homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Is the Pope Danish? (Page 5)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Is the Pope Danish?
centurion
Shipmate
# 11759

 - Posted      Profile for centurion   Author's homepage   Email centurion   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

Posts: 171 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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'?

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
centurion
Shipmate
# 11759

 - Posted      Profile for centurion   Author's homepage   Email centurion   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Muslims with their DHIMMI STATUS.
Posts: 171 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
centurion
Shipmate
# 11759

 - Posted      Profile for centurion   Author's homepage   Email centurion   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

Posts: 171 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
different in tone from

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Campbellite

Ut unum sint
# 1202

 - Posted      Profile for Campbellite   Email Campbellite   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
I upped mine. Up yours.
Suffering for Jesus since 1966.
WTFWED?

Posts: 12001 | From: between keyboard and chair | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Campbellite

Ut unum sint
# 1202

 - Posted      Profile for Campbellite   Email Campbellite   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
I upped mine. Up yours.
Suffering for Jesus since 1966.
WTFWED?

Posts: 12001 | From: between keyboard and chair | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

--------------------
and thanks for all the fish

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
David Gould
Shipmate
# 11701

 - Posted      Profile for David Gould   Email David Gould   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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!

--------------------
'If the CofE failed it would be found in my parish' Keble

Posts: 145 | From: Gloucester | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809

 - Posted      Profile for Fiddleback     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
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      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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] ).

--------------------
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      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
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
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

--------------------
and thanks for all the fish

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
centurion
Shipmate
# 11759

 - Posted      Profile for centurion   Author's homepage   Email centurion   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

Posts: 171 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
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      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 [Biased] ).

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

--------------------
and thanks for all the fish

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Marinaki

Varangian Guard
# 343

 - Posted      Profile for Marinaki   Author's homepage   Email Marinaki   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
IC I XC "If thou bear thy cross
---+--- cheerfully, it will bear
NI I KA thee."

Posts: 696 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Marinaki

Varangian Guard
# 343

 - Posted      Profile for Marinaki   Author's homepage   Email Marinaki   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
p.s. I wouldn't consider Andreas a representative of Orthodoxy - whatever he may think on this.

--------------------
IC I XC "If thou bear thy cross
---+--- cheerfully, it will bear
NI I KA thee."

Posts: 696 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643

 - Posted      Profile for Cod     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier

Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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


Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643

 - Posted      Profile for Cod     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier

Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 [Biased] ).

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]

--------------------
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
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
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
Wesley J

Silly Shipmate
# 6075

 - Posted      Profile for Wesley J   Email Wesley J   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Be it as it may: Wesley J will stay. --- Euthanasia, that sounds good. An alpine neutral neighbourhood. Then back to Britain, all dressed in wood. Things were gonna get worse. (John Cooper Clarke)

Posts: 7354 | From: The Isles of Silly | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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] )"

--------------------
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
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by David Gould:
When you are CofE you get used to it.

[Killing me]

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 ]

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bonaventura

Wise Drunkard
# 1066

 - Posted      Profile for Bonaventura   Email Bonaventura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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,

--------------------
“I think you are all mistaken in your theological beliefs. The God or Gods of Christianity are not there, whether you call them Father, Son and Holy Spirit or Aunt, Uncle and Holy Cow.” -El Greco

Posts: 473 | From: Et in Arcadia requiesco | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643

 - Posted      Profile for Cod     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
(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 ]

--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier

Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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? [Big Grin]
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

--------------------
and thanks for all the fish

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
centurion
Shipmate
# 11759

 - Posted      Profile for centurion   Author's homepage   Email centurion   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

Posts: 171 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
centurion
Shipmate
# 11759

 - Posted      Profile for centurion   Author's homepage   Email centurion   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by David Gould:
When you are CofE you get used to it.

[Killing me]

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

Posts: 171 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
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
Marinaki

Varangian Guard
# 343

 - Posted      Profile for Marinaki   Author's homepage   Email Marinaki   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
"spread by the sword the faith he preached"

Q.E.D.

--------------------
IC I XC "If thou bear thy cross
---+--- cheerfully, it will bear
NI I KA thee."

Posts: 696 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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!

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
hatless

Shipmate
# 3365

 - Posted      Profile for hatless   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form

Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ....

--------------------
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
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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!

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ...)

--------------------
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
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809

 - Posted      Profile for Fiddleback     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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!
Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools