Pope goes Islam

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
1. You persist in calling me with a different handle than my name.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are the same poster as the Cyrus account which was banned. I don't care how many new accounts you make or change your handle to, you will still be Cyrus with all the baggage and history that entails. Most regular posters already know this, and when I believe that most semi-regular posters are aware of it as well, then I will stop making a point to make your identity clear.



[ QUOTE ]
2. You are addressing me in a denigratory and insulting manner (" misdirection with irrelevancies" ... you are the master of the internet search engines ... the cut and paste function...") none of which, by the way, have any merit in reality. I use the net as best as one can, but I do not "hide" behind other people's opinion. I use the net to present evidence supporting my positions.

[/ QUOTE ]


You did and have in the past constantly used misdirection and purposeful logical fallacies as rhetorical devices to mislead and draw the wrong conclusions. If you refuse to be an intellectually honest debater, then you should expect to have those things pointed out.

And as far as mentioning search engines and cut and paste, I am merely referring to one of your methods, of trying to show yourself to be knowledgeable about an infinite range of subjects so as to give a false weight to your otherwise specious conclusions drawn from misuse of those facts. Not that there is anything wrong about a little quick boning up on the minutiae of any subject we discuss here, or that facts so uncovered even if previously unknown still aren't facts (though they can often be misleading when all the facts and context of same aren't also given).

And as Exsub pointed out, I am very conversant with Orthodox/Byzantine history as well as Catholic history. Islam only exists today because of later Catholic/Orthodox infighting in the 4th crusade and later which broke the previous mutual cooperation of earlier crusades, insuring the weakness of Byzantium and its inability to stand up to later Moslem attacks. And just as there is a legacy of bitterness and mistrust between Christians and Moslems as the result of the crusades, so there is between Catholics and the Orthodox. However on theological matters the Orthodox have always been much more hostile toward the Catholic Church than the Catholic Church has been towards them (catholics consider orthodox to be in schism, primarily having to do with lack of full communion and small doctrinal differences, while the arch-convservative orthodox consider catholics to be virtually heretics).

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the Holy Father's remarks are an "attack", which was not his intention, then there are only 2 choices for what type of an "attack" it was:

1) A mischaraterization of the beliefs of Islam held by a majority of Moslems (and not their non-believing apologists like you);

2) An assertion that an accurate characterization of an Islamic belief held by a majority of Moslems are wrong.


With regards to liberal Moslems it might be #1. But regarding the majority of Moslems it is clearly #2, because they believe that an offensive jihad to forcibly convert non-believers who supposedly have had the truth revealed to them but obstinately rejected it is in accord with the teachings of the Koran.

So while in hindsight I am sure the pope wishing to make the overall point that the use of violence for the forcible conversion of non-believers is not in accord with either reason or the true faith, would not have used a specific example of Islamic beliefs, he nonetheless has simply stated the truth. But of course to the majority of Moslems who are radical and totally intolerant of the religious beliefs of others, that is unacceptable. Which in my personal view makes inter-religious dialogue with them virtually pointless since there isn't any common ground with those who deny the rights of others to freely worship differing beliefs and who think that it can be acceptable to use violence against them for same.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am curious to know where you get the idea that a majority of muslims are in favor of a violent Jihad to convert the world to Islam. Is this true of the muslim in the Middle East and in say Thailand, Malaysia, India, etc?

It is clear that there is a militant group that is using this line to further its on agenda. However, is it true of a majority of the Muslims around the world?

There are plenty of Islamic scholars in the East and West that dispute the statement Islam requires a jihad to convert non-believers. It is likely true that more Islamic scholars would agree that Islam urges that good muslims try to convert those who are not "of the book" to convert. And in fact Mohammed converted masses of pagans to be "of the book".

