grace is without beginning and without end because it emanates from Him.

God is certainly not bound by human concepts of justice and love. God cares for each and every one of us, and He helps all of us in different ways. Take marriage for example. At the same time, God approves polygamy, monogamy, celibacy and abolishes marriage. I say at the same time, because for God there is no time. Yet, as He deals with the people, He approaches each man on each man's level.

Dear andreas,

thanks for you reply!

Another quote from the speech (italics mine):

"The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: "For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality." Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us.
Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry."
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=46474

Maimonides the great Jewish aristotelian described the various laws of the universe according to Islamic philosphy is similar to the riding habits of the caliph who can change his leisurely riding habits at any moment. A universe operating according to consistent laws were incomprehensible acording to this doctrine, because God wa utterly transcendent, and had complete freedom, God was not bound by rationality nor goodness.

Now, Maimonides was not a fan of this philosophy, he was an aristotelian who retained a solid respect for apophatic philosophy, yet he did not entertain this doctrine of God.

Is your doctrine really apophaticism taken to its extreme? Does apophaticism lead to the Islamic doctrine of God? Could we reflect some more?

Best,

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

(In response to Divine Outlaw Dwarf)

Probably a collectino of perfectly normal-looking clerics, holding tumblers of poisoned gins.

[ 17. September 2006, 08:47: Message edited by: Cod ]

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

Dear Bonaventura,

the laws of nature are wills of God. God is able to change these wills localy and temporaly. Hence what some call miracles and some call signs. So, yes, nature does not bind the Natural One.

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

It's interesting how the Orthodox understanding of the logos comes into play. The Heracletean concept, developed further by the Greek philosophers, found a new expression in John. It was later developed by the early apologists, and then, after a period of no further development, it was brought to a perfection by Maximos the Confessor's work. All things consist of words, i.e. wills of God that define the "specifications" for each thing. These wills are eternal, i.e. they have always been in God's mind. They are not thoughts though. Had they been thoughts, the Universe would exist without a beginning. They are wills, and this means that God is free to either make them real or not. These words have an important role in Orthodox theology because they are connected with the Word Himself.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Well, so far as I can see from the Pope's controversial address, he uses some of the emperor's words in repudiation the notion that the use of force is legitimate in the pursuit of such religious ends. Here is the extract.
quote:

The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably ("syn logo") is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats.... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...."

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry.

Now the Pope has been criticised for not repudiating immediately this emperor's views of Mohammed. That is a different point on which debate still continues and we may hear more today from the Pope. But on the above comments, it seems to me that the Pope specifically endorses the spirit of them in this further quote.

quote:
"Not to act reasonably (with logos) is contrary to the nature of God," said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.

It really is a very interesting and very deep address, well worth further calm study and reflection. I repeat "calm". It seems perfectly possible to unpick from the emperor's remarks those which were offensive to Muslims and those which were entirely reasonable and worthy of much deeper consideration. The emperor had no claims to infallibility and, so far as I can tell, the Pope was not either implicitly or explicitly speaking ex cathedra here. The Pope is said to be in favour of more robust debate on these matters - I am sure that the promotion to sainthood to which you refer might very well feature in such a debate. Thanks for the link by the way, still digesting some of that.

I agree, well worth calm study, a fascinating speech.

And in endorsing the views of Manuel II against violent conversion, I would ask - is the Pope turning Orthodox? For Greek read Orthodox, right thinking. Although he distances himself from this by his claim that Christianity is Augustinian and that de-hellenisation only began with the Reformation and not with Augustine (who is the building block of RCC thinking and theology).

quote:
As far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we find ourselves faced with a dilemma which nowadays challenges us directly. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?

I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: "In the beginning was the 'logos.'"

Flicking through the various news channels last night to see what reactions were to this most stressed the idea of it being an insult without going into detail, one Muslim blatantly lied and said it was untrue that Islam was spread by the sword and one, in the spirit of true dialogue, said he'd actually read the speech and raised the same point I had - 'but Christianity was spread by the sword so how can the Pope ignore that and single out Islam as the contrast against what is Godlike and reasonable behaviour?' I paraphrase.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/popes_and_church/PandC2-5.html

Not in any time in the history of the RCC from Augustine onwards can the RCC claim to represent Greek thinking - its unreasonable and unGodlike use of violence has been its trademark contrary to the logos of St John. To make this point the Pope had to resort to an Orthodox argument against the use of violence to spread the Christian message because there were none and could not be one in the centuries of RCC domination in the West.

quote:
Will you now endorse my application for the VDS? I'm doing all this stuff for free at the moment. Mind you, I suppose a radical nonconformist Protestant might not get past the initial sieve?

Hmm, let's see your reply to above first, but if you prevaricate and obfuscate and generally avoid attributing any blame to the RCC's doctrines as the guiding light of its missionary zeal of forced conversions and burning of heretics, then I'd say you'd be welcomed on board the good ship Infallibility and given the comfort of your own cabin to continue your pr endeavours regardless of your personal theological bent. Unless of course by radical non-conformist Protestant you mean someone who is already on his way back to Rome..?

[Paranoid]

Myrrh

Posted by centurion (# 11759) on :

Hiya All,
As I suspected when I spoke to Andreas, the Pope has currenly made a more personal apology to repudiate the historic remark about the Emperor of Byzantine and he said that he in no way endorsed the sentiment of the Medieval Text and that the text does not represent his personal feelings.

I would like to thank those who supported the Pope on this issue and who realised that the Pope was not into slandering Islam but only wanted to provoke some dialogue over Religion/s and Violence.

Thanks All.
Centurion

Posted by centurion (# 11759) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:

quote:
Originally posted by David Gould:
When you are CofE you get used to it.

In spite of the fact that the modern CofE, pretty uniquely amongst current religious organisations, came into being by an act of State power, and had a quite splendidly bloodstained infancy, very few people these days accuse English Anglicans of being suicide bombing fanatics.

What would the provisional wing of the CofE look like, I wonder?

I would hazard a guess that the Provisional wing of the CofE is SOLA SOLA SOLA SOLA SOLA POWER.

Thanks
Centurion

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Myrrh

[Killing me]

Clearly a reference from you for the VDS wouldn't do me any more good than my settled protestant nonconformity. Nonconformist does not = anticatholic. I'm not on my way back to Rome. Maybe when the first female Pope is appointed .... Now that should really make you [Paranoid]

Let me go all the way with you, just for the sake of argument. Let me concede, just for the sake of argument, that the catholic church has never up to now really done "Logos" in the terms you require. And so now BXVI says this very reasonable thing. Two positions are possible.

1. God is doing a new thing

2. A leopard doesn't change its spots.

I don't mind which of those you believe. I'm a hopeful person - so I'm going for 1.

According to reports, the Pope has apologised personally for the offence caused and clarified that he does not agree with the offensive parts of the emperor's observations. So it looks as though we have the Pope meeting precisely the concerns of, for example the Muslim Council of Britain. These things also strike me as firsts. Tell you what, if that Turkish political leader withdraws his hideously OTT insults, we might have some signs of an outbreak of peace. And I don't blame the Pope for any of this. Loads of folks stropped, got out of their pram, rather than ask a simple question to test the Pope's goodwill. A lot of that has been, frankly, bloody childish and irresponsible behaviour, and some of it by leaders who ought to know better. Everything gets turned into a pissing contest these days.

But of course, if you reckon that leopards don't change their spots, none of this will strike you as significant. That's entirely up to you. I try to be a reasonable man.

I hope that is sufficiently non-vague and non-obfuscatory for you.

Posted by Marinaki (# 343) on :

"spread by the sword the faith he preached"

Q.E.D.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J:
As Cardinal Ratzinger, B16 has led a rather secluded and sheltered life in the Vatican; he is [...] very much a theorist when it comes to applying some of his views to the real world.

With all due respect: he is nearly 80, and as I've repeatedly found with some (not necessarily all) people of that age group, their reactions are slowing down, as is in many cases their thinking [...] and in fact I rather feel compassion for him here.

[He] may really not have taken into account that he might need some quite advanced inter-cultural skills when it comes to sensitive areas. One may indeed wonder if he has got these skills. To summarise, I don't see B16 necessarily as anti-Islamic, rather as someone who doesn't always quite realise what he's doing; with his advancing age, this danger might sadly even be on the increase.

[...]

I think 'accidental', unreflected utterings by someone in B16's position are of quite some danger, and he would be wise to gather advice from knowledgeable, experienced, widely-travelled experts, rather than from a narrow in-circle of Vatican theoreticians.

Truly one of the most breath-takingly patronising and supercilious posts I've ever read on the boards. Way to go, Wesley J!

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Barnabas62 said

quote:
According to reports, the Pope has apologised personally for the offence caused and clarified that he does not agree with the offensive parts of the emperor's observations. So it looks as though we have the Pope meeting precisely the concerns of, for example the Muslim Council of Britain. These things also strike me as firsts. Tell you what, if that Turkish political leader withdraws his hideously OTT insults, we might have some signs of an outbreak of peace. And I don't blame the Pope for any of this.

I agree about the firsts - at least that we have, one can hope, a creative moment here.

