papal quotations

...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.

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.

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."

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

"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?

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

Difficult, but not impossible to spell it right.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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]?

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.

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."

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.

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.

some of us laugh WITH you as well as AT you. :D

[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.

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.

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.

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.

but then again, 'some' of us are nicer than others.. :)

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.

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.

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

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

...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.

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! :D

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

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.

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.

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."

"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.

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.

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.

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.

"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?

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.

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.

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"]

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

What about the difference disturbed you?

"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.

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.

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

"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?

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.

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."