[/ QUOTE ]


I did not say that the majority of Moslems believe an offensive jihad for the purpose of forcible conversion of non-believers to be necessary per se, although many do believe that, but just that they interpret the Koran as saying such is permissible. The Shi'a clergy of Iran certainly believe that, as do the Wahabbist clergy of Saudi Arabia who supported the fundamentalist schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan. And many though not all Sunni clergy believe that as well. While we can match up contrary clerics and scholars, and the actions of the street rabble of various contries seen daily on the TV screens, we still can't of course assign a definitive number to each side. But again regarding Moslems living in Moslems countries, as opposed to more liberal westernized Moslems in predominantly non-Moslem countries, or those in Moslem countries with more secular governments, the weight of clerical and man in the street opinion gives me no reason to doubt that they believe such an interpretation of the Koran, and one which is in accord with its plain literal reading. If you have proof that a majority of Moslems do not in fact believe offensive jihad for the purpose of forcible conversion to be legitimate, even if not absolutely necessary, then you have yet to show it.

[BluffTHIS!]

DECLARATION BY CARDINAL BERTONE

VATICAN CITY, SEP 16, 2006 (VIS) - At midday today, Cardinal Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone S.D.B. released the following declaration:

"Given the reaction in Muslim quarters to certain passages of the Holy Father's address at the University of Regensburg, and the clarifications and explanations already presented through the Director of the Holy See Press Office, I would like to add the following:

"The position of the Pope concerning Islam is unequivocally that expressed by the conciliar document Nostra Aetate: 'The Church regards with esteem also the Muslims. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, Who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.'

"The Pope's option in favor of inter-religious and inter-cultural dialogue is equally unequivocal. In his meeting with representatives of Muslim communities in Cologne, Germany, on 20 August 2005, he said that such dialogue between Christians and Muslims 'cannot be reduced to an optional extra,' adding: 'The lessons of the past must help us to avoid repeating the same mistakes. We must seek paths of reconciliation and learn to live with respect for each other's identity.'

"As for the opinion of the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus which he quoted during his Regensburg talk, the Holy Father did not mean, nor does he mean, to make that opinion his own in any way. He simply used it as a means to undertake - in an academic context, and as is evident from a complete and attentive reading of the text - certain reflections on the theme of the relationship between religion and violence in general, and to conclude with a clear and radical rejection of the religious motivation for violence, from whatever side it may come. On this point, it is worth recalling what Benedict XVI himself recently affirmed in his commemorative Message for the 20th anniversary of the Inter-religious Meeting of Prayer for Peace, initiated by his predecessor John Paul II at Assisi in October 1986: ' ... demonstrations of violence cannot be attributed to religion as such but to the cultural limitations with which it is lived and develops in time. ... In fact, attestations of the close bond that exists between the relationship with God and the ethics of love are recorded in all great religious traditions.'

"The Holy Father thus sincerely regrets that certain passages of his address could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful, and should have been interpreted in a manner that in no way corresponds to his intentions. Indeed it was he who, before the religious fervor of Muslim believers, warned secularized Western culture to guard against 'the contempt for God and the cynicism that considers mockery of the sacred to be an exercise of freedom.'

"In reiterating his respect and esteem for those who profess Islam, he hopes they will be helped to understand the correct meaning of his words so that, quickly surmounting this present uneasy moment, witness to the 'Creator of heaven and earth, Who has spoken to men' may be reinforced, and collaboration may intensify 'to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom'."

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
You are the same poster as the Cyrus account which was banned.

[/ QUOTE ]
No.... He is not Cyrus.
Cyrus had no brain and he was always wrong.
Mickey has a brain and he is only wrong 75% of the time.

His writing style is COMPLETLY different from Cyrus...
The structure of his arguments are completely different from Cyrus... If I was Mickey, I would be insulted at the comparison.

Cyrus would side-step (ignore) other people's points that were damaging to his argument. Mickey is different in this respect (most of the time!). [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the Holy Father's remarks are an "attack", which was not his intention, then there are only 2 choices for what type of an "attack" it was:

1) A mischaraterization of the beliefs of Islam held by a majority of Moslems (and not their non-believing apologists like you);

2) An assertion that an accurate characterization of an Islamic belief held by a majority of Moslems are wrong.


With regards to liberal Moslems it might be #1. But regarding the majority of Moslems it is clearly #2, because they believe that an offensive jihad to forcibly convert non-believers who supposedly have had the truth revealed to them but obstinately rejected it is in accord with the teachings of the Koran.

