|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is the Pope Danish?
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Or that these three words are synonyms with each other....
[ 15. September 2006, 19:27: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
I would imagine quite a few ordinary Muslims are a little unhappy about this statement.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
[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 ]
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
GoodCatholicLad
Shipmate
# 9231
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1234 | From: San Francisco California | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
[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]
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve_R
Shipmate
# 61
|
Posted
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]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
Love and Kisses, Steve_R
Posts: 990 | From: East Sussex | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
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]](smile.gif)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
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
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
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
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
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
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
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).
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
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]](graemlins/tear.gif)
Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host
[ 16. September 2006, 01:57: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)
Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cusanus
Ship's Schoolmaster
# 692
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"You are qualified," sa fotherington-tomas, "becos you can frankly never pass an exam and have 0 branes. Obviously you will be a skoolmaster - there is no other choice."
Posts: 3120 | From: The Peninsula | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
riverfalls
Shipmate
# 9168
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1611 | From: Stoke On Trent | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
centurion
Shipmate
# 11759
|
Posted
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
Posts: 171 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
centurion
Shipmate
# 11759
|
Posted
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
Posts: 171 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
centurion
Shipmate
# 11759
|
Posted
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
Posts: 171 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
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]](icon_redface.gif)
[edited blasted code]
[ 16. September 2006, 06:56: Message edited by: duchess ]
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
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).
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
centurion
Shipmate
# 11759
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 171 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
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).
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
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'.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
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
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
If I quoted Luther in a Roman Catholic forum saying that Romans are donkeys, would the Roman Catholics be unreasonable to get offended?
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
