Does Anyone Disagree With What the Pope Said?

[marv81s]

The pope quoted from a book recounting a conversation between 14th-century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II and a Persian scholar on the truths of Christianity and Islam.

"The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war," Benedict said. "He said, I quote, 'Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."'

The pope did not explicitly agree with nor repudiate the comment.


Reading that I have no idea what the Muslim nation is getting upset about? It was a direct quote from a historic book. What the hell are they so angry about? I have yet to hear major Islamic nations come out and condemn terrorist attacks, so WTF!!!

 

[Óglaigh_na_hÉireann]

Muhammed was a complete and utter thug. If ever there has been anyone further from divinity............. The great thing about Jesus is that he offers a higher platform to aspire to; I consider myself a far better person right now than Muhammed ever was.

If anything, I'm relieved to see that we have a Pope that is realistic about the world. Relativism has its place, but not in a world of evil. I love John Paul very much, but I think he sometimes wanted to pretend things were better than they really were.

 

[ralphwaldoemerson]

This thread, Muhammad, the Pope, modern Christianity, modern Islam, and ancient and modern Christianity and Islam - are all sad and pathetic and unfortunate.

 

[Óglaigh_na_hÉireann]

Ralph, is there anything you aren't pissed off at? I bet Ralph Waldo Emerson himself would think you were a complete dick.

Is there anything or anyone you don't feel superior to?

And how old are you, anyway?

 

[ralphwaldoemerson]

1. I'm not pissed, and gave no indication that I was. You've made two posts now in this very thread indicating that YOU are pissed. My post was calm and written calmly and said what it said. I have no quarrel with Jesus, Augustine, St Francis and a few others. Beyond them, however, Christianity has done incalculable damage. Islam I don't even need to address, since this is a Catholic messageboard community and everyone here hates Islam instinctively - ie, for the wrong reasons. Buddhism is fine, and I very much like the Quakers, and can get behind the Unitarians to a certain degree.

Also, because I know how the people here are, let me qualify that by saying that I was raised Catholic, and most all of my loved ones are Catholic; I even have an uncle who is a Catholic missionary in Central America. I do not condemn the people, just the religion. Ditto with Islam, for the most part.

2. Nothing in this post or in most of my other posts indicates that I feel superior to anyone. You condemned Islam - do you therefore feel superior to all Muslims? You insulted me - do you therefore feel superior to me? And so on. Your posts are the angry ones, and are the ones indicating a feeling of superiority.

3. Much older than you.



edit

And Ralph Waldo Emerson was an outspoken critic of dogmatic Christianity. By the standards of his era, he was a radical, and in some circles was considered a borderline heretic. He would likely not have had a problem with my post.

 

[ralphwaldoemerson]

Now, back on topic-

The content of the Pope's quote is, while controversial and offensive, altogether true. The problem is that he said it. And before you say, "He merely quoted it," let me just stop you right there. To quote something such as this, with no other comment, is tantamount to saying it yourself. He had to have known this. Now, why the Pope can't say something like this is simple - he's the POPE. He represents not only all Catholicism, but all Christianity. He has a responsibility not to incite anyone to violence, and here he is stirring up a religious war, inflaming an already hostile situation. It seems almost deliberate, and is not something John Paul II (a much better Pope) would ever have even considered. I just can't imagine an act any less becoming a person in his position. It's disgraceful and will cause untold amounts of suffering.

If you like your Pope to start religious wars, this is your guy. If not, not.

 

[Óglaigh_na_hÉireann]

Idk, it just seems like anytime someone makes a thread, you are there to put them down for making it. I'm beginning to wonder whether it's humanly possible to write something that you find acceptable and meets your standards.

And FWIW, I don't disagree with anything you said in the first paragraph--even if I don't know what to make of your 'incalculable damage' bit....

2. Nothing in this post or in most of my other posts indicates that I feel superior to anyone.

LOL, then you are delusional. You absolutely wreak of ego. I have one, but my God, I never thought I'd meet someone who would make me feel "uncomfortably modest" by comparison.

3. Much older than you.

I'm not the least bit surprised. I think you closed your mind off a long time ago...which definitely points to the hypocrisy of 99.9999999999% of people who claim to follow/admire a philosopher: they pretend they do and they pretend to care, but how many of HDT's followers ever hauled their ass out into the woods? How many people have lived their life in a barrel? Nope, philosophy, anymore, is of the Starbucks variety---that is, desperately trying to prove to the world that no one is smarter than you are.

