General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2258016

    papal quotations

    Locked

    by john.a.wills ·

    Benedict XVI quoted a Byzantine emperor as saying something unkind about Muhammed’s teaching; great offence is taken from Morocco to Indonesia. In the same speech the Pope quoted someone else as saying that God does not exist; no-one seems to care. From the context it is obvious that he did not agree with either quotation. Why the difference in reaction?

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #3205009

      Sound bites

      by maevinn ·

      In reply to papal quotations

      Are NEVER provided within full context. A quote saying the pope thinks there isn’t a God? Clearly ridiculous, not even newsworthy. A sound bit of him bashing another religion? Well, that’s news! Blood, guts and gory–manufactured if not found.

      • #3204933

        Mavyn, I think you

        by old guy ·

        In reply to Sound bites

        might have misread the first post. It said “In the same speech the Pope quoted someone else as saying that God does not exist;” He quoted someone saying that God does not exist.

        Just to clarify.

        • #3204917

          No…

          by maevinn ·

          In reply to Mavyn, I think you

          That’s my point. Take that comment out of context (as him quoting someone else) and it’s clearly absurd. The other comment–as a quote or not–can easily be taken out of context to tick people off. They’ll believe it because they WANT to believe.

        • #3204842

          Oh, I see what you

          by old guy ·

          In reply to No…

          were getting to now. I thought you had mistakely thought he did say that. You’re right that would be absurd.

        • #3203249

          “You’re right that would be absurd.”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Oh, I see what you

          But the other is not?

    • #3205007

      I believe the Pope should. . . . . .

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to papal quotations

      …demand an apology from all Muslims for failing to both denounce and take proactive steps to eliminate the murderous tactics employed by their Muslim brothers in the name of Islam.

      • #3204995

        That’s reasonable

        by delbertpgh ·

        In reply to I believe the Pope should. . . . . .

        How these Islamist wingnuts can burn down churches and shoot a nun and call themselves righteously idignant because somebody suggested Islam was “intolerant”… just eludes me.

        I think the Pope could fairly apologize for being careless with the impressions he creates. It’s not like he’s having a private talk with the boys in the Vatican locker room; the whole world is listening, and crackpots are out there, ready to explode. If you’re going to be a leader, you need some discretion.

        But I think he ought to also say, in the same breath, that every Muslim church man owes the world a condemnation of his own people’s intolerance, and an apology for the violence and lack of respect they offer the rest of us.

        • #3204961

          discretion

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to That’s reasonable

          If the pope of all people won’t take a stand on something like this, who will?

          We hear all the time about how it is just extremists, and I WANT to believe that. But when I don’t see the NON-extremists rise up to do ANYTHING about what is done in THEIR name, it takes a lot away from their arguement.

          At least the “righteously idignant” response isn’t about cartoons?

        • #3203244

          “But when I don’t see the NON-extremists rise up to do ANYTHING”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to discretion

          In the United States, we are assured that freedom to dissent is guaranteed, but anti-war protesters suffer illegal wiretapping and this country’s extremists ignore the Constitution, and assert that spying is a valid substitute for a search warrant. If, in “the freest country on Earth”, such abuse is permitted by the majority while a state of war makes a convenient excuse, why should “NON-extremists [b]rise up[/b] to do ANYTHING” in nations without the guarantees of personal liberty our Constitution promises us?

        • #3203222

          If these are the same people

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to “But when I don’t see the NON-extremists rise up to do ANYTHING”

          that want us to believe that muslims are peaceful and tolerant, then they need to keep the insane people from making them all look like the crazy death worshipers they are.

          The people that tell us it is just a minority of the muslims that are insane, they should be able to do something about a minority.

          Good thing our government isn’t shooting nuns in the streets, huh? Lucky for them Reno isn’t still the sherif in town…..

        • #3226505

          It is nobody’s responsibility but your own

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to If these are the same people

          to recognize that 19 highjackers, 10,000 Al Qaida, and a couple thousand terrorists in groups with other names do not represent a consensus opinion of all Muslims toward the United States. Even Iran is only one country. Get some perspective.

          “If these are the same people that want us to believe that muslims are peaceful and tolerant, then they need to keep the insane people from making them all look like the crazy death worshipers they are.”

          They, like I, most likely don’t “want us (you) to believe” [b]anything[/b], only to be free to pursue our own happiness without interference from our government/their government, and especially in uninteresting disputes over the “correct” name of the imaginary friend that everybody knows is fiction anyway.

        • #3226368

          From the reactions around the world

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to It is nobody’s responsibility but your own

          your delustions are standing out for all to see.

          I don’t live far from one of the largest Muslim populations outside of the middle east, which speaks louder than your arguments for the sake of argument.

        • #3205351

          JD, a small geographical quibble

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to It is nobody’s responsibility but your own

          [i]”I don’t live far from one of the largest Muslim populations outside of the middle east,”[/i].

          Sorry my American friend but you do live very far from the nation on Indonesia, which is:
          1: in South East Asia
          2: the world?s largest Muslim nation

          Indonesia is the closest (geographically) nation to Australia.

          But luckily for me Indonesia is very secular. They have large populations of Buddhists Hindu?s and Christians. If they weren?t secular entire islands would begin revolting.

        • #3204110

          “arguments for the sake of argument” – me?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to It is nobody’s responsibility but your own

          I’ve been saying religion isn’t worth fighting over because it is unreal. This is an argument for the sake of reducing violence, not for the sake of argument.

        • #3203656

          For the sake of not being for the sake of arguement

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to It is nobody’s responsibility but your own

          What would happen if you go up to a devout Muslim and explain to them about their “imaginary friend” that “[b]everybody[/b] knows is fiction anyway”.

          I think that the “everybody” you are refering to turns out to be less than your hoping for.

          And you will find more Muslims are more centered in their religion than most of the Christians you are accustom to verbablly accosting.

        • #3203579

          You’re wrong.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to It is nobody’s responsibility but your own

          People only turn to religion when they can’t figure out how to solve their real problems. For most people, that’s rare.

        • #3203459

          Absolutely, I disagree with almost everything I just read of yours.

          by danlm ·

          In reply to It is nobody’s responsibility but your own

          edited because: removed complete response to what Absolutely said so as not to be removed from Tech Republic because of what I was going to say about my total lack of respect for his positions on religion and world affairs.

        • #3203452

          “blinded, narrow minded lack of perspective”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to It is nobody’s responsibility but your own

          “I disrespect the people that are leading the poor into terrorisom by misquoting their religion.”

          Me too. If we can agree that aggression is wrong, and if you don’t care that I believe this for reasons that have nothing to do with religion, then we can work together. I don’t care what religion (or philosophy) taught anybody that aggression is wrong, as long as you have learned it & practice it.

          “I do not disprespect the Molsm religion.”

          Well I do. I disrespect every religion because it shifts emphasis from the realm or reality to the realm of mythology. To me, reality is too important to base the rules of human conduct on a myth. But, anybody who can treat their fellow humans with respect, meaning that they do not initiate the use of force, is OK with me, even if their understanding of morality is based on a religion, all of which I consider unreal and meaningless. I understand this sounds like the epitome of evil to many people. I don’t care. In reality, I respect the rights of others to pursue their happiness as they wish, even if they choose to pursue their happiness by worshiping something I’m sure is false. I won’t bomb your church. I respect your rights, but I will never accept your religious beliefs.

        • #3203451

          Dan, I’ve seen worse

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to It is nobody’s responsibility but your own

          I doubt that TR would have kicked you for what you posted. And now that I’ve responded, I wish you hadn’t edited it all away.

        • #3203448

          re: Dan, I’ve seen worse

          by danlm ·

          In reply to It is nobody’s responsibility but your own

          I’m not others, I’m myself. I felt that I would get even more heated by response’s and continue in an even more aggressive manner.

          I know when to back off, and I just did.

          I was offended, lets just leave it at that and move on.

          peace

          Dan

        • #3204819

          You are mistaken. The Pope did directly apologize.

          by techexec2 ·

          In reply to That’s reasonable

          [i]”I think the Pope could fairly apologize for being careless with the impressions he creates.”[/i]

          The Pope did apologize yesterday (from article, link below):

          [i]”The pope on Sunday said he was “deeply sorry” about the angry reaction to his speech last week in which he cited the words of a Byzantine emperor who characterized some of the teachings of Islam’s Prophet Muhammad as “evil and inhuman” and referred to spreading Islam “by the sword.””[/i]

          Some Islamic leaders accepted it. Others said it was “not enough”. And, that is all you need to know about where the problem is. Sort of sounds like “You either agree that Islam is not violent or we’ll f*ckin’ kill you”.

          REFERENCES

          Al Qaeda threat over Pope speech
          http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/18/pope.islam.ap/index.html

        • #3203110

          Actually

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to You are mistaken. The Pope did directly apologize.

          He didn’t issue an apology for what he said. He said he was sorry about Muslim reaction to what he said.

          The reasoning behind the violent Muslim response, and the demands for apologies, seems to be a willful misinterpretation of what the Pope actually said. Sort of, “if you had said it slightly differently, it would be insulting to my religious principles, so I’m going to get all pissed about what you nearly said.”

          He did make it clear in his that the historical quotes he repeated were not his own opinion. Maybe he should have been more careful to state that loudly in his original speech. However, given the way these Islamist wack jobs are ready to set fire to the world if somebody sneezes when they mention the Prophet, careful phrasing might not make a difference.

        • #3203252

          Almost, but not quite.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to That’s reasonable

          “I think the Pope could fairly apologize for being careless with the impressions he creates. It’s not like he’s having a private talk with the boys in the Vatican locker room; the whole world is listening, and crackpots are out there, ready to explode. If you’re going to be a leader, you need some discretion.”

          The way I hear it, at least, all that is needed is clarification and the Pope only needs to tell the truth: the quote causing offense is not one with which the current Pope agrees, and the purpose of his lecture was to advance a goal opposite to the offensive words quoted: peace. I suspect the Pope is having trouble articulating that simple fact because he is in the habit of being unnecessarily verbose, probably because he believes it helps project the impression of erudition.