It strikes me that good and love and virtue and morality and all those things, are not about not making mistakes, but about how we respond to errors and misunderstandings and general balls-ups. The pope looks human and displays warmth and concern. And that's good, and something we would not have seen had he been erfectly advised and judged in his comments.

It's not the parousia, but we have probably moved on further than if his lecture had never been given.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

It strikes me that good and love and virtue and morality and all those things, are not about not making mistakes, but about how we respond to errors and misunderstandings and general balls-ups. The pope looks human and displays warmth and concern. And that's good, and something we would not have seen had he been erfectly advised and judged in his comments.

It's not the parousia, but we have probably moved on further than if his lecture had never been given.

Way to go, hatless. Now if we could get andreas1984 to agree ....

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marinaki:
Pope was spot on with what he was saying when taken in context, and not hyped up by the media for a useful soundbite. He could probably have chosen a less provocative example - given the historic circumstance within which it was made, but certainly for the 'Byzantines' in the 15th Century that was very much their experience of Islam.

I recommend the book:
"The Sword of the Prophet" by Serge Trifkovic as an alternative look at Islam.

Also, in Greek (for Andreas) 'Islam' by Archbishop
Anastasios of Albania (this was his major study and the subject he taught at the University of Athens. (Andreas has mentioned Archbishop Anastasios a few times in this thread):
In my view it is perhaps the best scholarly study made by a Christian and its a pity it's not in English). The list of contents exist in English and I would be happy to pass them on to anyone who wants - as they alone are an indication of the depth of this book. While the study is overall positive, it does discuss the more problematic aspects of Islam, i.e. the position of women, aspects of Sharia law and jihad.
In discussing Jihad he writes (page 208):
quote:

"Under the influence of peacemaking sermons and the cultivation of a friendly atmosphere between peoples today there is a tendenct to keep quiet about this chracteristic episode of muslim tactic. Nevertheless, even putting aside the actual historical events, the sacred texts remain. The exhortations of the Qur'an encouraging powerful, and aggressive dealings with the 'infidel' are many and direct "And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression." Qur'an 'The Cow' 2:193 also in footnotes "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things." 2:244 and [quote] "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." (Repentance 9:5)[\quote] and [QUOTE] "Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah.s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.

5. Soon will He guide them and improve their condition,

6. And admit them to the Garden which He has announced for them.

7. O ye who believe! If ye will aid (the cause of) Allah, He will aid you, and plant your feet firmly.

8. But those who reject ((Allah)),- for them is destruction, and ((Allah)) will render their deeds astray (from their mark).

9. That is because they hate the Revelation of Allah. so He has made their deeds fruitless.

10. Do they not travel through the earth, and see what was the End of those before them (who did evil)? Allah brought utter destruction on them, and similar (fates await) those who reject Allah."

He then follows this with more references.
Plus a reference to the section detailing the historical battles to found Islam within the same study.

Anastios, or your summary, is quoting out of context.

Sura 2 ‘The Cow’ in the Penguin Classics translation (3rd edn) starts off with predestination and even suggests that Allah misleads unbelievers – a bit like Jesus in Mark, after the Sower parable. After several verses, the only mention of fighting is on p. 343 where Muslims are bidden to ‘fight against those who fight you’ – i.e. self-defence. Then on p. 346 self-defence is the only reason given for fighting – this time the context is unbelievers fighting Muslims with the intention of trying to make them give up Islam.

Sura 8 ‘The Spoils’ talks on fighting ‘for justice’ p. 306 – the context was the Battle of Badr when Muslim caravans were attacked – self-defence again. Same again on p. 307 – when you are approached by armies of unbelievers – NOT go out and attack them first. It goes on to say that Allah will win the victory (cf lots of Old Testament wars when the Lord will rout the enemy – the soldiers are his instruments but he power is His.) p. 311 talks of fighting again but still in the context of self-defence. Muslims are even commanded to offer a peace treaty before counter-attacking.

Sura 9 ‘Repentance’ is the only sura that does not begin ‘In the name of Allah….’ So is regarded by scholars to be a continuation of the previous sura and, thus, to come out of the same context – so we are dealing with self-defence again. So on p. 314 there is mention of fighting but first an insistence on trying to get peace terms. Then, if they break those terms, Muslims can ‘make war’.

On p. 315 Muslims are told to ‘fight against such of those to whom the scriptures were given as believe either in Allah nor the Last Day’ (i.e. Christians and Jews). If this means ‘fight’ as in ‘wage war’ that is inconsistent with Islamic teaching of respect for ‘people of the book’ and for their being ‘no compulsion in religion’. Thus it must mean fight in the jihad sense of struggle – i.e. try to convert them by argument. The sura then goes on to list what it thinks of as Jewish and Christian errors e.g. that Jesus is messiah, that Mary is worshipped – giving intellectual weapons for the argument. Then on p. 317it urges people to march on and fight whether unarmed or well-equipped (the context of argument is reminiscent of the saying in I Timothy about scripture being inspired to equip). It mentions fighting ‘with your wealth’ – sounds like giving to missionary organizations. It even talks of a field cf. mission field – symbolism.

p. 325 has the next mention of war but it is still in the context of the Battle of Badr and it talks of ‘safeguard [their] own’ lives i.e. self-defence again – from marauding tribes about Makkah. It ends with good advice hat not everyone should go out and fight – some have to stay home and learn more about Islam so that they can admonish the fighters when they return!

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Barnabas62 said:
quote:
The notion that, being an academic address, it will of necessity fly over the heads of "mere mortals" is a sort of insulting reverse snobbery. It wasn't that hard to make sense of it.
Barnabas, you'll no doubt be aware that I've argued exactly this point despite my admiration for what Benedict says and the way in which it was said. Are you really suggesting that it's not possible for a Christian to appreciate Benedict's words for the truth that they convey while at the same time wishing that he'd said it a bit less academically? Yes, the speech is clear; and yes, I think it contains truth. But accessible it isn't.

m.t-tomb

Sorry I missed this in the "post blizzard" yesterday. Problem is I'm not an academic - all of my "degrees" have been earned in the school of hard knocks. What I said was a bit of an over-reaction, probably based on personal history. I wasn't intending to get at you.

Part of the problem is that I spent a lot of my life working in the public sector. Despite Ernest Gower's "Plain Words" being a recommended text, loads of my colleagues had degrees in abstruse, particularly if they had the responsibility of making "black" look like "white". I was never any good at writing that sort of stuff (which got me into a fair bit of trouble) but I had an awful lot of practice in reading it. Based on my non-academic experience and compared with some of the stuff I had to read, and make sense of, for a living, I find the Pope commendably clear in his expression. Maybe I underestimate just how much background in ideas you need to have to understand his address? It really didn't strike me as at all hard.

But I respect you. Sorry for the unintended offence. Hope the explanation helps. Let us proceed with mutual respect. (Seem to have read that somewhere ...)

Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
I think there seem to be an awful lot of muslims who want to stir things up (as there clearly were with the cartoons).
quote:

code:
O
+ <--- Muhammed
/\

Your best post this year!

Posted by m.t-tomb (# 3012) on :

Posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
Maybe I underestimate just how much background in ideas you need to have to understand his address? It really didn't strike me as at all hard.

Barnabas. Firstly no offence taken. Secondly, yes I think you're right: I think that we (fairly well educated and well read Christians) are actually capable of understanding Benedict's speech without a great deal of difficulty. However, I think that if you gave that speech to your average british secular broadsheet journalist they wouldn't understand it. Now make the leap to a poorly educated, angry Muslim teenager and what to do get? Sadly it seems that you get septigenarian Nuns being murdered in the street.

[ 17. September 2006, 22:35: Message edited by: m.t-tomb ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

m.t-tomb

Thanks for your kindness. I appreciate your point better now I see it in isolation. To misquote cometchaser from the Hell thread, I'm having a mindnight moment (a mistyped "midnight" has produced a great new word) and can't quite join up the dots of my thinking. Dumbing down is scarier than I'd allowed for. Particularly when associated with a complete absence of any sort of goodwill - or even a willingness to pause for thought. Maybe more later - there may be another thread here.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J:
One point I haven't seen mentioned so far I heard in a comment on, I think, BBC Radio 4:

As Cardinal Ratzinger, B16 has led a rather secluded and sheltered life in the Vatican; he is a brilliant academic, yet very much a theorist when it comes to applying some of his views to the real world.

The Beeb seems to have lost touch with the real world altogether, Cardinal Ratty the Grand Inquisitor continued to propound the hard line in hard copy while allowing JPII to waffle on the world stage. His views have been in practical evidence since he first became head of the Holy Office of the Inquisition in 1981.

Whichever encyclical or document you read during his tenure you'll find complete fidelity to Rome's claims for itself and its doctrines which are now whatever the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith says they are - the magisterium now carries the stamp of infallibility on matters doctrinal and moral, demanding submission of intellect and will, but not faith, to all its pronouncements, even when they contradict each other. John Paul relied on him completely.