 

[irishwavend]

1.) Ralph, you are stereotyping like an MF'er when it comes to your assumptions about this board. Especially, when you say we hate Islam. Why would you assume something like that? This isn't a Southern Baptist board. In my personal experience, Catholics can be very open minded. Whatever...your assumptions about people and their life philosophies don't pertain to the topic at hand.

2.) The topic at hand: The Islamic Arabs who are pissed off get offended at everything. It's a fact of life. While it isn't the entire Islamic community, it seems to be significant enough to cause a scene. That, or the media is blowing it out of proportion. These guys, seriously, remind me of Southern Protestants...especially Baptists, Church of Christ, & Evangelicals. Do I hate Islam? No, but what we need to look at is the people, not the institution.

The people: They are poor, live in a desert climate that is incredibly hot, and they are constantly manipulated by their own media. What else do they have to do, but be angry? Now, I know I am being a little extreme here, but we are all looking for purpose in life. When people are poor, they look to religion. When they take a tenet or two of their own beliefs to create an enemy, they rally against that enemy. It is purpose. It's their life.

When one of their enemies says the smallest thing that they can take offense to, it mobilizes them again and again, because it allows them to feel that purpose they need. If they didn't have that purpose, what would they have? Sand, heat, and poverty.

Obviously, I am generalizing for simplicity's sake, but to somebody in Western culture that is used to coexistence & open dialogue, the Pope's words were harmless. He was simply using a piece of historical text for his presentation at a university. However, if the tables were turned, we would still hear rumblings in our own population, as well. It just wouldn't be to the same degree we are seeing overseas, but some animosity would exist.

 

[ralphwaldoemerson]

1.) Ralph, you are stereotyping like an MF'er when it comes to your assumptions about this board. Especially, when you say we hate Islam. Why would you assume something like that? This isn't a Southern Baptist board. In my personal experience, Catholics can be very open minded. Whatever...your assumptions about people and their life philosophies don't pertain to the topic at hand.

2.) The topic at hand: The Islamic Arabs who are pissed off get offended at everything. It's a fact of life. While it isn't the entire Islamic community, it seems to be significant enough to cause a scene. That, or the media is blowing it out of proportion. These guys, seriously, remind me of Southern Protestants...especially Baptists, Church of Christ, & Evangelicals. Do I hate Islam? No, but what we need to look at is the people, not the institution.

highly LOL

 

[ralphwaldoemerson]

Idk, it just seems like anytime someone makes a thread, you are there to put them down for making it. I'm beginning to wonder whether it's humanly possible to write something that you find acceptable and meets your standards.

And FWIW, I don't disagree with anything you said in the first paragraph--even if I don't know what to make of your 'incalculable damage' bit....



LOL, then you are delusional. You absolutely wreak of ego. I have one, but my God, I never thought I'd meet someone who would make me feel "uncomfortably modest" by comparison.



I'm not the least bit surprised. I think you closed your mind off a long time ago...which definitely points to the hypocrisy of 99.9999999999% of people who claim to follow/admire a philosopher: they pretend they do and they pretend to care, but how many of HDT's followers ever hauled their ass out into the woods? How many people have lived their life in a barrel? Nope, philosophy, anymore, is of the Starbucks variety---that is, desperately trying to prove to the world that no one is smarter than you are.

I don't think you know much about philosophy then or now. Thoreau didn't "live his life in a barrel" at all. Even during the experiment at Walden he regularly conversed with his social circle and visited town, or had town visit him. For all you know I could be posting this from a cabin in the woods, but it would make little difference - being a philosopher should hardly preclude leading a life otherwise. Or, if you meant (sorry for not being sure of your meaning, but then you weren't either) that few people live by their philosophies, well, what philosophies have I espoused that you could fairly accuse me of not living by? All I said was Christianity is not my cup of tea - and, so, I'm not a Christian. You could perhaps infer from my posts that another philosophy of mine is that FACTS, and rational, logical argument and debate, are infinitely better, to me, than are ad hominem attacks and baseless claims, and quick dismissals of anyone whose opinion is unpopular. And I similarly follow through on that philosophy.