      • #3204894

        I hope he won’t hold his breath

        by protiusx ·

        In reply to I believe the Pope should. . . . . .

        Yeah! I wonder what the likelihood of Adinawannawackjob apologizing to anyone let alone the Pope would be? When pigs fly!

      • #3203261

        in order to…what?

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to I believe the Pope should. . . . . .

        ” …demand an apology from all Muslims for failing to both denounce and take proactive steps to eliminate the murderous tactics employed by their Muslim brothers in the name of Islam.”

        What do you really think would happen if the Pope did this? Why do you think this is a desirable outcome?

        If I were to criticize your professional specialty (which is not mine, making me unqualified to so criticize), wouldn’t you tell me to stick to what I know? (or worse!) Why, then should a chieftain of one religion be expected to speak with analogous arrogance to followers of another?

        • #3203254

          Since I don’t think like a Pope. . . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to in order to…what?

          …..I’m sure I don’t see things like a Pope.

          Whether we’re discussing Popes, Presidents, or any other news-maker position, I can only speak on how I see something and what I might do, all based on the prism through which I see the world.

          Unlike you, I’m neither pompous enough or presumptuous enough to presume my view and my opinion is the last and only word on anything. If you couldn’t determine my intent for yourself, you’ve been inhaling too much of that smoke you continually blow.

    • #3204980

      It just shows the hypocrisy…

      by m_a_r_k ·

      In reply to papal quotations

      …of Islam. In their mind, it is acceptable to denigrate other religions and other people’s beliefs. It is laughable how they childishly overreact. How many times in the last five years have you heard a Muslim cleric/iman/whatever, or leader of a Muslim nation (the Iranian president with name that is impossible to spell) say something offensive about Western religions and our beliefs? Dozens of times.

      • #3204973

        Which means?

        by maevinn ·

        In reply to It just shows the hypocrisy…

        How many times have you been in the room listening to these statements–versus 5000 miles away from the speaker, hearing it on TV? Believe what you want, but the extremists get the coverage, the moderates who don’t condone terrorism don’t make appearnaces on our nightly news. Do some research–there are tons of websites showing how many Muslims feel about the violence and destruction.

        • #3204959

          about the tons of websites

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Which means?

          how many show what the moderates are doing to STOP the extremists?

          Feel? What do they DO about the problem?

        • #3204916

          Varies

          by maevinn ·

          In reply to about the tons of websites

          But yes, things are being said and done.

        • #3204861

          little said

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Varies

          even less done.

          If you have some links on positive things that the Muslim world is doing to STOP the extremists, either to stop bombing attacks, or to stop riots, I would be interested to see them.

          The only thing I have seen or heard was “don’t profile because we don’t all feel that way”.

        • #3226506

          Links

          by maevinn ·

          In reply to little said

          http://www.islamfortoday.com/terrorism.htm

          http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec05/islam_8-04.html

          http://www.islam101.com/terror/mythViolence.htm (very biased, but an interesting read none the less)

          http://www.wam.umd.edu/~stwright/rel/islam/fiqh-council-fatwa.html

          http://wap.usatoday.com/detail.jsp?key=495101 –Just last month.

          http://islam.about.com/cs/currentevents/a/9_11statements.htm

          That’s just a small sample. This is a topic I’ve discussed with a number of people, including one who is is vehement in his attacks against Muslims. This doesn’t get the news coverage because it’s a) not what most people want to hear, and b) not flashy.

        • #3204828

          The squeaky wheel gets the oil

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to Which means?

          In other words, the people who scream the loudest get all the attention. And more times than not,the people who scream the loudest feel most strongly about something. If all these millions of moderates truly were against violence committed in the name of their religion, they could very easily create a helluva lot more noise than the few thousand extremists.

          And you are the one who is claiming there are “tons” of websites on moderation in Islam. Do you care to provide links to a few of these? But still, a couple of websites won’t generate nearly as much attention as a bunch of bloodthirsty lunatics screaming “Allahu Akbar!” whenever their feelings are hurt by some Westerner’s opinion or outlandish statement. Did the Jews scream and yell and call for the Iranian president’s death when he said the Holocaust never happened? Or when he said Israel should be wiped off the map? Nope. And he said it not once, but countless times.

        • #3204821

          Well, Mark, in this case of

          by old guy ·

          In reply to The squeaky wheel gets the oil

          the squeaky wheel do you think we could also light that oil so it burns them to a crisp?

          You are absolutely correct in the voices of the majority is seldom heard and I agree it’s because they don’t do anything about it.

      • #3203259

        Ahmedinejad. I didn’t have to look it up. It isn’t “impossible”.

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to It just shows the hypocrisy…

        Hilarious, how you denigrate Muslims as childish, while arrogantly asserting your own ignorance (“the Iranian president with name that is impossible to spell”) as superiority. Hilarious, except that this phenomenon is responsible for the continuation of tribal warfare in the modern world with tools invented by your intellectual superiors.

        I challenge you to answer honestly: if an Imam were cited in the newspaper you read, criticizing the founder of your superstition, would you react any better? Suppose the Imam were only repeating a quote, and not agreeing with it. Will you claim that you would research the exact meaning of that quote before voting for more military spending? Or, would you accept on faith that the news reported to you is not distorted to sell copy, or for any other purpose we may not be able to guess?

        I agree that violence is childish. The only way to end it is to use our own brains more effectively, to convince would-be enemies that their interests are best pursued by dealing with us as traders, with rights equal to theirs, freely exchanging value for value, or not dealing with one another at all.

        • #3203248

          What a naive’ thing to say.

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Ahmedinejad. I didn’t have to look it up. It isn’t “impossible”.

          Your enemy wants you dead, not to trade with you. The only compromise he would accept is if you were willing to kill yourself — perceived intellect and all.

          You’re a real nut-case, dude. (Okay, this is where you go off on that “anti name-calling” tangent, ignoring the fact that the “name-calling” is for EMPHASIS.) You think you’re such a high-brow intellectual? What a joke! You are too full of yourself — definitely full of something.

        • #3203235

          “You’re a real nut-case, dude.”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to What a naive’ thing to say.

          I’m talking about a Billion or more Muslims. You seem to be talking about the 10,000 or so card-carrying Al Qaida.

          “Your enemy wants you dead, not to trade with you. The only compromise he would accept is if you were willing to kill yourself — perceived intellect and all.”

          Please read [i]The Prince[/i] by Machiavelli, with emphasis on passages about cultivating allies and refraining from making enemies. I know, I’m one to talk about making enemies, right? But, this is all just blowing off steam. When the figurehead of any of the three religions of the descendants of Abraham speaks about violence, real people are likely to really blow up and be blown up if those figureheads speak provocatively. I think what you recommended the Pope should say would be provocative enough to blow up a large number of people.

        • #3204384

          The Prince

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to “You’re a real nut-case, dude.”

          Okay… Here we go again. Have you read ?The Prince?? The book is about management style and how a ?Prince? or leader should act toward his subjects in order to instill a sense of obligation so that when the enemy comes the prince?s subjects will feel a sense of duty to protect the Prince and in some cases die for him. It’s got nothing to do with “not making enemies”. In fact Machiavelli details such traits as a dedication to the art of war so as to insure the state’s actual survival, an understanding that apparent cruelties and vice may be essential to maintaining stability and power, prudence with respect to disbursement of one’s own wealth and making efforts to appear religious to sway the “vulgar.” Machiavelli extols King Ferdinand of Spain for using the ?cloak of religion? to invade Italy numerous times as he praises the tactic yet stated that he hated the invasion of Italy by other monarchs.

        • #3205417

          In fewer words: elementary pragmatism

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to The Prince

          Making enemies out of potential allies, or trading partners, or even potentially indifferent neighbors, is less intelligent than not making enemies. Yes, Machiavelli wrote during an era of feudalism and rule by primarily brute force. But that does not suffice to invalidate everything he wrote. One could read the Art of War by Sun Tzu, or the advice of Confucius, or countless other intelligent people throughout history, and they would all agree that making enemies is less intelligent than forming alliances where possible, and confronting enemies only when unavoidable.

        • #3203234

          P.S. I never said I’d compromise.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to What a naive’ thing to say.

          Anybody who presumes to deal with me on any basis other than freely, for mutual benefit, has another thing coming. But I think that when large numbers of people [b]appear[/b] to behave irrationally, it is logical to question whether we, or they, or both, hold premises contrary to reality. When such a condition appears to exist, I check my premises. You?

        • #3203144

          Missed the point or evaded the point

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to P.S. I never said I’d compromise.

          or both

        • #3226424

          Missed or evaded?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Missed the point or evaded the point

          You assert that you made a point? What was it then?

        • #3203062

          Don’t have a stroke, Absolutely

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to Ahmedinejad. I didn’t have to look it up. It isn’t “impossible”.

          I was being tongue-in-cheek about that Iranian dude’s impossible to spell last name. Ahmejanidanamijihad or something like that.

          Tribal warfare in the modern world? hah! The only places that tribal warfare still exists is in the un-modern world: Afghanistan, Iraq, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, etc.

          I would have no problem at all if an iman would criticize the founder of my so-called superstition. There have been many, many quotes over the centuries about my “superstition”. Ever read the wildly popular “Da Vinci Code”? I read it. It was an interesting tome and very thought-provoking. Was I upset by it? Not at all. I think that any true believer in any supreme being will harbor some doubts as to the validity of their beliefs. None of us personally knew Moses, Jesus, Mohammed or any of the others. We have no tangible proof. So our belief is based on faith alone. So how could I be upset if anyone criticizes the pinnacle of my religion? I would be upset if anyone criticizes my personal beliefs because it is just that: a personal decision not meant to interfere with anyone or to be interfered with by anyone.

        • #3226619

          good point mark

          by danlm ·

          In reply to Don’t have a stroke, Absolutely

          Basically your saying, if their belief isn’t strong enough to deal with the unbelievers. Then they really have no faith at all, just want to be faith.