Examples abound, found this page looking for an critique of the apologies given to Jews and all; JPII wanted drama, Ratty didn't want to apologise: http://www.angelfire.com/ma/romewatch/latenew1.html

Myrrh

[ 17. September 2006, 23:29: Message edited by: Myrrh ]

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Let me go all the way with you, just for the sake of argument. Let me concede, just for the sake of argument, that the catholic church has never up to now really done "Logos" in the terms you require. And so now BXVI says this very reasonable thing. Two positions are possible.

1. God is doing a new thing

2. A leopard doesn't change its spots.

I don't mind which of those you believe. I'm a hopeful person - so I'm going for 1.

According to reports, the Pope has apologised personally for the offence caused and clarified that he does not agree with the offensive parts of the emperor's observations. So it looks as though we have the Pope meeting precisely the concerns of, for example the Muslim Council of Britain. These things also strike me as firsts. Tell you what, if that Turkish political leader withdraws his hideously OTT insults, we might have some signs of an outbreak of peace. And I don't blame the Pope for any of this. Loads of folks stropped, got out of their pram, rather than ask a simple question to test the Pope's goodwill. A lot of that has been, frankly, bloody childish and irresponsible behaviour, and some of it by leaders who ought to know better. Everything gets turned into a pissing contest these days.

But of course, if you reckon that leopards don't change their spots, none of this will strike you as significant. That's entirely up to you. I try to be a reasonable man.

I hope that is sufficiently non-vague and non-obfuscatory for you.

If you're defending B16 on the grounds that this piece shows a new way of thinking for the RCC I can't see it.

As above, he equates rational faith, as Greeks (Orthodox*)have it, with the RCC before the Reformation which doesn't compute since both are Augustine and he it was who introduced violence against heretics as doctrine, and the RCC has run with this ever since. And Augustine it was who put revelation above Christ's words whenever push came to shove, there's nothing rational about RCC doctrine - it puts revelation about itself above all reason.

So, what's new if 1? Well, I think this reference to Greek rationality, remember he's talking to fellow RC theologians, together with the quote from the Orthodox understanding of it in the words of the very Greek Orthodox emperor, could be a continuation of the recent integration of Orthodox concepts into the Catechism (Since Paul VI and the Melkites), and surely all there weren't the least bit ignorant of Rome's doctrines being exactly that of Islam in its use of violence in forced conversion and so on, so is he giving them a new direction to go in re-formulating RCC doctrine for the next generation of priests?

Perhaps, but what on the surface appears to be the RCC failing to admit its past and which some might think 'a past best forgotten as we step into the brave new world of Christ's morals', hasn't actually been left behind as those same theologians know only too well. The doctrines justifying the use of violence and murder are still in place, infallibly so, there are too many centuries of its teaching and practice to pretend otherwise. And the similarity with Islam also can't be avoided in seeing this as a tactic useful in times of weakness, keeping one's head down talking of peace and rational Christian morality as a feint, a distraction, like claiming Islam means peace - how awful those detractors who malign such good and moral teachers by denigrating their motives. But the very orthodox, rational Christ, teaches discernment - not the words, but the fruit.

And the tree bearing the fruit of Islamic doctrine is like the tree bearing the fruit of RCC doctrine, both have infallible teaching on their divine right to use violence. While we can see Islamic tactics in action now wherever they have the means or numbers to express their doctrines fully, we have no reason to believe that the RCC won't claim its divine right to control the worldly sword should it find itself in a similar position of strength in the future, or any reason to believe it isn't exercising those rights in less obvious ways now.

I would have found it significant if he'd mentioned Unam Sanctam, for example. But as it stands it's just an interesting piece to mull over in the knowledge of RCC beliefs about itself, its claim to be the universal Church and its popes the visible Christ for this.

Myrrh

(*Since Charlemagne the Latins have called the Romans in the East, the Greeks - see Unam Sanctam for RCC doctrine about the Greeks.)

Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

Perhaps, but what on the surface appears to be the RCC failing to admit its past and which some might think 'a past best forgotten as we step into the brave new world of Christ's morals', hasn't actually been left behind as those same theologians know only too well. The doctrines justifying the use of violence and murder are still in place, infallibly so, there are too many centuries of its teaching and practice to pretend otherwise. ...<snip>.
I would have found it significant if he'd mentioned Unam Sanctam, for example. But as it stands it's just an interesting piece to mull over in the knowledge of RCC beliefs about itself, its claim to be the universal Church and its popes the visible Christ for this.

Myrrh
(*Since Charlemagne the Latins have called the Romans in the East, the Greeks - see Unam Sanctam for RCC doctrine about the Greeks.)

Feel free to take these tangents to another thread Myrrh. Don't forget to point out where you found these beliefs in the Catechism of the Catholic Church when you do so.

Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:

quote:
"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." (Repentance 9:5)
and
quote:
"Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah.s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.

"find them, sieze them ... "thoroughly subdue" ... "bind a bond firmly on them" ... "when you meet the unbelievers".

Leo, please would you explain just how this relates to self defence? On the plain words it appears to be more a case of "go out and get them".

It must additionally be noted how successful Muslim self defence has been. It took them all the way from the Pyranees to the Indus.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

To Duo

I am adding one comment because I think it relevant to the OP. I am very happy with your ruling about the need for a different thread.

Myrrh

In speaking out when I thought BXVI had been unfairy judged for speaking in the way he did, I have not defended Catholicism or indeed everything the Pope believes. In different circumstances I would do precisely the same for you. I am defending a liberty. If what the Pope did is added to the list of things one cannot do for fear of provoking an angry response, the descent of silence for the sake of "peace in our time" will have taken another step forward. And the need to talk robustly and respectfully, both about cultural co-existence and about the horrors of violence (particularly when done in the name of God) will be frustrated.

Do not assume that I accept the argument of your previous post. I showed a consequence if one did accept it. This thread has been about whether the Pope was provocative, (that's the "Danish" in the OP), not whether the doctrines of the catholic church are in some way "anti-Logos". In speaking this way, I also defend my freedom to argue that I find any of them "anti-Logos" if that is the way they seem to me. Or point to a central flaw if that is the way it seems to me. And similarly the doctrines of Islam as interpreted by certain schools, and the consequential behaviour of some Muslims. And my belief that it is still possible to do these things robustly, and with respect. "If possible, in so far as it lies with me, I seek to live at peace with all men." I'm sure you recognise the ancient source for that core value, which is dear to me.

Pardon me, I mean no disrespect to you, but your less-than-perfect inferences drawn from my comments suggest to me that your stereotypes are showing. I am afraid you have pre-judged me. Got me wrong.

[ 18. September 2006, 06:33: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

hatless

Just a quick follow up to your "creative moment" comment. Have you seen this quote attributed to the Muslim Council of Britain? From this news report.

quote:
The Muslim Council of Britain said the Pope's expression of regret was "exactly the reassurance many Muslims were looking for" while the Council of Muslims in Germany said it was an "important step" towards calming the unrest of recent days.

And we also have this one.

quote:
But there have been further protests in Iran and Indonesia while influential Qatari Muslim scholar, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, called for a day of anger against the Pope on Friday.

Apparently, he's regarded as a moderate.

On the whole I'd be pleased if there is some genuine debate within Islam, even if still affected by anger, about the possibility of dialogue with this Pope. If that is rejected, it will be a real turn for the worse.

So this is a creative moment but still, clearly, on a knife edge. A matter for prayer, I reckon.

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

Perhaps, but what on the surface appears to be the RCC failing to admit its past and which some might think 'a past best forgotten as we step into the brave new world of Christ's morals', hasn't actually been left behind as those same theologians know only too well. The doctrines justifying the use of violence and murder are still in place, infallibly so, there are too many centuries of its teaching and practice to pretend otherwise. ...<snip>.
I would have found it significant if he'd mentioned Unam Sanctam, for example. But as it stands it's just an interesting piece to mull over in the knowledge of RCC beliefs about itself, its claim to be the universal Church and its popes the visible Christ for this.

Myrrh
(*Since Charlemagne the Latins have called the Romans in the East, the Greeks - see Unam Sanctam for RCC doctrine about the Greeks.)
Feel free to take these tangents to another thread Myrrh. Don't forget to point out where you found these beliefs in the Catechism of the Catholic Church when you do so.

Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host

They're not tangent to the original OP and perhaps worth a thread of its own, but I'm not interested in starting one. The CCC is an example of what has to be taken into consideration here if we're wondering what the Pope meant by this speech.

As I said, Orthodox, i.e. the 'Greek' influence has been brought into the Catechism and where it contradicts classic RCC doctrine you'll find the 'infallible teaching of centuries' not expunged, but relegated to the footnotes. The Original Sin doctrine of Augustine is not at all obvious anymore, but the CCC begins by confirming that all the councils where dogma was established such as Orange and Trent, are still counted true councils to reference true RC doctrine. Pope John Paul stated clearly that the RCC is faithful to Augustine's teaching and he continued to expound this, but the CCC has now incorporated Orthodox concepts which are incompatible with this. There are young Catholics and converts since VatII who argue that Augustine's Original Sin doctrine was never taught by the RCC! It's when they argue against Catholics who were brought up before all these changes that it becomes obvious, and hurtful.