 

[marv81s]

Don't know why you thought this thread is stupid, you keep coming back to it. I was just looking to start a civil discussion on a major topic. I don't think the Pope was looking to start another Crusades War. When he spoke that quote I think he was trying to make a point about how these Islamic Facist these days are going around and killing innocent men, women and children thinking they are going to be rewarded in heaven in the name of Allah. I was thinking that the Pope was looking for the major Cleric's in that religion to start stepping up and condemning those killings because it is giving their religion a very distorted image of their religion.

I wasn't lookig for anyone on hear to speak bad on the religion as a whole or to speak poorly of the muslim world and it certainl wasn't meant to be a hate thread. I know everyone on hear is intelligent to know that the whole muslim world aren't bad people. We are just at war with the Islamic Facist groups, not the whole muslim world

 

[ShivaIrish]

If one were to actually read at least part of the beginning of the Pope's lecture, they would see that his use of Emperor Paleologus's comment was within the broader issue of of the compatability and relation of acting reasonably with the will or nature of God. Put another way, does acting unreasonably contradict God's nature? Within this context, it seems part of his intent was to compare/contrast the worldviews of ancient Greek thought, and that of Islamic thought. Now, why did he pick this historical example, though? Was it just because it was something he recently read, which is something that he claimed, and therefore, just at the "front" of his brain? Or is it because he sees Islam as a religion that has converted, and supports conversions, by the sword? At the very least, perhaps the Pope showed a lack of tact in choosing this example, of which I think he could have chosen less controversial examples from history. Was he trying to show the connection between unreasonableness and "religious violence?" It is not clear, and therefore, asking the Pope to further explain his comments is reasonable.

On the other, hand (and this one goes out to my friend Marv81s) someone made a good point on Fox News (I think it might have been on Cavuto) that the response to the Pope by some Muslims seemed illogical. Such as burning the Pope in effigy.

I also must object to Oglaigh's first comment about the Prophet Muhammad:
"Muhammed was a complete and utter thug. If ever there has been anyone further from divinity............. The great thing about Jesus is that he offers a higher platform to aspire to; I consider myself a far better person right now than Muhammed ever was.

Muhammad was one of the most accomplished people of all time. He's simply amazing--and no, I'm not a Muslim. But I've studied it and it's hard not to have respect for the man. He grew up in the context of rampant violence. He should be commended for the decrease in violence he brought about. For instance, when the Muslims went back to Mecca, after the Hijra, he could have slaughtered their enemies, but he didn't. That was the cultural expectation, and that is the type of action we see done by certain Hebrew Testament religious figures. Should Muhammad be downgraded in people's eyes because he was a war leader? Or should he be respected for being a just and merciful war leader, while being a political and religious leader as well? Oglaigh, if you truly believe yourself to be "a far better person right now than Muhammed ever was," you should not be talking about ralphwaldoemerson's ego.

 

[Vince Young]

Just heard on the news that several churches have been firebombed in the Middle East in response to the Pope's comments.

I just can't ignore the delicious irony of the Pope saying that Muslims are violent, and Muslims being offended by this and responding with... um... violence.

Of course, on the other side of the coin, Muslims here in the USA are probably offended too, but they're not going around firebombing churches.

The problem here is not really the Islamic religion. The problem is power-hungry thugs in the Middle East using the Islamic religion to prop themselves up. They know how to play the people like fiddles over there, and they're doing it again right now.

 

[TexasDomer]

The purpose of the Pope's quote was to point out that one of the people in the dialogue sought to divorce reason and faith, an idea that true Christianity rejects, given its strong Hellenistic influences. Even the use of the term Logos in reference to Christ owes to the ancient Greek philosopher Herakleitos.

The use of the quote was in order to set up the theme of the address. Read the whole thing in context, and it isn't a repudiation of Islam but an exploration of the damage done when we arbitrarily (and in the Pope's thinking erroneously) see religious faith and theology as somehow irrational, illogical, or unphilosophical.

I think that the Muslim world didn't get the whole context, and is over-reacting to it. Even the media are over-reacting. People ignore five pages of argument for one paragraph.

I hope the Pope personally clarifies his comments for the sake of ending this controversy.

 

[tommy]

i call for a site wide ignore of ralph waldo he is like a car wreck imo he brings nothing but venom its my belive that he really could care less about football he is just here to start shit and argue

 

[lattedatte]

he is an idiot, nothing more nothing less... i will ignore him from now on with you tommy.