          And I felt the same way about the DaVinci code. Reading the book didn’t shake my faith one bit and I felt the ones that were having a bird were questioning nobody else’s faith but their own.

          Dan

        • #3226588

          Exactly

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to good point mark

          Having one’s beliefs questioned or asked about only causes one to think about their own faith in different terms and, more often than not, to become more committed to one’s beliefs. The “Da Vinci Code” made me think about things that I hadn’t ever thought of before. Same with the move “The Passion”. That movie was in many ways similar to the quote the Pope referred to because the movie caused a reaction among Jews who felt they were blamed for crucifying Jesus without merit or legal basis. Putting that movie into the context of today’s laws and ways of life, that would be true. But, if you believe in Mr. Absolutely’s “superstitions”, the incident happened 2000 years ago. It’s like comparing strawberries to peanuts. The difference between the ramifications of “The Passion” and the pope’s quotes from that long-dead Emperor are pretty stark. Jews responded peacefully and with open dialogue. Muslims are reacting like spoiled children and are only proving the pope’s words correct in that Islam is a religion of intolerance and violence.

        • #3226406

          I’m not amused.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Don’t have a stroke, Absolutely

          “I was being tongue-in-cheek about that Iranian dude’s impossible to spell last name. Ahmejanidanamijihad or something like that.”

          Jihad is not part of his last name, and your ignorance still isn’t funny.

          “How many times in the last five years have you heard a Muslim cleric/iman/whatever, or leader of a Muslim nation (the Iranian president with name that is impossible to spell) say something offensive about Western religions and our beliefs? Dozens of times.”

          Who cares? Is the Pope’s every word a description of the opinion of every Christian? No, not even of every Catholic. We know our leaders [b]figuratively[/b] speak for us in relations with other countries, but which of us could say about any President, ever, that he spoke for us exactly, every word? Wouldn’t it be logical to assume that where there is no vote and no religious freedom, the spokespeople are [b]less[/b] representative of the people than here?

          “I would have no problem at all if an iman would criticize the founder of my so-called superstition…How many times in the last five years have you heard a Muslim cleric/iman/whatever, or leader of a Muslim nation (the Iranian president with name that is impossible to spell) say something offensive about Western religions and our beliefs? Dozens of times.”

          Your words, side by side, directly contradicting themselves. I believe Jesus would have called you a hypocrite. If you would have [b]no[/b] problem with it, why were you complaining about it just yesterday?

        • #3204659

          Huh?

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to I’m not amused.

          “Jihad is not part of his last name, and your ignorance still isn’t funny.”

          I don’t care what you think about my humor. I think I am hilarious.

          “Is the Pope’s every word a description of the opinion of every Christian? No, not even of every Catholic.”

          Exactly my point, pal. I stated that myself in a previous reply to you. If the pope does not represent the opinion of every Christian or Catholic, then why are all the world’s Muslims so upset about what he says? Why murder an innocent nun in Somalia? Why burn down a church?

          “I believe Jesus would have called you a hypocrite.”

          I believe you are wrong. Haven’t you ever heard the phrase “Turn the other cheek”? If you know anything about the Bible, those are supposedly Jesus’ words. Jesus taught tolerance, not bigotry or violence. Did Jesus lash out and encourage violence against all those who opposed his views? Nope. He was patient and encouraged open dialogue. I don’t know where you live but I live in the USA. It is a democracy with freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of thought and laws against inciting a riot. It goes against my moral and political beliefs to want to commit violence against someone because he criticizes the basis of my “superstition”. It is not even my right to take revenge on someone if he burns down or otherwise desecrates a Christian place of worship. Many churches have been burned or violated in this country in my lifetime. Though I don’t agree with those actions, I have always left it up to law enforcement to rectify the situation.

          “If you would have no problem with it, why were you complaining about it just yesterday?”

          Uh…what are you referring to?

        • #3204606

          Mark

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Huh?

          If it makes you feel any better, I think you’re hilarious, too. I laugh at you ALL the time..

        • #3204578

          That makes two of us

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to Mark

          Two votes for my hilarity, one vote for my absurdity. Our absolute little friend is in the minority. Somewhere around here I wrote that we live in a democracy. Therefore, the people have ruled that I am hilarious as hell. :^0

        • #3205387

          well

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Mark

          some of us laugh WITH you as well as AT you. 😀

        • #3205264

          JD, this is true

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Mark

          but then again, ‘some’ of us are nicer than others.. 🙂

        • #3205104

          You laugh AT me because…

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to Mark

          …I’m a helluva hilarious fella. If I weren’t so shy and modest, I’d quit my day job and go to Las Vegas and perform to the delight of millions of rabidly adoring fans as the headliner in a comedy show.

        • #3204344

          And of course

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Mark

          you forgot the word “Modest”. [i][/i]

          Anyways, to the delight of his fans (mostly made by lasko) there is always a breeze moving all that hot air around! 😀

        • #3226622

          I wouldn’t want to burn their church absolutely

          by danlm ·

          In reply to Ahmedinejad. I didn’t have to look it up. It isn’t “impossible”.

          that’s the point. Disagree with my religion, I try to prove you wrong through conversation.

          They want to burn the church, shoot the nuns, and bring the war of Islam to the Vatican to kill all Christians. there is a huge difference in how I would react to the same type of statement.

          Dan

        • #3226504

          “bring the war of Islam to the Vatican to kill all Christians”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to I wouldn’t want to burn their church absolutely

          Nothing similar to this has happened for centuries. Get some perspective.

        • #3226387

          I have perspective, they over reacted like they always do

          by danlm ·

          In reply to “bring the war of Islam to the Vatican to kill all Christians”

          It’s simple as that. I’m sorry, I have seen cartoons that have slandered Jesus and the Christian religion. Their was protests, there was outrage, but nowhere was there any type of violence as you see now. Or even threats of violence.

          Absolutely, want to know what this has done to me? Me specifically? I can’t stand bigots, ok? Bigots are people who hate a person just because of their race, religion, sexuality, or something like that. At least that is my definition of a bigot. By the threat of violence and carnage that has been expressed the world over by one individual religions followers. I question if I can still be unbiased in the way I look at Muslim religion. It seems all I hear from followers, with quotes from their holy book(right or wrong) is violence. And that makes me feel that I am becoming bigoted towards them. And I don’t like that, not at all.

          You hear the same thing so many times from the same people, you acquire a negative or positive attitude towards them. Right now, I have a seriously negative attitude toward the Muslin religion in general.

          And no Absolutely, I do not wish to annihilate them. Don’t even put those words in my mouth, but I basically believe they are proving the Pontiff’s point. Even if I am not catholic, I think that quote that he expressed is proving to be quite true.

          Dan

        • #3204186

          You get some perpective

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to “bring the war of Islam to the Vatican to kill all Christians”

          He is referring to their current intentions. These radical Muslims WANT war with the west. They want to usher in the glory days of Saladin and be seen as great and powerful people. The Wacko mullahs are the ones who are slinging threats against any and all who they feel have besmirched Mohamed not the other way around. This is happening now. The fact that it hasn’t happened for centuries means nothing.

        • #3204118

          My perspective is that most people, in every culture, are not wackos.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to You get some perpective

          However, periodically some wackos attain prominence in one culture or another, and manage to persuade a large number of followers to believe that another culture is composed [b]entirely or primarily[/b] of wackos. There are warmongers in the West as sure as there are in the East, and we should be as ashamed of ours as we want them to be of theirs.

        • #3226372

          Ahmadinejad

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Ahmedinejad. I didn’t have to look it up. It isn’t “impossible”.

          Difficult, but not impossible to spell it right.

        • #3204611

          You’re way too serious, Mr. Absolutely

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to Ahmadinejad

          Sheesh, guy, lighten up. You take your name, “absolutely”, to heart, dont’t you? By definition, no word or name is impossible to spell. If it were impossible to spell, it wouldn’t exist. Do you take every obviously exaggerated statement literally? For example, have you ever heard of one sports team “crushing” their opponent in a game by some lopsided score? Did the players on the losing team really get crushed/flattened/smashed like a pancake? Ever heard the phrase “green with envy and then have you ever seen or heard of a green human being?

        • #3204450

          I am exactly as serious as I choose to be.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to You’re way too serious, Mr. Absolutely

          And I respect your right to decide for yourself to be as frivolous as you want, but not to infringe on my decisions. Everything worth my time is important enough to take seriously. Everything too unimportant to take seriously is a waste of my time. I choose not to waste the time I have.

        • #3204421

          OK

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to I am exactly as serious as I choose to be.

          Thanks for respecting my opinions, Mr. Absolutely. And I hope I haven’t infringed on your right to your own opinions. I can’t remember if I did or not. If I did, I shouldn’t have.

          You don’t have any time for light-hearted moments of laughing and joking and generally killing time? Do you even take every bowel movement seriously? Holy jihad! I guess you do, otherwise they’d be a waste of your time and you’d be crapping in your pants a lot. LOL Everyone needs time to relax and unwind, fart around, play with dogs, romp around with your kids or little nieces and nephews, crack jokes or unleash a pungent, powerfully odorific fart.

    • #3204965

      “Islam is a religion of peace”

      by jdclyde ·

      In reply to papal quotations

      as the riots and violence continue over something the Pope said. Churchs set on fire, nuns shot in the street. Yeah, Islam is the religion of peace all right. Peace of the grave.

      Why do these idiots even CARE what someone from a religious structure they don’t follow thinks? Because they are not the religion of peace they claim, they are the religion of peace they SHOW us.

      World wide, they are proving the Pope right.

      (“they” being the rioters, violent protesters, and so on, before someone starts to cry that it is only a “select few”. If it really IS just a select few, the masses should get them under control.)

      • #3204935

        Touch?

        by albertg ·

        In reply to “Islam is a religion of peace”

        “If it really IS just a select few, the masses should get them under control”

        Touch?

        • #3204181

          So where are the masses?

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Touch?

          Why is it that we hear nothing (I mean not one peep) from any mullah anywhere crying out at the top of their lungs declaring that theirs is a religion of peace and that these wackos do not dictate what it is to be Muslim? Perhaps it’s because it really isn’t a select few.