I've read such arguments where older and elderly Catholics brought up with the sure and certain knowledge that their unbaptised children retaining the stain of Original Sin were condemned to eternal separation from God can't get to grips with the youngsters telling them this isn't RC doctrine still. But it is, the RCC hasn't jettisoned Augustine merely hidden him to make its doctrines appear more 'reasonable', for various purposes. In effect, the change is that Rome no longer bothers with doctrines as its defining motif except for one, CCC 882 and 883.

But, as this relates to his speech, I've no more to say on it than I've already done - that B16 continues in this 'deception' by associating itself, pre-Reformation, with Orthodox thinking, Manuel II, and in this denies its Augustine heritage of unreason which began the doctrines justifying violence in the interests of 'the Christian Church'.

As I said, this was mentioned by one Muslim interviewed and isn't lost on other Muslim scholars who know RCC history as well as their own. So, if some argue B16's motive as greater openess in discussing the idea that violence in promoting God contradicts God there's nothing in the speech that indicates it since it excludes RCC history and doctrine.

Is all I'm saying here. [Disappointed]

Myrrh

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

It might help if you did what you were told before all the waffle, myrhh - or don't you think that Host's words apply to you?

C

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

It is worth pointing out that there is not a 'Catholic view' on every issue. Many (most?) questions are open. On other things the Church has teaching, of varying levels of authority. The Church has certainly never taught de fide that the unbaptised go to 'Limbo'.

[ETA : in reply to M.]

[ 18. September 2006, 09:07: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
It is worth pointing out that there is not a 'Catholic view' on every issue. Many (most?) questions are open. On other things the Church has teaching, of varying levels of authority. The Church has certainly never taught de fide that the unbaptised go to 'Limbo'.

[ETA : in reply to M.]

You've just proved my point.

Myrrh

Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:

quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
It is worth pointing out that there is not a 'Catholic view' on every issue. Many (most?) questions are open. On other things the Church has teaching, of varying levels of authority. The Church has certainly never taught de fide that the unbaptised go to 'Limbo'.

[ETA : in reply to M.]
You've just proved my point.

Myrrh

HOSTING

Myrrh - I can assure you that any Host's words most definitely apply to you.

I have already told you to take these tangents about general Catholic beliefs to another thread. In reply you have simply introduced yet another tangent about Orthodox teaching in Catholic belief and teachings of the Catholic Church. Stick to the point and stop derailing this thread.

This position is completely consistent with the position we have taken earlier with respect to the attempts by andreas1984 to turn this thread into yet another thread about Orthodoxy.

And if you want to discuss any Host's ruling then the place to do so is in the Styx, not on the thread.

Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host

[ 18. September 2006, 09:39: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]

Posted by Luke (# 306) on :

Jumping right back to the OP:

It’s ironic that Pope Benedict implies in his speech that Islam promotes violence and the Muslim response (predictably) includes violence. As time goes by I imagine conservative commentators will have to spend less and less time combating the notion Islam is a religion of peace because Muslim actions such as bombings, wars and suicide attacks will be evidence enough.

[rant] While it is easy to poke fun at the lack of Islamic tolerance (Muhammad Cartoons Controversy) my real worry is for the Christians who have to live under the yoke of Islamic authority. Christians in Muslim majority countries face persecution and sometimes death for being Christians. I hope and pray that one day all muslims including the terrorists will renounce Islam and become Christians! [/rant]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

quote:

quote:
"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." (Repentance 9:5)
and
quote:
"Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah.s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.
"find them, sieze them ... "thoroughly subdue" ... "bind a bond firmly on them" ... "when you meet the unbelievers".

Leo, please would you explain just how this relates to self defence? On the plain words it appears to be more a case of "go out and get them".

It must additionally be noted how successful Muslim self defence has been. It took them all the way from the Pyranees to the Indus.

To repeat what I posted - from Penguin Classic version of the Qur'an: p. 343 where Muslims are bidden to ‘fight against those who fight you’ – i.e. self-defence. Then on p. 346 self-defence is the only reason given for fighting – this time the context is unbelievers fighting Muslims with the intention of trying to make them give up Islam.

The Repentance sura is a continuation of the same context.

Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
To repeat what I posted - from Penguin Classic version of the Qur'an: p. 343 where Muslims are bidden to ‘fight against those who fight you’ – i.e. self-defence. Then on p. 346 self-defence is the only reason given for fighting – this time the context is unbelievers fighting Muslims with the intention of trying to make them give up Islam.

The Repentance sura is a continuation of the same context.

The trouble with arguing with you, Leo, on this subject is that you seem to be insisting that there is only one Islamic teaching on violence - or at least only one that can claim to be correct. Certainly it is true that many Muslim scholars claim that jihad is essentially defensive. Many have argued both in the past and present, that Jihad is both defensive and offensive. In fact some very influential Islamist thinkers - I have in mind Mawdudi and Qutb - have an exceedingly belligerent view.

I hope the self-defensive and spiritual view of jihad eventually wins the day. But this is by no means a foregone conclusion because it requires either, a retreat from literalism and a rejection of violent episodes in Islam's past (much as Christians have widely done); or alternatively an extraordinarily selective reading of the Koran and a fantastically revisionist view of history.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I think I would feel more reassured about those intepretations were there balancing passages - the bible has it's fair share of bloodthirsty accounts, and warlike language. However, there are also extraordinary injunctions towards peacefull living.

I listened to this service this morning.

The following example was given by a muslim as an example of Islamic teaching on peace;

quote:
The prophet Muhammed, peace be upon him, was told in a dream to perform what is called the lesser pilgrimage..... Stopping at a place called Hudaybiya he encountered members of the tribe of the Quraysh who did not want to give him access to Mecca. Potential conflict.... was averted by the Prophet's dialogue with the representatives of the Quraysh, and the treaty which emerged from these conversations, the terms of which allowed him to make a pilgrimage to Mecca the following year without risk of attack, the Quraysh agreeing to clear the city of its inhabitants for three days. It also stipulated that there would be no fighting between Muslims and the Quraysh for ten years.... This would avoid bloodshed and lead to a lasting peace, the kind of peace which injunction after injunction in the Qu'ran calls Muslims to promote.

It struck me as a rather anaemic example of committment to peace. Mohammed decides not to slaughter a group of people who are uneasy about allowing him and his followers onto their land. (I understand he later subdued them by force of arms, in any case.).

Are there better examples anywhere in the Quran or the Hadiths?

Posted by RCD (# 11440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Maybe I underestimate just how much background in ideas you need to have to understand his address? It really didn't strike me as at all hard.
Barnabas. Firstly no offence taken. Secondly, yes I think you're right: I think that we (fairly well educated and well read Christians) are actually capable of understanding Benedict's speech without a great deal of difficulty. However, I think that if you gave that speech to your average british secular broadsheet journalist they wouldn't understand it. Now make the leap to a poorly educated, angry Muslim teenager and what to do get? Sadly it seems that you get septigenarian Nuns being murdered in the street.

In my personal opinion, the text itself has not been read at all because everyone happens to read the newpaper for information. I asked one of my friends about the issue and he told me:

"The Pope called the prophet Mohammad salla allahu aleyhi wasalaam an evil man and said President Bush and the Jews were correct in fighting Muslims"

which of course, he must have got from reading the learned articles in the Arabic daily. The English dailies have been a little more moderate, though some have spared no effort to point out the horrible savagery of Christians through the centuries compared with the pure, untainted (and peaceful) message of Islam.

Again, only my opinion, but the really sad thing is that it seems to have reached the point where practically every Muslim majority country leader was compelled to criticize the Pope because everyone else was doing it; in order not to be seen as less than enthusiastic Muslims.

[ 18. September 2006, 16:10: Message edited by: RCD ]

Posted by The Lady of the Lake (# 4347) on :

The Pope's full address is fascinating, and Muslims have little excuse for protesting against it because upon reading it as a whole it becomes fairly damn obvious that it's not really about Islam, but about the place of reason and philosophy in Christian, here specifically Roman Catholic, theology.

On p. 2 of the address, Benedict XVI says:

'The emperor must have known that sura 2: 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion." It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under [threat]. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorder in the Koran, concerning holy war.'

So what he is exposing here, the only part of his address where he mentions Islam (and he mentions it rather than discussing it in detail), is the problem of internal contradiction within a religion. Or in different terms, he is posing the question of whether or not God operates above morality.

It looks like he is using the example of the discussion of the Koran by the Byzantine emperor as a foil for his own vision of how Roman Catholic theology should operate.
In this respect it's not that dissimilar formally to how Karl Barth used occasional and very brief references to Islam as anti-trinitarian and Mohammed as a warmonger as a foil for his own vision of modern reformed protestant theology in an internal battle against liberalism in the German Church struggle. (Apart from that there are lots of significant differences between Barth's treatment of the German Christians and Islam, and Benedict XIV's address).

I don't think it's reasonable to accuse the Pope of 'sophistry' given that he was giving a lecture at a university. Bending over backwards to assuage Muslim sensibilities here would leave the door open to attacking all critical study of theology and religion, which very much lie at the heart of the western university system from the medieval period onwards. The Pope should never therefore issue the kind of apology that many Muslims are still looking for.