 

[ralphwaldoemerson]

I don't think the Pope intended to start a religious war (but then I have no way of knowing). I do agree with the poster who said that his quoting this particular thing was tactless.

As for the irony of (some) Muslims reacting to being called violent with violence, what would you expect someone to do in the face of an affront to something more important than all other things, to him? That's kind of a catch-all, considering violence is the default reaction of any group of people to an affront of this degree - if you insult an American's mother, he's not going to rationally debate with you the merits of his mother - he's going to react violently. I do agree that Islamic reactions tend toward the unfortunate and barbaric and extreme, and betray just what sort of people this particular philosophy/faith, alone without the benefit of a liberal education, produces. But it's the Pope's responsibility to

a) not say anything to incite the notoriously angry Islamic population to violence and destruction

or

b) go all out, and, if he's going to say something about them, say EVERYTHING about them, and get it all off his chest, and just openly declare religious war.


But to poke Islam in the chest in this small way and incite violent reaction without having really made any gain at all, is senseless and sad.

 

[tommy]

wow violence and muslums kind of like peanut butter and jelly these people are tought from a young age to hate america and they thing by killing americans or christians that their god will look to them in good favor now im a very religious person all though i dont attend church on a regulare basis but in my mind i attend church millions of times a day and my belive is violence isnt how you get in the gates of heaven which ever heaven you think it is it amaz's me that muslums are offended by the popes comments i could see how american muslums could be offended for they probably dont practice the same violent behavior but for middle easerners in the middle east have to know they are violent people that are strapped with 40 lbs of high explosives are told that they are doing this for alai and they will be rewarded with virgins in the after live for taking a christians life give me a break vince brought up the perfect example they are responding with violence ofer a comment that they are violent and are offended by these commenst not only are they violent but they are stupid

 

[ralphwaldoemerson]

Ignorance and hatred as displayed in that post are just as bad as, if not worse than, violence.

 

[Óglaigh_na_hÉireann]

The constitution would disagree.

 

[ralphwaldoemerson]

What does that even mean?

 

[Óglaigh_na_hÉireann]

Jesus, have you never heard of the Bill of Rights? Look it up.

 

[tommy]

he just wants to argue ogl dont even give him the satisfaction

 

[ralphwaldoemerson]

No, really, what are you babbling about? What does the Bill of Rights and the Constitution (which, by the way, to judge from your posts here, you're not too familiar with) have to do with the post you responded to? It came off as a complete non sequitur.

 

[marv81s]

i think their point ralph was that the bill of rights, in particular the 1st amendment, guarantee free speech. While i will agree that hate speech is never a good thing, it pales in comparisson to blowing up innocent civilians, torturing, and killing in the name of their religion actually thinking they will be rewarded in the afterlife. But again, I agree with you point on hate speech, I think Tommy is just really passionate about this area of topic about Islamic Facist.

 

[Óglaigh_na_hÉireann]

Speech is never as bad, or worse than violence. Honestly, that is one of the stupidest, most uneducated, and naive statements I have ever read. If anyone else had made it, I wouldn't have thought to comment on it because I respect everyone else on this board.

 

[ralphwaldoemerson]

Are you joking? That's really what your post meant? Two things, then.

1. I never specified speech. I said that hatred and ignorance were as bad as violence. And so they are.

2. Hateful and ignorant speech is the root of violence.

Hateful and ignorant speech such as, for instance - all your posts, up to and including that last one.

 

[tommy]

i dont hate any particular person i do hate what they are teaching just as i do how the kkk teach's young people to hate some one because of thier skin color i dont know any of these people but they are tought from a young age to kill my family my friends because they are american and belive in christ hate doenst even capture the fealing ask any american sevice man / woman do they hate the taliban insergents do they hate them ask any family members of people that died in 911 do they hate the people that took a plane and ran it in to the wtc maybe i would feal differant if i was a muslim but im not

 

[ralphwaldoemerson]

And there's the ignorance I was talking about. Tommy, how much do you really know about Muslims?

 

[Óglaigh_na_hÉireann]

Are you joking? That's really what your post meant? Two things, then.

1. I never specified speech. I said that hatred and ignorance were as bad as violence. And so they are.

2. Hateful and ignorant speech is the root of violence.

Hateful and ignorant speech such as, for instance - all your posts, up to and including that last one.

Wow. You're digging deep to justify your incredibly erroneous comment. You're playing with semantics and it's not going to get you anywhere.