        • #3203574

          I suspect they’re busy pursuing their personal happiness

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to So where are the masses?

          to the extent allowed by the laws of their respective countries. I know that’s what I’d rather be doing. I think I’ll make a bumper sticker.

      • #3204915

        All a matter of scale

        by maevinn ·

        In reply to “Islam is a religion of peace”

        How is this any different than rioting sports fans?

        I don’t think riots or violence like this are the solution to any problem. I don’t understand the mentality that says this will help anything…But this behavior is prevalent the world over. I guess I’d rather see it happening because of religious beliefs than because some team lost some game.

        • #3204859

          How this is different

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to All a matter of scale

          The last sports riot lasted a few hours, was only in one city, churches didn’t get burned down and nuns didn’t get shot.

          Bad example to compare it to.

      • #3204897

        Iraq

        by protiusx ·

        In reply to “Islam is a religion of peace”

        The terrorist group known as Al Qaeda of Iraq posted a statement to the Internet today putting the Pope and the western world on notice that there are only two alternatives once they have taken over the world and that is death or conversion.
        Nice.
        And to think that Bush is so wrong when he says that Iraq is a part of the Global War on Terror. Perhaps we should just disregard what the poor terrorists say. They are just oppressed freedom loving Muslims anyway right?

        • #3204816

          Al Qaeda of Iraq

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Iraq

          And these are – what? How many? What resources do they have other than a frightening name?

          What they have on their side is the Western Press which prints this crap and, alas, people like you who pick it up and run with it. If you think that this group has the numbers and weapons such that they [b]are[/b] going to take over the world then you have reason to worry.

          If they frighten you that much then Nuke Mecca. A cruise-delivered ten MegaTon Hydrogen air burst over the al-Masjid al-Haram would certainly shut their yap for while. Get the wind right for the fallout pattern and Iran gets a taste of what Nuclear really means.

          Given that the US has sufficient nuclear weapons to do – well, anything then why the fear. All you have to do is to wean yourselves off ME oil and you can stick the finger up at their “religion of love”. Oh bugger; I’ve just spotted the flaw in my suggestion – wean yourselves off the oil.

          Neil (Al Qaeda of Purely – Purley? Say no [b]more[/b]!)

        • #3203224

          Exactly!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Al Qaeda of Iraq

          “Al Qaeda of Iraq
          And these are – what? How many? What resources do they have other than a frightening name?

          What they have on their side is the Western Press which prints this crap and, alas, people like you who pick it up and run with it.”

          http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-21.html

        • #3204378

          I have seen personally

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Al Qaeda of Iraq

          There resources used against not only my countrymen but your as well. I have seen it tear an Iraqi man in half for no other reason than he was standing on the side of a street in Baghdad. I have seen it kill hundreds in mosques in Baghdad for no other reason than these people allegedly were practicing the wrong flavor of Islam. Am I afraid of them? Yes I am. Am I afraid of all Muslims or Arabs? No, I am not. I made some very good friends while I was there so I will not accept the label of racist or ideologue. I saw Muslims helping Christians and vice versa. People are driven to extreme actions for a variety of different reasons but I have personally witnessed this viciousness and I was sickened by it. My heart grew sick and I couldn’t take it any longer. I will repeat what Golda Meier said “The violence will stop when Arab mothers begin to love their children more than the hate Jews” I will say that peace will flourish when the people of these lands turn away from their mullahs who demand Jihad and encourage the blood shed.

        • #3205364

          Golda Meir…

          by john.a.wills ·

          In reply to I have seen personally

          was a stinking jhypocrite. The Israelis are the aggressors against the Palestinians, and can have peace pretty quickly by themselves stoppiong terrorism and robbery, by allowing the exiles home, and by restoring all the private property they have stolen. The Palestinians have become Islamists only gradually, in desperation, since the June War. And, of course, 20% or so of them are Christian, and unlikely to be influenced by the mullahs.

        • #3205319

          I totally disagree with this statement

          by danlm ·

          In reply to Golda Meir…

          Goda Meir did attack the Arabs first, but that was after they had massed on the border getting ready to attack.

          How do you feel she was a hypocrite?

          Dan

        • #3205185

          hypocrisy

          by john.a.wills ·

          In reply to I totally disagree with this statement

          The problem between the israelis and the Palestinians is not that the Palestinians hate Jews – although 58 years of dispossession has taught them to – but that some Jews hate Palestinians enough to steal their property (I am not talking about sovereignty but about private property) and to keep them in exile while sending terror squads among them from time to time in the hope that they will give up and go into still further exile. As for Golda Meir herself, she was a Zionist, i.e. a Palestinian-hater, back in the 1930s.

        • #3205134

          Israel

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Golda Meir…

          You and I have sparred on this point in other threads which is probably where it should stay. I will only say that you are a victim of either the mental disorder that is chronic liberalism or you have suckled to long on the teat of leftist propaganda that is the San Francisco Chronicle.

        • #3204275

          San Francisco Chronicle…

          by john.a.wills ·

          In reply to Israel

          is actually slightly pro-Zionist. It has only once (in an op-ed by an exiled Palestinian about a visit to his stolen house in Jerusalem), to my notice, mentioned the property rights at the heart of the issue, and my emphasis on property rights, although liberal in the historic (and still the European) sense, probably means that I am not what you call a liberal. My communist friend thinks me pro-plutocracy.

        • #3204233

          Plutocracy

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Israel

          It could be argued as has been by Kevin Phillips that the US is already part and parcel a semi-plutocracy. I would agree to a certain extent in as much as there has been a severe melding of money and the government since the FDR era.

          You may have friends who are further left leaning than yourself and given that you live in the Peoples Republic of San Francisco I don’t doubt it. Regardless, your written history here on TR puts you way to the left of me. You?re in good company though because from my perspective GWB is far to the left of me.

        • #3205128

          I see it…

          by dawgit ·

          In reply to Al Qaeda of Iraq

          It’s the Purley Gates.!. B-)

      • #3204824

        A religion of peace… hah!

        by m_a_r_k ·

        In reply to “Islam is a religion of peace”

        A quote from the Associated Press today:

        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060918/ap_on_re_mi_ea/muslims_pope_8
        [i]”Al-Qaida in Iraq warned Pope Benedict XVI on Monday that its war against Christianity and the West will go on until Islam takes over the world, and Iran’s supreme leader called for more protests over the pontiff’s remarks on Islam. ‘You infidels and despots, we will continue our jihad (holy war) and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism, when God’s rule is established governing all people and nations’, said the statement by the Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella organization of Sunni Arab extremist groups in Iraq.

        Extremists said the pope’s comments proved that the West was in a war against Islam.”[/i]

        As if the pope speaks for EVERYONE in the West. Even Protestants, Jews and atheists.

      • #3203227

        “nun[b]s[/b] shot in the street”

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to “Islam is a religion of peace”

        I heard about [b]one[/b] nun shot, in the entire world, in which 1,000,000,000 practicing Muslims live. How many nuns died of gunshot wounds on other days? Did somebody, somewhere, say something offensive on those other days, when some other nun was killed for some other reason? That nun was entitled to her life, just like every other person and her murder was tragic, but the “news” is still a small number of deaths, by a small minority of a religion of 1 Billion people. Do you care to run some statistical analysis comparing the number of terrorist murders committed by Muslim terrorists to all deaths caused by United States citizens, including the military, then weigh according to the total number of Muslims on Earth and the total number of Americans? We might not look so good, statistically speaking.

        “Why do these idiots even CARE what someone from a religious structure they don’t follow thinks? Because they are not the religion of peace they claim, they are the religion of peace they SHOW us.

        World wide, they are proving the Pope right.”

        What are you talking about? Most of the worst the news media could find were purely symbolic acts of protest such as burning effigies. When you bring up the murder(s), I’ll just repeat, there are 1 Billion Muslims, and a statistically minute minority of those Muslims has [b]ever[/b] committed murder.

        Why do YOU care what [b]they[/b] burn in [b]their[/b] streets? What is your motive for portraying the murder of one nun as indicating the collective opinion of all 1 Billion Muslims? If 1 Billion people were monolithically as dedicated as the 10,000 or so in Al Qaida, I’m sure the entire Earth could be annihilated inside of one week. (Just calculate the average number of deaths per suicide bomb!) Obviously, that is not the case.

        • #3203138

          Would statisitics help

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to “nun[b]s[/b] shot in the street”

          … in gleaning the temperament of the mass?

          One or two violent incident could be deemed as stray incidents, don’t you see there is disquiet among the Muslims and growing tension & agitation? Irrespective of their reasons being valid or invalid.

          If one were to take the shape of a pyramid as an analogy, one might argue that it is the tip – miniscule amount of people – representing the violence. But if the massive base aids the top; how is the world going to handle the situation?

        • #3226501

          Statistics are part of the argument, not all of it.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Would statisitics help

          You may choose to use statistics all you like, but another part of your argument is the assertion that “the massive base aids the top” (see pyramid analogy above). I challenge that assertion. I know of aid provided by some national governments to terrorists, specifically Palestinian ones, but I have heard no allegations, even from George Walker Bush and his bloodthirsty coterie, of any [b]popular[/b] practical support of terrorism, financial or otherwise. As I understand the biography, Osama bin Laden is the disowned son of a very successful business professional, who specializes in construction and/or real estate. Bad luck for the world that such wealth was inherited by a psychopath. [b]Nothing[/b] more profound or complicated than simple, obnoxious bad luck. That sissy girl is not worth a global religious war. Please, let’s not give him one.

        • #3226495

          Aid = Help

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Statistics are part of the argument, not all of it.

          I used the word aids as in helping. People can help actively by providing the infrastructure and resource, and people can help inactively by keeping quiet or just raising a token resistance. Maybe my choice of word – aid – to mean help was incorrect.

          Regarding statistis, I merely questioned you the use of your statistics.

          And we are not just talking about terrorism, we are talking about the general Islam and Muslims. Their feeling towards the rest of the world and their reaction and actions.