I'll also stick my neck out and say just how fed up to the back teeth I am with so-called 'global Muslim outrage' every time someone makes a slightly less than flattering statement about Islam. It's obviously emotional manipulation on a grand scale. [Mad]

[ 18. September 2006, 16:32: Message edited by: The Lady of the Lake ]

Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :

Barnabas62's post referencing pronouncements of a London and a German Islamic council regarding the Pope's apology are curious. It struck me that we haven't heard such concerted Muslim pronouncements heretofore when there has been plenty of Muslim violence that could be condemned.

Posted by The Lady of the Lake (# 4347) on :

Yes that's right. On reflection it is rather curious that so many of the Muslim protests about the Crusades are obsessed about historical events from centuries ago that simply can't be undone. Living in the past is not a good sign for any sort of community. [Disappointed]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Barnabas62's post referencing pronouncements of a London and a German Islamic council regarding the Pope's apology are curious. It struck me that we haven't heard such concerted Muslim pronouncements heretofore when there has been plenty of Muslim violence that could be condemned.

"We" have heard such things befiore, for a different version of "we". Maybe the US TV news is differently selective than the British.

Posted by Matins (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Jumping right back to the OP:

It’s ironic that Pope Benedict implies in his speech that Islam promotes violence and the Muslim response (predictably) includes violence. As time goes by I imagine conservative commentators will have to spend less and less time combating the notion Islam is a religion of peace because Muslim actions such as bombings, wars and suicide attacks will be evidence enough.

[rant] While it is easy to poke fun at the lack of Islamic tolerance (Muhammad Cartoons Controversy) my real worry is for the Christians who have to live under the yoke of Islamic authority. Christians in Muslim majority countries face persecution and sometimes death for being Christians. I hope and pray that one day all muslims including the terrorists will renounce Islam and become Christians! [/rant]

or Taoists

[fixed quote UBB]

[ 19. September 2006, 01:33: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]

Posted by centurion (# 11759) on :

With Chinese whispers like the following:

quote:

In my personal opinion, the text itself has not been read at all because everyone happens to read the newpaper for information. I asked one of my friends about the issue and he told me:

"The Pope called the prophet Mohammad salla allahu aleyhi wasalaam an evil man and said President Bush and the Jews were correct in fighting Muslims"

No wonder Muslims were burning effigy's of the Pope!

Thanks
Centurion

[ 18. September 2006, 18:55: Message edited by: centurion ]

Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :

I think a lot of the problem is that some Muslim leaders are not so much malicious as plain stupid.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Warm Regards,

Feroze H. Mithiborwala (Social Activist)
Syed Iftikhar Ahmed (Editor, Weekly Shodhan, Mumbai)
Sarfaraz Arzu (Editor, Daily Hindustan, Mumbai)
Meraj Siddiqui (Social Activist)
Hanif Lakdawala (Academic)
Muhammad Anis (Social Activist)

Hardly muslim leaders. If they're muslim leaders, let's hear Melanie Phillips' insight.

Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Warm Regards,

Feroze H. Mithiborwala (Social Activist)
Syed Iftikhar Ahmed (Editor, Weekly Shodhan, Mumbai)
Sarfaraz Arzu (Editor, Daily Hindustan, Mumbai)
Meraj Siddiqui (Social Activist)
Hanif Lakdawala (Academic)
Muhammad Anis (Social Activist)
Hardly muslim leaders. If they're muslim leaders, let's hear Melanie Phillips' insight.

Whatever. They are still thick.

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
the Muslim response (

So, in spite of there being millions of Muslims worldwide, we are to believe there is only one 'Muslim response''?

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It struck me as a rather anaemic example of committment to peace. Mohammed decides not to slaughter a group of people who are uneasy about allowing him and his followers onto their land. (I understand he later subdued them by force of arms, in any case.).

Didn't last very long according to this page, four years.

quote:
· Treaty of Hudaibiya (626 AD) was signed with the pagans of Mecca ensuring ten years of peace. Mohammad was allowed to visit Kaba along with his followers during the pilgrimage season.

......

Phase 4: Offensive war or open declaration of attack to spread Islam
This phase is the stage of open offensive war against all the unbelievers. This phase started in 630 AD after Mohammad re-entered Mecca and captured Kaba from the pagans.

http://tellthechildrenthetruth.com/blog/2006/03/13/the-two-faces-of-the-quran/

Myrrh

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :

That looks like a fine unbiased source, Myrrh.

No, wait. It doesn't.

T.

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

Why do I suspect that a website with the URL 'tellthechildrenthetruth.com' might not be the most balanced source of information?

Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:

quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
the Muslim response (
So, in spite of there being millions of Muslims worldwide, we are to believe there is only one 'Muslim response''?

There doesn't seem to be a lot of variety in the response, except in the level of violence. Have you heard one prominent Muslim say "Well, if you actually read the whole of th Pope's lecture, you will see that there is nothing to get upset about", or "Who gives a shit what the Pope thinks, anyway?". Come to think of it, I haven't heard a prominent Muslim condemn any of the recent violence or obnoxious threats made by other Muslims. But that is usual.

[ 18. September 2006, 22:02: Message edited by: Fiddleback ]

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

Most Muslims I know are too busy working, bringing up children and otherwise getting on with tediously normal lives to comment on, or possibly even have an opinion on, current affairs.

How would you feel if large numbers of people were criticising 'Christians' in general for not being vociferous enough in their criticism of, say, Fred Phelps?

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Why do I suspect that a website with the URL 'tellthechildrenthetruth.com' might not be the most balanced source of information?

Then do your own research. And while you're doing it see if you can find teaching from Islam that stress equality of all regardless of beliefs.

The page I quoted from is the classic explanation of how to read the Koran, in chronological order not in the mixed order it appears and with the understanding that later verses overrule previous ones. Mohammed built up his doctrines on the fly, in response to the situations as he dealt with the problems which arose.

The above is a good example. And from this time Mohammed went on the offensive and this is still the current position.

quote:
Phase 4: Offensive war or open declaration of attack to spread Islam

This phase is the stage of open offensive war against all the unbelievers. This phase started in 630 AD after Mohammad re-entered Mecca and captured Kaba from the pagans. This is the phase, which is currently valid for all Muslims.

Highlights

· Permission was granted by God to declare offensive war against all non-Muslims.

· Kill the pagans and humble the Jews and the Christians through Jizya tax.

· Tabuk expedition (late 630 AD) is the first war against the Christians.

· The world is divided into two houses, viz. House of Islam (Darul Islam) and the House of war (Darul Harb).

· All Muslims must fight to convert the Darul Harb into Darul Islam.

· This is the final teaching of Qur’an and so it is valid today and for future (that is, for eternity).

· Christians are included in the list of enemies (that is, the list now grows to four).

· Verse 9:5 (also called the verse of the sword) replaces all verses showing mercy, love, tolerance and forgiveness to all non-Muslims.

Myrrh

[ 18. September 2006, 22:09: Message edited by: Myrrh ]

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Then do your own research.

Will I buggery. You're the one trying to prove a case. And until you do so by reference to websites which do not scream 'far Right screed' I am not even going to take you seriously enough to get annoyed at you.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

The old chestnut that there's plenty of violence in the Bible as well and that Christian history is full of violence holds no water in my view. Though both are true we must remember that Christians follow a founder who told his followers to turn the other cheek and who meekly gave his life as a ransom for many. If his followers have brutally treated others, they have done so against the teachings of the Lord.

Islam is different. Its founder was a violent warlord. The faith was spread about at the point of a sword with numerous forced conversions. Its whole ethos is to destroy the infidel who can't be conveted. Its true that Christians have done the same, but that isn't the message of Christianity which teaches love and forgiveness. So the two cultures are not equal in their espousal of violence.

I heard a Muslim protester outside Westminster Cathedral on the news. He said that anyone who insults the prophet or Islam can expect a death sentence. Apart from the fact that this man should have been arrested under the new religious hatred laws, he had the temerity to spout this vile shit on the streets of my City. Even though it goes against what Jesus said, if these people want a fight we are going to have to give them one.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
Come to think of it, I haven't heard a prominent Muslim condemn any of the recent violence or obnoxious threats made by other Muslims. But that is usual.

I haven't heard a prominent Muslim do so, but I've read two or three of the people that the Guardian considers prominent Muslims do just that.
(And so has Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, of course.)

Dafyd

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Apart from the fact that this man should have been arrested under the new religious hatred laws

Incitement to murder was a criminal offence for some time before Mr Blair's latest incursion on our historic liberties.

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
And while you're doing it see if you can find teaching from Islam that stress equality of all regardless of beliefs.

Can you find me a Christian text of that specific nature, to compare any Islamic one I find with?

T.

Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
]Can you find me a Christian text of that specific nature, to compare any Islamic one I find with?

No, but I might crash an aeroplane into your house because of your sig.

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:

quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Can you find me a Christian text of that specific nature, to compare any Islamic one I find with?

No, but I might crash an aeroplane into your house because of your sig.

Fiddleback, I went around the houses with coiled spring over my sig not so long ago. Leave it out. Please.

T.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RCD:

Again, only my opinion, but the really sad thing is that it seems to have reached the point where practically every Muslim majority country leader was compelled to criticize the Pope because everyone else was doing it; in order not to be seen as less than enthusiastic Muslims.

