I'm on the Pope's side on this one

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

"How dare you say Islam is a violent religion? I'll kill you for it" is not exactly the best way to go about refuting the charge. But of course, refuting is not the point here. The point is intimidation.

[Taylor]

Violence is wrong no matter what religious name you put to it, maybe especially in the name of any religion does it make it wrong. There ARE good muslims. I have met some, have had neighbors as such, met them oversease and they are lovely people who would NEVER hurt me any more than I would EVER hurt them. That said there are some dreadfully extremist muslims there that want all non-muslims dead but then there are some christian extremist who want all muslims dead. Hatred and coersion is ugly no matter what side it is on. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

Violence is wrong no matter what religious name you put to it, maybe especially in the name of any religion does it make it wrong.

I would amend this statement to read, in the name of any religion which presents itself as an advocate of peace or superior love, self-sacrifice, etc. For religions that are intrinsically warlike, such as some of the Norse mythologies, violence is a sacred thing which is done within a very high code of honor.

[Dr. Shane]

President Bush keeps telling us that Islam is a religion of peace and love. Well, we know it is one of self-sacrifice... that is for sure.

[bevin]

Quote:

He has a point but needs to look in the mirror.

The Roman Catholic Church today should not be held responsible for the behavior of the Roman Catholic Church 500 years ago.

Unless, of course, you believe that the USA should be held responsible for slavery and genocide - and that the SDA church should be held responsible for the Shut Door theory and extreme legalism.

The RCC has actually done a better job of admitting its past errors than most other long lived organizations.

/Bevin

[Lester]

As a non-frequent visitor to these pages, it seems I am most likely to comment when I hear Muslim bashing! Of course, it is true that the Muslim world reacts differently to such comments as the Pope made than most Christians would if it had been reversed. It is both a cultural and religious thing, I'm sure. However, as people of the remnant movement which is to share Christ's love with the world--including Muslims, we cannot find ourselves making judgmental statements back. God loves every Muslim just as much as He does me, so I must love them too. As Dr Charles Kraft (Fuller) says: we tend to compare the worst of other cultures with the best in ours! Without Jesus we are all pretty rotten! I lived in Pakistan for 6 years and have interacted with American Muslim leaders and I have to say that just as they are embarrased by the actions of some Muslims, I am embarrased at the current anti-Muslim actions of America and some of us Americans.

[Dr. Shane]

I don't see Muslim bashing going on here. I and others have repeatedly said we are talking about the minority of Muslims AND we refer to that minoruty as fundamentalist Muslims. I have known several good Muslims. When I attended colledge, I worked with a couple of Muslims that were good friends of mine. However just because the majority of Muslims are not radical doesn't mean we shouldn't be afraid of the minority which is.

Quote:

the remnant movement which is to share Christ's love with the world--including Muslims, we cannot find ourselves making judgmental statements back.

That sounds like we should burn the Great Controversy. I guess I need to know what a judgmental statement is. When a Muslim cleric calls for the death of the pope, is it a judgemental statement to point out that is violent religion? When Pat Robertson called for the US to assasinate President Hugo Chavez, I didn't hear anyone that was criticising him being called judgemental. Or is there a double standard? Is it ok to criticise radical Christians but not radical Muslims?

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

The Roman Catholic Church today should not be held responsible for the behavior of the Roman Catholic Church 500 years ago.

Context is everything. The pope was quoting a 14th century emporer's comments about Islam. And what exactly was the Roman Catholic Church doing in the 14th century??? Pot calliing kettle black??? I think so.

[bevin]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jht...30/ixworld.html

Quote:

On a visit to Athens in 2001 the Pope asked God's forgiveness for Catholics, who he said had committed sins against Orthodox Christians for 1,000 years. He has also apologised to Muslims for the Crusades.

Google "Catholic apology crusades"

[Dr. Shane]

Ahhh,,, 14th century not 21t century. What was the RCC position in the 14th century? Pot meet kettle. Kettle, pot.

[Gerr]

An "infallible" pope apologizing?

Gerry

[Kountzer]

The things that the Pope said about Islam is not totally unique and unprecedented. I know of at least one book that was recently written on the same theme. There's probably more than one book out there, not to mention articles, echoing the same idea.

[bevin]

There was a recent discussion leaking out of the RCC about what it means for the pope to be infallible

The statement I recall basically said it meant "unquestionable" rather than "right" - i.e. the pope is setting the direction, follow it until he sets a different one

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

The RCC has taken a different dirrection than it has historically but many Protestants believe that is because it no longer has authority in civil governments like it once did.

However if we are going to talk about the beginning and spreading of Islam, like the pope was, wouldn't it be in context to also look at the beginning and spreading of Catholism? In that context, isn't it rather hypocritical of the pope to criticise Mahhammod for spreading his religion with the sword when the papacy did the same thing?

And the pope also criticised Islam for not bring anything new except spreading their religion with the sword. Well, I ask, what did Catholism bring to the world that was new?

[Kountzer]

Hospitals. Catholics were the first to develope hospitals. They also helped to preserve the bible by transcribing it. The current bible numbering system and the different chapters and so forth came from the catholics. No one individual or institution is totally evil. That can be said of the catholic church, and islam as well.

As for both institutions spreading their view of religion by the sword, well they both are works oriented. Salvation by works. Perhaps it can be postulated that religions, or religious viewpoints built on works are violence prone. Cain did his own thing in bringing a sacrifice, and he ended up slaying his brother Abel. Abraham went his own way in trying to get a son, and that has resulted in a lot of violence. I'm not totally sure where I am going with this, but perhaps a pattern can be seen.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

No one individual or institution is totally evil.

Neither is any individual or institution totally good. The hallowed halls of the House of the Seven, included.

[bevin]

What Pope Benedict XVI said can be found at

http://www.ctureview.us/BenedictIslam.htm

It is an interesting and thoughtful presentation, and to pull out the quotation is to badly abuse what he was saying.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, 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", he says, "is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably (F×< 8`(T) is contrary to God’s nature.

And this in the context of criticising Islam in the 14th century. The papacy tried to kill John Wycliffe much of his life - who died in 1384 from a stroke. That didn't stop the RCC from declaring him "a stiff-necked heretic" in 1415 and diggin up his bones in 1426 and burning them.

[bevin]

The pope needed to be more careful with his remarks.

He should have realized that there exist people who can't follow a whole chain of discussion, and will therefore extract out of context and misunderstand remarks.

He was not criticising modern Islam.

The TOPIC for his dissertation is

Quote:

"That even in the face of such radical scepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question"

The point he was getting to, with his summary/extract of a debate, was this

Quote:

"The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature."

Which leads to

Quote:

At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God’s nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?

and he ends with

Quote:

"Not to act reasonably, not to act 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

In short, Pope Benedict was promoting a rational dialog between parties, rather than Holy War - whether that war is the Bush administration and their drive to force their values on the Middle East, or a fanatical branch of Islam calling for Jihad.

It is truely insightful that the reported response of some parts of the Islamic world to this speech was an emotional reaction to a sound bite from it. It tells us a lot about the Western media's reporting of events in other parts of the world.

It is also truely insightful to note that there are many Christians, some in this forum, whose approach to reason and dialog is to reject reason in favor of what they think the Bible says.

/Bevin

[Kountzer]

2 more op ed pieces addressing the issue:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/4209787.html

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/4209789.html