          Unfortunately one wants a religious war or not, the world is going to be given one unless we all come up with a solution.

        • #3226373

          If help isn’t what you meant, what did you mean?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Aid = Help

          “People can help actively by providing the infrastructure and resource, and people can help inactively by keeping quiet or just raising a token resistance. Maybe my choice of word – aid – to mean help was incorrect.”

          I think you’re right, if you mean anything other than active help, your use of the word aid [b]was[/b] incorrect. What more do you expect of any person do you expect than to not harm you. Whatever your answer, I/they/we have the right to expect the same from you.

        • #3140912

          I meant Help.

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to If help isn’t what you meant, what did you mean?

          I did say that, did’nt I 🙂 ?

          [i]What more do you expect of any person do you expect than to not harm you. [/i]

          I did not get that question.

        • #3140375

          typo

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to If help isn’t what you meant, what did you mean?

          I meant “What more do you expect of any person than to not harm you? Whatever your answer, I/they/we have the right to expect the same from you.”

        • #3204179

          Black Hole Density

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to “nun[b]s[/b] shot in the street”

          You must either be writing in jest or rather to hear your key board go clickity clack because this is utter non-sense! Try googling Muqtada Al Sadr or any other of a thousand mullahs in the Middle East. Do you not remember what happened when the Dutch newspaper ran a caricature of Mohamed? Arabs are killing people on the streets of Holland and all over Europe. Comparatively, when the US government paid some wacko in New York grant money to put a crucifix in a jar of urine and call it art there were definitely protests but no one lost their head over it.

    • #3204761

      People like this. . . . .

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to papal quotations

      ……

      http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23367232-details/The+Pope+must+die%2C+says+Muslim/article.do

      …..should be arrested for inciting violence and terror, and the reasonable (if there are any) Islamic clerics should travel to Rome and, standing at the Pope’s side, denounce such talk. Anything short of that is, in my opinion, actually fueling the fire of hate and violence.

    • #3203314

      Why did Pope Benedict choose that quotation?

      by av . ·

      In reply to papal quotations

      He had to know he would fan the flames of hatred for the West and himself in the Muslim world by saying that. I think he wanted to do that to create a dialog between Christians and Muslims. Maybe it might not be the dialog he expected. It was a bold move, but it doesn’t take much to incite the Muslim extremists anyway.

      • #3203290

        Why don’t you answer your own question?

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Why did Pope Benedict choose that quotation?

        As an exercise in critical thinking, why don’t you read and post the entire context of what the Pope said (easy to find), and then let us know why he might have said it and/or what you think he intended.

      • #3203240

        “He had to know he would fan the flames of hatred…”

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Why did Pope Benedict choose that quotation?

        Do you really mean that he [b]had[/b] to know that he would be quoted out of context? He was, you know, quoted [b]out of context[/b]. I’m no apologist for Catholicism and I sincerely believe the title of this Pope’s lecture to be oxymoronic (“Faith & Reason”). However, if [b]anybody[/b] may be required to know which incorrect context will be attributed to their words (“He [b]had[/b] to know he would fan the flames of hatred”) I have insufficient incentive to risk communicating with [b]any[/b] of you dweebs.

        • #3204229

          Schizophrenic

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to “He had to know he would fan the flames of hatred…”

          I do not mean to insult you but your writing is a bit disjointed and difficult to follow. You begin well enough trying to make a point and then fly off some narrow hole after Alice’s white rabbit and we are left with comments such as “I have insufficient incentive to risk communicating with any of you dweebs.”

        • #3204119

          Whatever.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Schizophrenic

          “He had to know he would fan the flames…”

          How should the Pope have known that he would be quoted out of context in a way that would “fan the flames of hatred”? Imagine everybody held to that inane standard: if we’re all expected to anticipate every possible way our words can be taken out of context, why should any of us bother continuing to communicate at all?

        • #3203586

          We agree!

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Whatever.

          Wow. I can’t believe it but we finally agree on something. I will go farther though and say that it takes strong character to state ones decent in the face of withering opposition. The pope said what was on his heart and should not have apologized. To do say indicated he was weak and will compromise on his fundamental beliefs to placate those that shout the loudest.

        • #3203576

          I thought so.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to We agree!

          I was having a hard time imagining you believing that the Pope “should have known” that his words would be used out of context to “fan the flames of hatred”. I always get suspicious when people use overly poetic language, such as “fan the flames of hatred”. It makes me wonder how ridiculous they would sound stating their opinion in literal terms. It’s often very amusing, although this particular case is not a good example. Still, it’s an easy way to spot a lot of people trying to convey some meaning other than the Truth.

    • #3203286

      In my opinion

      by onbliss ·

      In reply to papal quotations

      Islam itself supports, directly and indirectly, such hatred and violence from its followers.

      Every time thw World calls a spade a spade, violence was thrown at it by Islamists.

      Irrespective of several sects in Islam, there is great unity among them, that makes them believe that they can surmount any challenge. Be it other religions or be it modern times.

      So each time the world gets cowed down by the Islamists, the world engages in proxy wars. The Islamists see this and get further enraged.

      As long as we all keep supporting – overtly and covertly – the powers in the middle-east and certain pockets in South East Asia, there really is not much going to happen.

      Even if a miracle happens, it would take atleast two generations for things to settle down.

      And also, the Pope could have watched himself. But like many here and around the net, I think he knew what he was doing and getting into.

      Religious conversions by coercion, violence or by other means exist. And, Islam and Chrisitianity have just perfected this art little too much.

      • #3203258

        If Islamist had a rational thought

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to In my opinion

        in their heads, they would have seen this as the perfect time to show how caring and tolerant they are.

        Instead they have stood up and made what the pope said a self-fullfilling prophosy. They proved him right beyond a shadow of a doubt.

        How sad.

        • #3203245

          Some have

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to If Islamist had a rational thought

          For the records there are some groups who have accepted the apology and are ready to move forward.

          It is always a problem when religious leaders make comments on other religions. Instead of reaching out to others, I wish they would just reach within their followers.

    • #3203281

      Julian – you are invited (by me). . . . .

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to papal quotations

      …to chime-in on this discussion. Considering the areas of study in your background and your interests, I’d love to hear what you have to say on the matter.

      • #3203190

        Alas, the problem is rooted in the Koran itself.

        by jardinier ·

        In reply to Julian – you are invited (by me). . . . .

        As someone has already mentioned, the options are: “Convert or be killed.”

        Here is a recent statement by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Sydney: [i][Please note that although this statement is relevant to this discussion, it was delivered prior to the Pope’s controversial speech][/i]

        AUSTRALIA’S most influential Catholic has said the Koran is riddled with “invocations to violence” and the central challenge of Islam lies in the struggle between moderate and extremist forces as the faith spreads into a “childless Europe.”

        The Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, said reading the Koran, the sacred text of Islam, was vital “because the challenge of Islam will be with us for the remainder of our lives – at least.”

        Dr Pell said the September 11 terrorist attacks had been his personal wake-up call to understand Islam better. He had tried to reconcile claims that Islam was a faith of peace with those that suggested the Koran legitimised the killings of non-Muslims. While there was room for optimism in fruitful dialogue between faiths and the common human desire for peace, a pessimistic response began “with the Koran itself.”

        Errors of facts, inconsistencies, anachronisms and other defects were not unknown to scholars but difficult for Muslims to debate openly, he said.

        [b]”In my own reading of the Koran, I began to note down invocations to violence. There are so many of them, however, that I abandoned this exercise after 50 or 60 or 70 pages.”[/b]

        Dr Pell said every nation and every religion, including Catholicism, had “crimes in their histories”. In the same way, Islam could not airbrush its “shadows.” Claims of Muslim tolerance of Christian and Jewish minorities were largely mythical and he wondered about the possibility of theological development in Islam when the Koran was said to come directly from God.

        [b]”Considered strictly on its own terms, Islam is not a tolerant religion and its capacity for far-reaching renovation is severely limited,” he said.[/b]

        However, like Christianity, Islam was a living religion and the existence of moderate Islam in Indonesia was proof of the softening impact of human intervention.

        Democracy and moderation did not always go hand in hand and an “anorexic vision of democracy and the human person was no match for Islam”, he said.

        • #3203101

          Perhaps the Koran needs a new testament

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Alas, the problem is rooted in the Koran itself.

          After all you can’t read a lot of the old testament without bumping into one or two bits of violence.

          Old and new were used as a vehicle for intolerance, in fact they still are. Non christians not this-secret sect, no hetros, no….

          In fact to hear anyone claim christianity as the religion of tolerance is enough to make me scream, the facts most definitely give lie to the claim. Perhaps not on an individual basis, but mobs have a mentality all of their own.

          This is in no way an apology for the reaction to papal incompetence. But if I see the outright hyprocrisy in these attitudes, what do think someone who feels their faith is being threatened will come up with ?

        • #3203013

          The Koran IS THE New Testament

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Perhaps the Koran needs a new testament

          having been written some 600 years after the Christian New Testament.

          However Judaism, Christianity and Islam all trace their roots back to Abraham.

          [b]Genesis 17:17-21 Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?

          And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!

          And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

          And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.

          But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.[/b]

          Now in a recent discussion people have pointed out that Ishmael did in fact produce a great and wealthy nation — all the Arabic peoples and their oil money.

          Here is a marvellous example of deceit (or stupidity, I am not sure which) that a member of meetchristians made only yesterday. He said he had given a Muslim a copy of the Bible, and the Muslim had given him a copy of the Koran.

          This person said he had looked up “love” in the index in the Koran and it did not appear at all.

          I have just done a search of the Koran at this excellent website:

          [url]http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran[/url]

          and found dozens of references to love.

        • #3204719

          When I said new testament

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to The Koran IS THE New Testament

          I didn’t mean it was more recent did I !

          I meant something similar to the change in philosophy
          As in going from and eye for an eye to here’s my other eye

          Presenting any religious document to me as a statement of historical facts is an utter waste of time.

          The bible is a pick and mix of fables chosen by a succession of revisionist or reformist political cabals.