You voice a concern of mine. Extremist suicide bombers have a frightening power - so do mobs. It may require more courage than we allow for to swim against this particular tide. Particularly if you are a Muslim. BTW did you notice IngoB's post a couple of pages back? Here's the link.

It is wrong to underestimate the risks a Muslim may incur as a result of voicing an opinion like that. There are many people in the world now who are not in the least interested in peaceful co-existence. Here's another quote from the IngoB link.

quote:
Why is it that Muslims, especially the so-called moderates, never stand up with similar and as much enthusiasm against the true and perpetual profaners of Islam, the Islamic terrorists who massacre Muslims themselves in the name of the same God , the Islamic extremists who legitimize the destruction of Israel and inculcate faith in the so-called Islamic “martyrdom”, while in the meantime they feel themselves dutybound to promote a sort of Islamic “holy war” against the head of the Catholic Church who legitimately expresses his evaluations concerning Islam, with respect but with just as much clarity about the diversity that naturally exists between the two religions?
<emboldening by B62>

Why indeed? Well, you don't have to be that smart to figure out an answer or two to that originally rhetorical question.

Posted by Luke (# 306) on :

quote:
How would you feel if large numbers of people were criticising 'Christians' in general for not being vociferous enough in their criticism of, say, Fred Phelps?

But that's just it, if Christians are criticised they will argue with words, instead of burning effigies, fire bombing buildings or issuing fatwas. Fred Phelps and his small gang of cronies hardly represents even a minority view of Christianity. By contrast there seem to be plenty of Muslims who are happy with the violent responses of other Muslims to direct or indirect criticisms of Islam. Where are the Muslim leaders from Tehran , Cairo and Mecca calling for restraint and dialogue with Christianity and condemning any violent response?

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by myself:
I heard a Muslim protester outside Westminster Cathedral on the news. He said that anyone who insults the prophet or Islam can expect a death sentence.

To briefly expand on this point: The man said that he was making a peaceful protest but that there may be other Muslims who would take it much further. To me this is tantamount to saying that the Pope is under a fatwa. The Vatican switchboard has received numerous death threats to the Pope since this story broke. The amount of taxpayers money which went into protecting Salman Rushdie from a fatwa would be a pittance compared to protecting the Pope.

The Pope is well protected, the more so after the shooting of his predecessor, but an organisation determined enough to carry it out could be hard to stop. It would be sensible for him to shelve his planned trip to Turkey.

[code]

[ 19. September 2006, 01:04: Message edited by: John Holding ]

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
And while you're doing it see if you can find teaching from Islam that stress equality of all regardless of beliefs.
Can you find me a Christian text of that specific nature, to compare any Islamic one I find with?

T.

All of Christ's teaching is to become perfect as God is perfect, to love all regardless of who or what they are or if they are friends or enemies.

And that didn't change over time as did Mohammed's teaching. Christ, Father forgive them for they know not what they do, while Mohammed finished up with four enemies on his list because his ego got hurt in the process of putting himself forward as special.

Which began at Medina when he got a band of fellow brigands together and started attacking caravans. He turned into a thief and thug and only nice to those who agreed with him, yer typically bully on a winning streak.

Myrrh

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

I respect a certain amount of circumspection and skepticism with respect to one's own heritage, rather than swallowing it whole. But ultimately one must stand for something. What might begin as sensitivity and perceptiveness can end as rudderlessness. One risks digging one's own grave and those of many others as well.

If the condescending attitude to the pope and his statement implicit in the "liberal" western media I follow is typical, then I must, however reluctantly, take another look at neo-conservatism, perhaps as articulated by Douglas Murray. It's scary when he's the only type who can "look at the world through classically liberal eyes, but wear good glasses. A neocon is a realist with morals, or a moralist with good eyesight."

Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:

quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
]Can you find me a Christian text of that specific nature, to compare any Islamic one I find with?

No, but I might crash an aeroplane into your house because of your sig.

Take that to Hell Fiddleback. Getting rather vilely personal aren't we?

Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Now make the leap to a poorly educated, angry Muslim teenager and what to do get? Sadly it seems that you get septigenarian Nuns being murdered in the street.

This is pure crap! The pope is in no way whatever responsible for some evil Muslim fuckwit shooting that Italian nun in Somalia in the back. If you must seek guilt other than in precisely that evil Muslim fuckwit, then seek it in the Western media (BBC front and center) which has nothing better to do than to reduce the pope's fine speech into offensive soundbites and push those soundbites across the globe. Or seek it in the religious and political "leaders" of the Muslim world who spoonfeed hate-filled drivel to their uneducated poor. Or seek it in those uneducated poor, who let themselves be manipulated with ridiculous ease into violent riots. But to restrict one's thoughts and speech in order to avoid the reaction of the "axis of evil stupidity" (Western main stream media - radical Muslim "leaders" - gullible Muslim rioters) simply means that they have won. The pope by virtue of his office has to exercise a certain prudence, but if he can't say anymore what he said in an university setting, then the end of our Western civilization truly is near. Maybe it is time to stand up and fight the powers and principalities...

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The Pope is well protected, the more so after the shooting of his predecessor, but an organisation determined enough to carry it out could be hard to stop. It would be sensible for him to shelve his planned trip to Turkey.

I don't know about that one. Turkey is the exemplary case of a "modern Muslim democracy", it's very important for Europe and the European RCC to get Turkey right. And Turkey is in a unique situation since they do wish so much to join the EU, i.e., they can be pressured. Finally, Turkey is a former heartland of Christianity and while it would be mostly on behalf of Orthodox rather than RC communities, there's still considerable duty of care for the Christian heritage and remaining Christian population. I would not be surprised if Benedict XVI risked the somewhat increased chance of martyrdom and visited anyway...

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

Adding to my post, it appears the pope is on for Turkey:

quote:
Asia News:
And this morning, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Turkey, as planned, met in Istanbul to discuss details of the trip’s itinerary. They were joined by Mgr Piero Marini, head of the Office of Papal Liturgical Celebrations. They share the view that at this point, there is no reason to call off the visit and in fact, after reading together the statement of clarification by the Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the bishops turned their attention to details of the trip set to take place as scheduled from 28 November to 1 December.

He has my prayers for a safe trip. [Votive]

Asia News also carries a reasonable comment by the former Iranian President Khatami:

quote:
Asia News:
Former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami said the full text of the Pope speech in Regensburg should be read before making any comments on its contents.

“I hope that the reports in this regard are misinterpreted as such remarks [as reported in the press] are usually made by uninformed and fanatic people but my impression of the pope was rather an educated and patient man,” Khatami said after his return to Tehran from a two-week visit to the United States.

Here's an excellent interview with Cardinal Walter Kasper, the Catholic Church's ecumenical representative:

quote:
Der Spiegel:
SPIEGEL: Do you think a dialogue on equal footing is possible?

Kasper: One cannot be naïve when engaging in this dialogue. Islam undoubtedly deserves respect. It has some things in common with Christianity, such as Abraham as a common progenitor, and the belief in only one God. But Islam developed in opposition to orthodox Christianity from the very start, and it considers itself superior to Christianity. So far, it has only been tolerant in places where it is in the minority. Where it is the majority religion, Islam does not recognize religious freedom, at least not as we understand it. Islam is a different culture. This doesn't mean that it's an inferior culture, but it is a culture that has yet to connect with the positive sides of our modern Western culture: religious freedom, human rights and equal rights for women. These shortcomings are one reason so many Muslims feel such frustration that often turns into hatred and violence against the West, which is despised as being godless and decadent. Suicide attacks are the actions of losers who have nothing left to lose. In this case, Islam serves as a mask, a cover for desperation and nihilism, but not for religion.

Is it just me, or has Cardinal Kasper been talking more and more sense as of late? As a reminder here's the pope 2005 speech to the Muslims in Cologne:

quote:
Vatican:
Past experience teaches us that, unfortunately, relations between Christians and Muslims have not always been marked by mutual respect and understanding. How many pages of history record battles and wars that have been waged, with both sides invoking the Name of God, as if fighting and killing, the enemy could be pleasing to him. The recollection of these sad events should fill us with shame, for we know only too well what atrocities have been committed in the name of religion.

The lessons of the past must help us to avoid repeating the same mistakes. We must seek paths of reconciliation and learn to live with respect for each other's identity. The defence of religious freedom, in this sense, is a permanent imperative, and respect for minorities is a clear sign of true civilization.

And finally, somebody else has expressed some of my own vague thoughts about "why this quote" more clearly:

quote:
Christopher Orlet:
At the time of his reign (1391-1425) the Muslim Turks had their sights set on the empire's capital of Constantinople. In 1399, Manuel traveled to England, France, the seat of the Holy Roman Empire, and Aragon seeking assistance from the various monarchs and courts. His visit was a complete bust. The split between the Greek Orthodox and Roman churches proved too wide. Unless the Greeks agreed to join the Roman Church there would be no troops, no assistance, and the Greeks were not about to surrender their autonomy to Rome, not even to save the empire, their religion and their lives.