          The ‘sense’ of it has always been far more important than the detailed content.

        • #3204698

          Of course I know what you meant

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to When I said new testament

          However I cannot see that there will be any new “revelation” to update the Muslim faith.

          Not that I know much about Islam, but I am not aware of any expectation of a “Messiah” who will add a new meaning to the words of Muhammud in the Koran.

          Islam is the youngest of the extant major religions. Will there be a major new religion? I cannot see any likelihood of this occurring.

          Possibly the oldest extant religion is Zoroastrianism which, while predating Christianity by possibly millenia rather than centuries, is essentially similar in that it presents a constant struggle between the good God and the evil God.

          Will science eventually agree with or replace religion? Possibly.

          My ideal for a sane belief system is closely akin to “Star Trek — The Next Generation,” in which humans have outgrown the need for a structured religion based on an imaginary God.

        • #3204562

          Add meaning ?

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Of course I know what you meant

          May be I need to read it again, the only connection I ever saw between the old and new testaments , was a few names, the word testament and the fact both came in the same book !

          Science will never replace religion. Once science reaches the edge of it’s explanatory power, then religion, belief, faith and philosophy come in. Human science will never explain everything, to get near everything we would have to lose the human bit.

          Religion is about as human as you can get.

        • #3205162

          Yes you do need to read it again

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Of course I know what you meant

          before you make such an unfounded and stupid comment as you did.

          There are more than 2 billion Christians in the world, compared with a mere 15 million Jews.

          The mathematics are simple. Christians place far more emphasis on the New Testament than the Old Testament, although the two are inter-related.

          Jews focus mainly on the first five books of the Old Testament — the Pentateuch.

          When faced with these figures, you would have a hard time arguing that there is little difference between the Old and New Testaments.

          And yes, humans need religion. But this may not always be the case. I am being exceedingly optimistic here, as I cannot imagine this occurring within the next few centuries at least.

        • #3205157

          You need to read my post again

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Of course I know what you meant

          I didn’t say there was no difference I said there was no commonality.

        • #3204189

          How about these references

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to The Koran IS THE New Testament

          “And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.”
          And
          “They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah’s way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
          You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear authority.”
          Yeah, it’s the “religion of peace alright.

        • #3204112

          About those references

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to How about these references

          All of those references have a context. If you provide verse numbers we can all check whether the context of those references includes very detailed instructions about fighting only in [b]defense[/b] of Islam. Although the Prophet describes such defense as a crucial duty, and one to be pursued at any cost, I know of no verses of the Koran that call Muslims to violence [b]except[/b] in defense of Islam, other Muslims, or non-aggressive nations [b]of any religion[/b].

          Such passages would seem to be a valid response, within Islamic beliefs, to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s complaint that Muslims have had to make a sacrifice to accommodate the Jews that Hitler tried to eradicate from Europe – although Ahmadinejad questions the truth of the Holocaust, he argues that, [b]assuming[/b] it occurred at all, it’s somebody else’s sin, thus not his problem. This is not a valid argument, given Islam’s requirement to come to the aid of the innocent and persecuted people, of any religion. I think it would be interesting to see a Muslim scholar argue this point with the anti-Israel leaders in the Muslim world.

        • #3203623

          Take the Koran or the Bible

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to About those references

          and you can find a verse to support just about any agenda you wish to push.

          With my compliments — easy search Koran:

          http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran

          And easy search Bible:

          http://www.searchgodsword.org

          [A search for “slaughter” in the Bible makes for colourful reading, as does a search for “kill”]

        • #3203566

          No, thank you.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to About those references

          Shakespeare’s works also include a lot of killing. I think this is merely a simplistic plot device for authors too lazy to dramatize an abstraction as “important” except by portraying it as “worth killing/dying for”.

          Suppose Leviticus was communicated to Moses as a simple not-to-do list in two or three categories of severity. The categories I remember are “abomination” & “confusion”, but there might be others. It’s not like I read the whole thing. Anyway, YHWH says to Moses, here are all the things to not do. Tell them that Group A is important, Group B is more important, and Group C is so important I’ll kill you if you do it once. Now, write this up so the Israelites will listen & obey. So, Moses passes this task off to Aaron, because Moses is too tired from trying to understand what a burning bush is telling him to do anything else. Aaron then assigns his favorite cousins and a couple close friends to make these rules captivating. All they can come up with is “obey me or I’ll kill you” & “obey me or I’ll beat you”. The fact that killings appear in religious literature does not mean murder is moral, or mean anything different about one religion than another. It only means that people whose primary concern is dictating rules to others instead of exercising their own talents in pursuit of their own happiness, tend to be incompetent & uninteresting. Authoritarians make bad writers, and bad people.

        • #3226610

          I have heard arguments

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Perhaps the Koran needs a new testament

          …somewhere along your lines.

          [i]But if I see the outright hyprocrisy in these attitudes, what do think someone who feels their faith is being threatened will come up with ?[/i]

          For many Islamists they perceive the Western society itself as a threat to their way of life. Anything US does is seen as imperialism. Anything the global companies do they think it as spread of imperialism. Anything the IMF or World Bank does, they feel the world bodies are acting as stooges of the Western governemnts. After 9/11 they have been pushed on their back foot. So some view even one incident as a one among a series of incidents or agenda to throttle them.

        • #3204420

          Well it’s a predjudice

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to I have heard arguments

          and possibly an unreasoning one. There are reasons for it though. We spent cenuries attempting extirpate their way of life.

          People often harp on how interwined the secular and spiritual aspects of their societies are.
          The remants of the days when ours were equally tangled are still present today. We’ve just got so used to it, we don’t see it anymore.

          Even something as ubiquitous as Goodbye.

          It’s a contraction of god be with you, how prevalent must religion have been in everyday life for a tradition like that to hold so long that many don’t know where it came from?

          Christian warriors sanctified and gave their lives killing heathens. Christian believers and the organisations they formed did kill and torture completely helpless targets because their different beliefs were considered a threat. Whole communities of them.
          There’s no point in waffling about us having changed, when neither the goals nor the rhetoric have. Some still want to wipe out their way of life, they just switched from using christinanity and the sword to feudalism and the dollar.

        • #3140909

          Prejudiced or not

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Well it’s a predjudice

          That kind of reasoning or thoughts do exist in the minds of many. And when an outlet for expressing the emotions is available, people exercise their emotions – both correctly and incorrectly.

    • #3203263

      I’d be very interested to know about the accuracy of translation.

      by absolutely ·

      In reply to papal quotations

      Unfortunately, I haven’t learned Arabic yet, so I’m not qualified to critique the translation directly. However, given the obvious absence of any rational self-interest that we can reasonably posit on behalf of the protesters, the most logical assumption is that they have been presented with words implying some kind of threat, which does not match the words that were quoted to me on public television just now. Since I don’t yet know Italian either, I am very likely as much misled as the protesting Muslims, if not moreso. When people act irrationally instead of toward their own best interest, two basic responses are possible. One can either label them “enemies”, or question in whose interests they [b]are[/b] acting, how they were convinced, coerced or tricked to put another’s interests before their own, and attempt to reason with them.

      (I’m not studying or planning to study Arabic or Italian, at least not in the foreseeable future. But I describe all things I don’t presently know as things I don’t know “yet” as a reminder that all knowledge is acquired by effort, and all ignorance is curable, by effort.)

    • #3203186

      The honorable…

      by local support ·

      In reply to papal quotations

      The honorable prophet Mohammed of Medina and the
      honorable prophet Jesus of Nasareth had very much in common:

      Treat other people the way you want others to treat you.

      He who is totally innocent may throw the first stone.

      Watch your language. Let ‘yes’ be yes, and ‘no’ be no.

      Be honest, you need not lay your hand on ANY holy book.

      \Local support

      • #3203112

        And then the differences start to show

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to The honorable…

        I don’t recall Jesus of Nasareth (son of god) calling to behead anyone, or converting with the sword.

        One said no to violence, the other embraces it.

        There have been people running around for a while now very vocal against Christians and in most cases life to tell the tale. Again, we start to see differences.

        Salman Rushdie anyone?

    • #3203178

      Regarding Pope Benedict XVI

      by jardinier ·

      In reply to papal quotations

      At the announcement of his election as the new Pope, many people commented that Benedict XVI was considerably more conservative than his predecessor, Pope John Paul II.

      What I am suggesting therefore is that he knew and MEANT what he was saying.

      At the American Christian website to which I have been posting intensely during my vacation from TR, there is a strong body of opinion that the “end times” — Armageddon and the return of Christ — are imminent.

      While I do not agree with this view myself, I mention it because any inflammatory remarks by Christians to Muslims will HASTEN any major jihad which may be pending.

      What I see happening in the world today is a return to fundamentalism in both Islam and Christianity, and of course the infiltration of Muslims into certain Western countries.

      Will a global conflict originate in the Middle East? Who knows? But the tension is obviously increasing rather than decreasing.

      While moderate Muslims are for the most part not prepared to speak out against extremists, fundamentalist Christians do their damnedest to tar ALL Muslims with the same brush as they do the extremists.

      Although I have said this over and over, I will say it again. The moderate Muslims who do not speak out against, or dissociate themselves from the extremists, are not exacerbating the situation.

      However Christians who insist that the extremist Muslims represent the true face of Islam are obviously inflaming the situation.

      I think it would be nice if the Christians took the initiative and actually spoke loudly in favour of peace between all peoples on earth.

      • #3203146

        American End Timers

        by neilb@uk ·

        In reply to Regarding Pope Benedict XVI

        It’s my personal opinion that these guys are potentially far more trouble to the world in general that all of the Islamists put together.

        I’ve seen it reported in several different places that over 50 percent of Americans believe the prophecies in Revelation will come to pass. That frightens me far, far more than “Al Qaeda in Iraq” because this gang of religious nutters have political clout in the White House.

        Some of them seem to believe that Israel will fight a nuclear war with the Islamic world and that the Secretary General of the UN is the Antichrist. That would be OK – you can believe what you want – but these nutters are actively pushing because they believe that the world will end and they will be drawn to Heaven during The Rapture.