The result: Within a few years the Turks would take Constantinople, rename it Istanbul, and the Roman-Byzantine Empire would disappear forever from the earth. (In an ironic aside, Manuel's son Constantine, the last Byzantine-Roman emperor, was killed in battle defending the capital. Legend has it that he discarded his purple cloak and charged into the fray taking so many cuts and blows that his corpse was unrecognizable. Thus, the last Roman emperor was laid to rest in a mass grave.)

I suspect that the Pope was hoping to make the point that unless the West comes together, heals its divisions, and faces the threat of radical Islam together, it may face a similar fate as the Roman-Byzantine Empire. Naturally Benedict couldn't come right and make such a bald statement -- just as Benedict's predecessor Pope Pius XII had to be similarly circumspect during Nazi rule -- so he couched his remark in an obscure reference by a forgotten historical figure. The pope knew that he would have to apologize later for his statement, still he believed it important enough to risk it.

That is still for me the million dollar question - was the quote on purpose, or an absent minded gaffe of an elderly academic who is not used to world attention? It's much more interesting if it was on purpose.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

<snip>
That is still for me the million dollar question - was the quote on purpose, or an absent minded gaffe of an elderly academic who is not used to world attention? It's much more interesting if it was on purpose.

And also more morally ambiguous, IngoB. If I give you an analogy from scripture, when Jesus overturned the tables in the temple, it was undoubtedly a righteous act but it was one which he knew would lead to violence and retribution. Which fell on him.

In this world, some Muslims, when provoked do indeed visit violence on any related target. These are acts of great evil. They are foreseeable. So an act which provokes may put at risk the innocent. So the dilemma is, how does one engage the Muslim community in recognising the wrongness of these irrational and vicious explosions? Is the fear of provocation and its consequences such that in order to be prudent one must always be bland in public? In principle, my gorge rises at this sort of silencing.

What has happened, I believe, is that this basically nonsensical reaction to a quotation from a medieval text has demonstrated with great power and force a deep malaise within present day Islam. What I also believe is that if the Pope was to draft the speech to Regensberg today, he would probably include the phrase. "Of course these views do not represent my own personal opinion and my reason for quoting from this text is ......". Without any loss of force of argument. There would have been nothing like this reaction, I believe, (though I'm pretty sure there would have been some.)

I think hatless is right in believing we have a creative moment here. I've been praying for some positive responses from within Islam. The quote from Mohammad Khatami is very helpful. And, as I said earlier, those who express more moderate opinions within Islam also run significant risks these days.

If i can characterise it this way, I still believe that robust and constructive dialogue is possible and better than a despairing out-and-out confrontation. This brouhaha may have increase the possibility of both, but we should go for dialogue. Not as an act of appeasement but because, hopefully, there is now some mutual recognition about how dangerously out-of-control things have got.

One of my favourite commentators from the radical wing of evangelicalism is Jim Wallis. He characterises politicians as folks whose behaviour is far too often characterised by them licking their fingers, sticking them in the air, and test which way the wind is blowing. So they can follow it.

He contrasts such behaviour with people who make a difference (Tutu, Mandela, Ghandi, King, Theresa of Calcutta, JPII), who he describes as "wind-changers". I very much like a great deal of what I have seen and read from this Pope since he took on this office. I believe, and am hoping, that BXVI is a "wind-changer". I think God is very much in this moment. Turkey looks like being an excellent test of the possibility of new beginnings.

Posted by David Gould (# 11701) on :

From today's Telegraph

'It emerged yesterday that Scotland Yard has launched an inquiry into complaints about offensive protests by Muslim extremists outside Westminster Cathedral on Sunday. A well-known extremist, who was accompanied by scores of demonstrators from a group called Muslims of the UK, was reported to have called for the Pope to be "executed".'

When is the Government going to do something about these people.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
The result: Within a few years the Turks would take Constantinople, rename it Istanbul, and the Roman-Byzantine Empire would disappear forever from the earth.

Possible quibble: It appears from Wikipedia that "Constantinople" was the official name of the city until 1930. One critic on Amazon impugned the scholarship of Anne Rice in her having 18th-century Venetians call it Istanbul in her novel Cry to Heaven. However, the etymology of the word is contentious: is it a translation of "Constantinople" or does it have a different origin?

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

Casting my mind back to the Danish Cartoons affair, I remember Ken blaming the disturbances on an internal power struggle within Muslim elements. "Willy waving" between leaders, as I recall.

I would be interested to know if he thinks the same thing is happening again.

Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:
The result: Within a few years the Turks would take Constantinople, rename it Istanbul, and the Roman-Byzantine Empire would disappear forever from the earth.
Possible quibble: It appears from Wikipedia that "Constantinople" was the official name of the city until 1930. One critic on Amazon impugned the scholarship of Anne Rice in her having 18th-century Venetians call it Istanbul in her novel Cry to Heaven. However, the etymology of the word is contentious: is it a translation of "Constantinople" or does it have a different origin?

'Eis ten Polin' (Down Town) was the colloquial Byzantine name for their city. The Ottomans, who in just about every way stepped into the Byzantines' shoes, just carried on calling it that. They did not rename the city.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by David Gould:
From today's Telegraph

'It emerged yesterday that Scotland Yard has launched an inquiry into complaints about offensive protests by Muslim extremists outside Westminster Cathedral on Sunday. A well-known extremist, who was accompanied by scores of demonstrators from a group called Muslims of the UK, was reported to have called for the Pope to be "executed".'

When is the Government going to do something about these people.

Presumably after the results of the inquiry, and according to the law of the land. What do you suggest as alternative?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
To repeat what I posted - from Penguin Classic version of the Qur'an: p. 343 where Muslims are bidden to ‘fight against those who fight you’ – i.e. self-defence. Then on p. 346 self-defence is the only reason given for fighting – this time the context is unbelievers fighting Muslims with the intention of trying to make them give up Islam.

The Repentance sura is a continuation of the same context.
The trouble with arguing with you, Leo, on this subject is that you seem to be insisting that there is only one Islamic teaching on violence - or at least only one that can claim to be correct. Certainly it is true that many Muslim scholars claim that jihad is essentially defensive. Many have argued both in the past and present, that Jihad is both defensive and offensive. In fact some very influential Islamist thinkers - I have in mind Mawdudi and Qutb - have an exceedingly belligerent view.

I hope the self-defensive and spiritual view of jihad eventually wins the day. But this is by no means a foregone conclusion because it requires either, a retreat from literalism and a rejection of violent episodes in Islam's past (much as Christians have widely done); or alternatively an extraordinarily selective reading of the Koran and a fantastically revisionist view of history.

Scholars are now divided because the break up of the Ottoman Empire plus corrupt governments porppoed up by the USA has meant there is no one voice of leadership. Those governments magnify the voices of the scholars who are often belligerent.

However, it is possible to appeal to what protestant Christians call 'the plain meaning of the text.'

It is also possible to talk of 'mainstream Islam' as it is possible to talk of 'Orthodox Christianity'.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Scholars are now divided because the break up of the Ottoman Empire plus corrupt governments porppoed up by the USA has meant there is no one voice of leadership.

Nonsense. Muslim scholars have been divided since the day the Prophet died and his father-in-law and son-in-law squabbled over the corpse.

OK, the Caliphate if not actually the corpse, and it was apparently 9 months later. But that was the argument that led to the murders of Ali and Hussayn and Hassan and the rise of the Shia and started arguments that have led to the murders of hundreds of people in the last few weeks.

But there are just as many flavours and sects of Islam as there are of Christianity, and they are just as diverse, and they disagree all the time, though some of them are politer about it than others.

Its just absurd to blame it on the Ottomans or the Americans.

[ 19. September 2006, 17:15: Message edited by: ken ]

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

However, it is possible to appeal to what protestant Christians call 'the plain meaning of the text.'

It is also possible to talk of 'mainstream Islam' as it is possible to talk of 'Orthodox Christianity'.

The plain meaning of the text is as it has been in fourteen centuries of teaching and practice since Mohammed conceived it over time, as the Cairo statement confirms.

quote:
Jihad and Human Rights Today
An active ideology incompatible with universal standards of freedom and equality.By Bat Ye’or Jihad ideology separates humanity into two hostile blocs: the community of Muslims (Dar ul-Islam), and the infidel non-Muslims (Dar ul-Harb). Allah commands the Muslims to conquer the entire world in order to rule it according to Koranic law. Hence Muslims must wage a perpetual war against those infidels who refuse to submit. This is the motivation for jihad. It is based on the inequality between the community of Allah and the infidels, as was re-emphasized in the Cairo Declaration. The first is a superior group, which must rule the world; the second must submit. The current relevance of this ideology is apparent, and disturbing.

[For example, Al-Muhajiroun, an Islamist newspaper in London, published an article on January 27, 2001, which declared: ...]