        I worry that the End Timers’ agenda is to pour petrol on the flames of Middle East politics – as seen in the approval shown for the recent Israeli trashing of Lebanon and the general US stance toward any Islamic country. I also have a sneaky feeling that the USA’s lack of will to combat global warming is partly down to them and I’m pretty sure that the anti-UN feeling is similarly fostered.

        Just my 2ps worth

        🙂

        • #3203141

          Now, THIS woman frightens me!

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to American End Timers

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAnQBSxlsPo

          How typical, I wonder?

          🙂

        • #3203135

          Is’nt it staged?

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Now, THIS woman frightens me!

          Just for the fun of it?

        • #3203043

          Nope, not staged

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Is’nt it staged?

          It’s real.

          How “genuine” it might be, who knows?

          http://www.margueriteperrin.com/about.html

        • #3226621

          Wow…

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Nope, not staged

          …I am in loss for words.

        • #3203132

          You might be interested to view this…

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Now, THIS woman frightens me!

        • #3203086

          .

          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to Now, THIS woman frightens me!

          .

        • #3203085

          Who is she?

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to .

          I came across her by accident!

          Neil

        • #3203075

          .

          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to Who is she?

          .

        • #3203049
        • #3203024

          No sound in the office

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to What’s your take on this?

          I will have to give it my earnest attention when I get home. I didn’t really know where she came from as I just stumbled across God Warrior on YouTube. I was just frightened that it might be typical of Southern US women with me coming over and all…

          🙂

        • #3226625

          Maybe “typical” in

          by old guy ·

          In reply to No sound in the office

          small (very small) pockets in certain areas of the U.S. but not typical of mainstream. I would rather not state my personal opinion of some of these but she seems to be of he same vein as the TV evangelists that slaps people in the head and then takes their money. Quite obvious where their motives seem to lie. IMPO.

        • #3203137

          .

          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to American End Timers

          .

        • #3203120

          The closest I got

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to .

          Was “Spawn of the Antichrist” in a bar somewhere in Arizona. My father and I were reciting Rugby songs in sinister Welsh voices and drawing pentagrams on the bar (the barkeep and all but one guy was in on the joke but this one guy went ballistic).

          “My Little Saucepan”

          Mae bys Mari Ann wedi gwywo,
          A Dafydd y gwas ddim yn iach;
          Mae’r Baban yn y crud yn crio,
          A’r gath wedi scrapo Johnny bach
          Sospan fach yn berwi ar y t?n
          Sosban fawr yn berwi ar y llawr
          A’r gath wedi scrapo Johnny bach.
          Dai bach yn sowldiwr,
          Dai bach yn sowldiwr,
          A chwt i grys e’ mas.

          Just as an example “A’r gath wedi scrapo Johnny bach” means “And the cat has scratched little Johnny”.

          I guess that made my Dad the Antichrist and my Mum Bride of the Antichrist.

          Neil 😀

        • #3203039

          Who is the Antichrist?

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to .

          Some members of [b]meetchristians.com[/b] assert that EVERYONE who is not FOR Christ is part of the Antichrist.

          And by FOR CHRIST is meant of course that you agree with the same interpretation of the Bible as that person.

          And yes they are looking forward to the Rapture enthusiastically. Some assert that it will occur in seven years time.

          However I started a discussion: “What if Jesus doesn’t return?” That drew a variety of answers, and did bring a semblance of reality into the scene.

        • #3203025

          .

          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to Who is the Antichrist?

          .

        • #3203125

          Neil

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to American End Timers

          that is precisely the thing that frightens my husband. I just stick my head in the sand. I don’t want to worry about it.

        • #3203118

          There is an environmental approach I didn’t think about

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to American End Timers

          Who cares about global warming and what it means thousands of years from now, if the end is near?

          Oh sure, that is a comforting thought…… 😐

        • #3203114

          My point exactly

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to There is an environmental approach I didn’t think about

          Go on using all of the oil that you want! The End is coming and the oil will easily last until then.

          The latest “pointer” to THE END is RFI. The Mark of the Beast was a little unclear until Barcodes arrived and we were all going to be stamped. Now, we’ll all have to have RFI chips to get food from The Antichrist between the Tribulations and The End.

          Strangely, no-one seems to have picked up on the fact that The Rapture – hundreds of thousands of the God-fearing popping instantly off to Heaven – won’t cause even [b]me[/b] to say “Oh, oh! Better get to a church PDQ – there seems to be something in this religion!”. Get the chip, go to Hell. Don’t get the chip – starve but go to Heaven. Bit of a no-brainer!

          Just my thoughts…

          ]:)

        • #3203627

          Everything you need to know about the “Rapture”

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to American End Timers

        • #3203615

          I need know nothing about the Rapture

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Everything you need to know about the “Rapture”

          I ran across “End Times” literature during the EL thread and others and I reached a sufficient level of bogglement that I can’t – and won’t – add to my despair at what people will believe.

          Thanks anyway Jules. I’ll probably follow the link one day when I get bored. You’ll know it when your ears start burning…

          :p

          No. I had to look. OK, so this fruitcake says the summer of 2007. Not too long to wait then so I’ll do as she says and stock up on cans of tuna. I’ve set myself an Outlook memo for this time next year to send her a very embarassing email unless she’s been miraculously zapped to heaven. I think that I’ll be sending the mail!

          I have one question for all of the Christians out there:

          Why, if I admit to hearing voices, am I dressed in this nice coat with long sleeves and locked up in a room with rubber wallpaper UNLESS that voice is God’s?

        • #3203598

          Why?

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to I need know nothing about the Rapture

          No doubt because they are jealous of your close personal relationship with God.

          Does God speak to you in Hebrew?

          If not, it may be that great imposter Satan who is talking to you. ]:)

        • #3203595

          God speaks to me in Tongues!

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Why?

          as l’weflj wf uqwreuohy3 n, ukoyu538oy t bjyqrt8[oy jh grqegil’;5 to8ghio /leg thrth ththy ty5g m qe/gljharg’jhl/nqwerl/nkeg , [b]kill the Aussie with the rose avatar[/b] kgfg fghe rfgh hjkwer

          :p

        • #3203578

          Man

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to God speaks to me in Tongues!

          Does THAT bring back memories. My parents used to go to a church where people spoke in tongues. Prior to that, I went to Catholic school and attended Catholic mass. Talk about a disturbing difference. It’s no wonder I don’t go to any church now.

        • #3203458

          I don’t understand, Mae.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to God speaks to me in Tongues!

          What about the difference disturbed you?

        • #3203428

          I’ll try to explain

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to God speaks to me in Tongues!

          “the Lord be with you”

          “and also with you”

          “it is right to give him thanks and praise”

          “Thanks be to the Lord our God”

          Versus…

          mom..soap running down her arms from the dishes in the sink…speaking complete and total gibberish. I can’t even tell you what she was saying, but it DID have the tune from one of the songs from “godspell” which sadly, I probably still know the words from all the songs and this will result in a horrible earwig.

          All in all? All the holy rolling didn’t improve my family’s lot in life. Nothing got better and as far as I’m concerned, it was a pile of meaningless crap. Oh..and they had a boatload of friends who used to come over and ‘pray’ over me and my sisters. Some of them had non-christian like roaming hands. What a wonder that I have an enormous problem with the religeous right, eh?

        • #3203557

          “Just my 2ps worth”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to American End Timers

          Supposing only the poorest 50% of Americans (and zero of all other nationalities) believe this is the End Time, and each gives only 10% of their income to an End Timer evangelis, how much financial incentive does that evangelist have to fund Al Qaida and other terrorist groups in order to fabricate evidence of these End Times?

      • #3203143

        Some still incite

        by onbliss ·

        In reply to Regarding Pope Benedict XVI

        For the moment ignoring the past….

        There are still large efforts going on in the third world where Chrisitian missionaries work in converting people into Christianity.

        Such acts necessarily do not speak in favor of peace between people.

        • #3203115

          Ummmmmm

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Some still incite

          that is what all religions do. Assimilation. I mean converting people to your flavor of spirituality.

          The main difference between this and “peaceful” religions like Islam, is the Christian missionaries aren’t killing non-believers anymore.

        • #3203107

          Not killing directly

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Ummmmmm

          It would seem, however, that US fundamentalist missionaries and Christians in Africa are killing people indirectly. The example that I saw very recently concerned Uganda where US fundamentalist – mostly End Times – missionaries are there in force.

          Uganda receives significant amounts of funding from America, and much of that money is being channelled through fundamentalist groups who are pro-abstinence, and which would like sexual abstinence to be the central pillar of the fight against HIV.

          Some Ugandan teachers report being instructed by US contractors not to discuss condoms in schools because the new policy is “abstinence only”. There are some prominent people in government, and some outside, who with the help of conservative agents in the US are stigmatising AIDS, saying that only sinners use a condom and putting out the message that health workers are lying about how condoms can stop AIDS.

          The result? The incidence of AIDS in Uganda rose in the last couple of years after falling steadily since the early 1990s.

          Dead is dead, however it happens.

          Neil

        • #3203064

          I object your Honor :-)

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Ummmmmm

          ..to the use of the word “All” 🙂 Kidding apart, I don’t think all religions have it in their agenda to go about converting others. When I say religion it includes the various books of the religion and its followers.

          Killing or non-killing, conversion does not make people of other faiths much happy about the act 🙂

        • #3203022

          I find this hard to believe

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to I object your Honor :-)

          that any religion does not want you to “go forth” and bring others to your faith.

          Can you give me an example of a religion that does not try to get others to see the “great truth” of their religion, and want you to join?

        • #3203009

          You are putting me in a spot :-)

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to I find this hard to believe

          ..now. I can speak of some of the Indian religions. Unfortunately I do not have information on all the religions of the world. So hope you keep that in perspective.

          Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism and Hinduism for the most part do not expect its followers to bring others to its faith. Though being a Hindu, I place Hinduism in the last because there is one new sect that is just doing a horrible job. The group is popularly called “Hare Krishnas”. And man I find some of their activities disgusting.

          The religions I listed above might claim in different books that they are the best or have the “greatest truth”, but does not emphasize on urging others to join.

        • #3203003

          I don’t know about that

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to You are putting me in a spot :-)

          they get to play the tamborine in public, right? 😀

        • #3226631

          Who? The Krisnas?

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to You are putting me in a spot :-)

          Well if you talking about them, I don’t know. I once visited a temple related to ISKON. Wow… it was anything but spiritual experience. Raw display of money, power and evangelism. I try to put as much distance from them and me. There are several more Hindu cults like them. So you see every religion has its own problems 🙂

        • #3205340

          Bhuddism,

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to I find this hard to believe

          I’m not sure on the specific’s on conversion but it is lost on you if you are [b]not[/b] seeking inner peace.

          Satanism (as written by Anton Zandor LeVay) in fact promotes not attempting to convert people. If people want to know about satanism they will learn on their own.

        • #3205279

          Lost or not

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Bhuddism,

          will a Bhuddist look for people seeking inner peace?

          And of course we are forgetting the religion of anti-religion that is reaching cult like status.

        • #3203050

          10-40 Window?

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Ummmmmm

          Jdclyde:
          I am sure you must have heard about the 10-40 Window opportunity. If not just google; you will encounter many websites.

          Looking at the money and energy being spent does not bolster the inter-religious peace much.

        • #3203020

          hmmm

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to 10-40 Window?

          I still think all religions are trying to do this, just some are better at it than others.

          some again are more violent than others in their methods.

          If you really believe that you know the way to salvation, how could you NOT try to share that with as many people as possible? SHARE, not force.

        • #3202999

          Agree and disagree

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to hmmm

          Based on what I know of history (which is far less), I do not agree that all religions work towards “sharing” the secret to salvation.

          Won’t it be fun, if we have cheat sheets for salvation on the internet. My son keeps pestering me to get him his pokemon cheat sheets. I resist; I tell him he has to try a little more hard. But he tells me he has done his part. Being not a gamer myself, I often wonder if cheat sheets are part of the gamin experience. I know there are so many websties giving walkthroughs and what not.

          Argh, sorry for the digression, if you are loosely using the word “salvation” then fine. But if one gets into nuances things vary. Here is a link that discusses some of it: http://www.evangelical.us/hinduism.html

        • #3226500

          generic salvation

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Agree and disagree

          as some see starting over and over till you get it right, some see pearly gates, some see an orgy of virgins (where do the women go? No “heaven” for muslim women?).

          My boys do the games. They beat the games. THEN they go for the “cheat codes” that mortals are not able to know by just playing the games. Locked sections and special characters.

          Just keep in mind that most cheat code sites are just as dangerous to your computer as any porn site is, if not more so. There is only one computer I allow them to use to look up codes.

        • #3226499

          I did not know that…

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Agree and disagree

          …about the code sites being as dangerous as the porn sites. Hopefully my McAfee Internet Suite is good enough to protect the computer.

          But I will keep your tip in mind.

        • #3203099

          .

          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to Some still incite

          .

        • #3203053

          Thanks for the confidence…

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to .

          .. in me, but unfortunately I might just let you down 🙁 That is just me.

          Common sense tells me that there are good people in all religions. It also tells me that it is just possible that there are more good people on this planet than bad people. It also tells me that if people are just left to themselves and their religion, without impacting others, then there would be little less problems in this world.

          Also I have read and heard stories where Missionaries truly cared about the people and went out to help them. Missionaries, Maulwis, Monks, or Guru are there out in the world who work only for the good of mankind.

          But, I have also heard and read Missionaries whose aim is to convert. And I have experienced an incident, right in front of my eyes, a condition that did not show case them highly. There was this family in which a person was just going to die because of an accident. We were all crying and consoling each other. Somebody brought a Nun, who comes and tells the mother of the person, that if she accepted Jesus, then her son would be saved. The word “saved” might have a connotation of saving the soul.

          So yes there are good Missionaries, but in the 10-40 window region, many of them that you meet have their agenda. And I can cite several incidents to show how they do cause some disquiet among the locals.

        • #3203033

          .

          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to Thanks for the confidence…

          .

        • #3203014

          LOL

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to .

          🙂 But I can cite statistics that will lend modicum of credibility to my points. The North-East India for the most part has become Chrisitian, and there are rumblings of insurgency and separitism.

      • #3203122

        .

        by ontheropes ·

        In reply to Regarding Pope Benedict XVI

        .

      • #3226449

        But since that is obviously not about to happen…

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Regarding Pope Benedict XVI

        I guess the realists will have to do the work for the mysticists, as always.

        “I think it would be nice if the Christians took the initiative and actually spoke loudly in favour of peace between all peoples on earth.”

    • #3204444

      “Why the difference in reaction?”

      by absolutely ·

      In reply to papal quotations

      To address the original question, the quote that God does not exist was [b]not[/b] quoted out of context as the quote about Muhammad’s teaching was. That, in turn, did not happen because there is nobody, or close to nobody, on Earth who could be convinced that the Pope had [b]espoused[/b] the position that God does not exist, but it is believable to many people that the Pope believes Islam is evil.

      My follow-up question: why would they believe that?

      My tentative answer: too many cooks in the kitchen. Western press and government talk about how many sects of Islam there are, but the various Protestant denominations and the succession of Catholic Popes must be equally confusing to Muslims. Also, there [b]are[/b] prominent nutjobs that preach to millions of Americans, who do say that Islam is inherently evil. Why should Muslims be less ignorant of the myriad of self-appointed spokespeople for Christianity than I am of the myriad of Muslim clerics in the world? Why should Muslims keep track of which Christians are “extremists” and which aren’t? I know I don’t want to learn the name of every Muslim cleric on Earth, and familiarize myself with the political tendencies and theological disposition of each. I think it would be terribly arrogant to expect of Muslims similar familiarity with Christian personalities. So, how [b]would[/b] they know that when they see a quote of the Pope saying Islam is evil, this must be a misunderstanding? I know the Pope only repeated somebody else’s words as part of an argument that reason can co-exist with any faith including Islam, but how would a Muslim, whose press and government have repeated selected words out of context, figure out the same thing, from the facts available [b]to them[/b]?

      • #3204417

        Nice points

        by tony hopkinson ·

        In reply to “Why the difference in reaction?”

        The other thing to remember is a lot of them are led by their clerics. Just like a few hundred years ago, when if the village priest said you were evil, your neighbours and friends, even family would burn you alive.

        • #3204403

          village priest’s power

          by john.a.wills ·

          In reply to Nice points

          Where and when did this happen? If you’re thinking of witchcraft trials, they were not performed by the village priest but by special judges using procedures described at the end of Malleus Maleficarum. They weren’t very good procedures, in my opinion, but neither were they such as to accept any old accusation.

        • #3204397

          verdict: witchcraft

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to village priest’s power

          So, they accepted accusations of “witchcraft”. What old accusation would they [b]reject[/b]? LOL!!

          “They weren’t very good procedures, in my opinion, but neither were they such as to accept any old accusation.”

        • #3205333

          Y ou’re kidding right ?

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to village priest’s power

          Happened all over europe for years. Look up the inquisition and Torquemada. Some villages were executing people who these aholes might not like in the hope that they would n’t be paid a visit.

          Any old accusation ?

          They proved a witch’s innocence by killing her !

          What in lucifer’s name has the quality of the accusation got to do with anything. No different to being accused of being an untermensch in Hitlers paradise or an an enemy of the state in Stalin’s. The accusation was enough, then you got tortured to death! By the good and upstanding members of the community, no less.

          Even if you got lucky the stigma of the accusation would stay with you, next time a cow dies, you get to join it.

          I’m british by the way, so no my first thought was not the witch trials, they were immensely civilised compared to what used to go on before.

        • #3138798

          Thanks.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Nice points

          But, I’m not sure what purpose there is for Westerners to remember that “a lot of them are led by their clerics. Just like a few hundred years ago, when if the village priest said you were evil, your neighbours and friends, even family would burn you alive.” Obviously, there are clerics that have sufficient influence to incite violence by their followers. But, the way you stated this observation (“The other thing [b]to remember[/b]”) suggests that there is something we might [b]do[/b] with this information, some [i]reason[/i] “[b]to remember[/b]” it. I can’t think of any use to which I could put this information though. What am I missing?

      • #3204402

        Remarkably good analysis

        by john.a.wills ·

        In reply to “Why the difference in reaction?”

        I once told a Catholic seminarian not to worry about Iain Paisley because he made Protestantism seem stupid. “Do you not think he makes Christianity seem stupid?” came the response. In the same way, you suggest, certain Christian leaders make Christianity seem Islamophobic. There is the secondary point that very few of the demonstrators have actually read even the part of the Pope’s lecture where he quoted the Emperor Manuel Paleologus, let alone the whole thing.

        • #3138800

          Thank you, very much!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Remarkably good analysis

          I was hoping somebody would tangent off on your comment about Iain Paisley, whose name I don’t know, or that somebody else would at least go somewhere with the theme of implicit, unexamined assumptions, and their tendency to be incorrect, and in politics, often tragic. No such luck. (Sigh.) But I’ll keep trying.

          Anyways, thanks for the compliment.

    • #3204299

      Update: Pakistani clerics demand pope’s removal

      by techexec2 ·

      In reply to papal quotations

      We’re way past apologies now…

      [i]Benedict “should be removed from his position immediately for encouraging war and fanning hostility between various faiths” and “making insulting remarks” against Islam, said a joint statement issued by the clerics and scholars at the end of their one-day convention.[/i]

      [i]”The pope, and all infidels, should know that no Muslim, under any circumstances, can tolerate an insult to the Prophet (Muhammad). … If the West does not change its stance regarding Islam, it will face severe consequences”[/i]

      REFERENCES

      Pakistani clerics demand pope’s removal
      http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1104AP_Pakistan_Pope.html

Viewing 12 reply threads