Such an attitude assumes that the infidels have no rights and are totally dehumanized. It breeds hatred and contempt and has led to historical negationism, and the destruction of non-Muslim cultures. Moreover, such views are not confined to the most radical Islamists. They were confirmed in the Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the Academy of Islamic Research, held in 1968 (General Organization for Government Printing Offices, Cairo, 1968), and regularly since then by eminent Islamic scholars. These authoritative pronouncements have recapitulated the theory of jihad in a manner completely consistent with the Al-Muhajiroun statements. Link Here

Myrrh

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :

Understanding how to read the Koran in mainstream Islam:

quote:
A Critical Analysis of ‘Real Islam’. Its People, Culture, Philosophy, and Practices Yesterday and Today. by: Vernon Richards
The revered work "al-Nasikh wal-Mansukh" (The Abrogator and the Abrogated) deals in great detail with many subject matters addressed in the Qur’an wherein there appears to be some conflict or contradiction. The book goes through every sura (chapter), pointing out in full detail every verse which has been canceled, and the verse(s) which replace it. The author notes that out of 114 suras, there are only 43 which were not affected by this concept. As an example of the scope of abrogation in the Qur’an: there are 125 versus that call for tolerance and patience which have been canceled and replaced by sura 9:5: "Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)....." and sura 5:33: "For those who do not submit to Allah their punishment is . . . execution or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet, from the opposite sides, or exile from the land".

[See: Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi, An-Nasikh wal- Mansukh, Dar al-Kotob al-'Elmeyah, birute, 1986 p.27]

Muslim activists universally fail to reveal to Westerners this major doctrine, hiding the fact that earlier conciliatory passages have been rendered null and void for over 1300 years. When Westerners discover it on their own they complain we misinterpret such writings or misapply their impact. Muslim promoters prefer to polish Islam's image by quoting the earlier abrogated Meccan passages that call for patience and forbearance. Spokespersons hide or omit Medinan passages that clearly call for killing and maiming. When hearing people explain Islam claiming the earlier more peaceful verses are dominant in Islamic philosophy, one must judge between two options; Either the presenter is completely ignorant of genuine Islamic doctrine, or he is practicing officially sanctioned Islamic deceit. The Doctrine of Abrogation

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
But there have been further protests in Iran and Indonesia while influential Qatari Muslim scholar, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, called for a day of anger against the Pope on Friday.

First a few Danish cartoonists, next Benedict XVI. Once again they let someone in the West determine how they're going to spend a day of their lives. The Pope is indeed a powerful man, huh.

This could be an interesting game. Infantile, perhaps, but useful. Maybe we should keep playing until we've worn them out.

How long before they get tired of being so suggestible and hopping to western tunes?

Does the Koran contain a story anything like the boy who cried wolf?

What if they gave a "day of anger" and nobody came?

Posted by The Lady of the Lake (# 4347) on :

Yes Alogon, you're right. It's infantile behaviour. I was thinking about it a little yesterday actually, because some relatives of mine have a friend who is researching how Anti-Social Personality Disorder develops in a small (usually male) child, usually through bad upbringing and giving into the whimsies of a naturally strong-willed personality. Threatening a 'day of anger' and throwing a contriived tantrum displays the emotional maturity of a six-year old. [Projectile]

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
What if they gave a "day of anger" and nobody came?

Then it would be like the mass student protest against Israel in the city a couple of months ago. It got called off when, 25 minutes after they were supposed to march to Parliament House, there were still only 20 people there.

Posted by RCD (# 11440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
[qb] [QUOTE]What if they gave a "day of anger" and nobody came?

Give them a little credit- they aren't that dumb. They have it on Friday after the prayers and weekly sermon (guess the topic).

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

After homosexuality, Islam gets the most posts on this bulletin board - what are you people afraid of?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

It's my considered view that once you start refering to a board full of diverse people as "you people" and suggesting posting patterns can be so trivially psychoanalysed, you've left the path of rational debate.

Are you not part of these debates? Some with similar views to you, some not... or is it Leo contra boardi?

Perhaps people here are also afraid of God, given how much they post about her. (Or him, didn't mean to betray my oedipal complex there.)

[ 20. September 2006, 21:19: Message edited by: mdijon ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
After homosexuality, Islam gets the most posts on this bulletin board - what are you people afraid of?

Don't be silly. Did you count the posts? No you didn't. Neither of those are likely to be in the top five subjects. Maybe top ten.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
After homosexuality, Islam gets the most posts on this bulletin board - what are you people afraid of?

What are we afraid of? Homosexuality doesn't concern me, interest me or frighten me. Yet I'm shit scared of Islam. What am I scared of then? Lets start at home. Myself and other people very dear to me commute into London on public transport on a regular basis. I'm frightened that we are going to get blown up by a suicide bomber. Many British cities have large Muslim populations which are poorly integrated into the Britisn society around them. I fear that these coimmunities will breed terrorism. I fear that there will be inter-racial strife on the streets as there was in Burnley and Bradford a few years ago.

In the larger world: I fear that Iran will develop a nuclear device, drop it on Israel and precipitate WW3. I fear that Osama's idealogical followers will cause another 9/11 somewhere. I fear that Islam's desire to anihilate Israel will spill over into a major conflict.

I fear, so in the Greek sense of the word I am Islamaphobic. The potential for the nihilistic forces of chaos to engulf us grows daily in this troubled world. But perhaps the time of the Parousia draws nigh and all this is a necessary precurser to that apocalyptic event.

Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
After homosexuality, Islam gets the most posts on this bulletin board - what are you people afraid of?

Gay Moslems, of course. Why do you ask?

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
After homosexuality, Islam gets the most posts on this bulletin board - what are you people afraid of?
Gay Moslems, of course. Why do you ask?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
After homosexuality, Islam gets the most posts on this bulletin board - what are you people afraid of?
Don't be silly. Did you count the posts? No you didn't. Neither of those are likely to be in the top five subjects. Maybe top ten.

Top 2 - there are about 70 pages about homosexuality in the Dead horses and about 6 separate strands related to Islam throughout the rest of the site

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Crappy hymns and choruses comes out quite high by that reasoning.

Kendrophobia, clearly.

[Paranoid]

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

So does Intelligent Design. Actually the length of that thread is largely the work of half a dozen souls and has died a death completely since Faithful Sheepdog retired hurt from his gallant, yet ultimately doomed, Thermopylae-esque defence of the Disco Institute.

Biblical Inerrancy flattered to decieve a few years ago, but turned out to be the equivalent of a grimly fought out nil-nil draw on a wet February night with Leprechaun as the scrapping right back and Psyduck as the old fashioned centre forward, never quite able to manage the decisive knock out blow, yet keeping the crowds on the edge of their seats.

Hyrdrophobia and Biblophobia, presumably.

Posted by GoodCatholicLad (# 9231) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
After homosexuality, Islam gets the most posts on this bulletin board - what are you people afraid of?
Don't be silly. Did you count the posts? No you didn't. Neither of those are likely to be in the top five subjects. Maybe top ten.
Top 2 - there are about 70 pages about homosexuality in the Dead horses and about 6 separate strands related to Islam throughout the rest of the site

70 pages on homosexuality?? And 6 sperate stands on Islam, perhaps many should get their priorities straight. Homosexuals are the LEAST of your problems, Whabbists who are bent on world dommination seems just a tennsy winnsy more urgent in the big picture.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

Originally posted by GoodCatholicLad:

quote:
Whabbists who are bent on world dommination seems just a tennsy winnsy more urgent in the big picture.

Oh fuck me! It turns out that the real brains behind neo-conservatism is Elmer Fudd. It's a Whabbist! It's a Whabbist! I'm going to get that Whabbist if it's the last thing I do!

Actually, if you think about it for a mo you might notice that the thought that Al Qaeda are A Bad Thing is fairly uncontentious and, therefore, doesn't get discussed much on a discussion board.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
So does Intelligent Design. Actually the length of that thread is largely the work of half a dozen souls and has died a death completely since Faithful Sheepdog retired hurt from his gallant, yet ultimately doomed, Thermopylae-esque defence of the Disco Institute.

Biblical Inerrancy flattered to decieve a few years ago, but turned out to be the equivalent of a grimly fought out nil-nil draw on a wet February night with Leprechaun as the scrapping right back and Psyduck as the old fashioned centre forward, never quite able to manage the decisive knock out blow, yet keeping the crowds on the edge of their seats.

Hyrdrophobia and Biblophobia, presumably.

and

as well.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

"Spengler" has an interesting article in Asia Times.

He points out another respect in which the Moslem response to the Pope's words vindicates the Pope's words: the role given to reason in Islam, according to them, is a non-role.

Islamic reason: for Descartes's "I think, therefore I exist" substitute, "I think, therefore
Allah exists."

Christianity survives textual criticism of the Bible, partly because neither Judaism or Christianity claims that the whole tome had a single human author or was written within a brief period. Islam, by contrast, claims, that Allah dictated the Koran to Mohammed. The exercise of reasonable critical techniques upon the text blows this claim to bits. The response of Islam, Spengler suggests, has been to threaten the life of anyone applying these techniques and publishing the results. Those who do so are often anonymous or pseudonymous.

Around Islam, must even the Pope whisper?

As for his later explanation that what he quoted did not reflect his own opinion, Spengler recalls a Russian joke. In 1938, a Muscovite called the KGB to report that his parrot had escaped. The agent asked "why are you calling us about this?"
The reply, "I want to state for the record that I do not share the parrot's political opinions."

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0