So while in hindsight I am sure the pope wishing to make the overall point that the use of violence for the forcible conversion of non-believers is not in accord with either reason or the true faith, would not have used a specific example of Islamic beliefs, he nonetheless has simply stated the truth. But of course to the majority of Moslems who are radical and totally intolerant of the religious beliefs of others, that is unacceptable. Which in my personal view makes inter-religious dialogue with them virtually pointless since there isn't any common ground with those who deny the rights of others to freely worship differing beliefs and who think that it can be acceptable to use violence against them for same.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am curious to know where you get the idea that a majority of muslims are in favor of a violent Jihad to convert the world to Islam. Is this true of the muslim in the Middle East and in say Thailand, Malaysia, India, etc?

It is clear that there is a militant group that is using this line to further its on agenda. However, is it true of a majority of the Muslims around the world?

There are plenty of Islamic scholars in the East and West that dispute the statement Islam requires a jihad to convert non-believers. It is likely true that more Islamic scholars would agree that Islam urges that good muslims try to convert those who are not "of the book" to convert. And in fact Mohammed converted masses of pagans to be "of the book".

[/ QUOTE ]


I did not say that the majority of Moslems believe an offensive jihad for the purpose of forcible conversion of non-believers to be necessary per se, although many do believe that, but just that they interpret the Koran as saying such is permissible. The Shi'a clergy of Iran certainly believe that, as do the Wahabbist clergy of Saudi Arabia who supported the fundamentalist schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan. And many though not all Sunni clergy believe that as well. While we can match up contrary clerics and scholars, and the actions of the street rabble of various contries seen daily on the TV screens, we still can't of course assign a definitive number to each side. But again regarding Moslems living in Moslems countries, as opposed to more liberal westernized Moslems in predominantly non-Moslem countries, or those in Moslem countries with more secular governments, the weight of clerical and man in the street opinion gives me no reason to doubt that they believe such an interpretation of the Koran, and one which is in accord with its plain literal reading. If you have proof that a majority of Moslems do not in fact believe offensive jihad for the purpose of forcible conversion to be legitimate, even if not absolutely necessary, then you have yet to show it.

[/ QUOTE ]


Pretty funny.

You offer a generalization of all muslims -- agreeing with the statement that a violent jihad is in keeping with the religion (when, it is not the case). You back this up by offering an opinion that [all] "shia clergy" in Iran believe it and the Wahabist of Saudi and Pakistan (most of whom are not Wahabists, as I understand the situation, but for this discussion OK) and you want me to disprove your opinion.

Not only do you not offer a shred of evidence, just an opinion based on other opinions in a circular logic, even the basic argument is false.

So, no, the burden here is on you. You ignore the fact that there are many muslims in "non=western societies", ignore the evidence in the Koran that Jihad is a spiritual journey and the evidence in the Koran that the "ahl-ul-kitab" the people of the book are protected.

Unfortunately, the desire to paint the muslim religion in a negative light and to defend the indefensible words of the Pope you have thrown all logic to the wind.

Feel free to offer an opinion,but if you are representing it as fact, do offer some evidence to go with it.

This post is about as amusing as the one suggesting the Mickey and Cyrus are the same (clearly they are not to any one who can read).

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
However on theological matters the Orthodox have always been much more hostile toward the Catholic Church than the Catholic Church has been towards them

[/ QUOTE ]
On military and KILLING matters the Catholic Church has been more hostile than the Orthodox Church. I think the decision of the Pope to stab their their fellow Christians in the back while the Byzantines were keeping the Muslim in check was disgraceful....

The History of the Catholic Church is filled with shameful acts. The philospher Nietzsche wanted Christianity to die and he blames Martin Luther for thwarting his wishes. Because of Luther, the Catholic Church had to address their corruption/greed or risk losing all their subjects to Protestantism... The Protestants forced the Catholic Church to improve or die....

The Great Schism of 1054
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-West_Schism
A power struggle was the main cause of the split between the Catholics and the Orthodox....

[AScorz]

I think he should've stayed quiet. He picked the worst time to make this speech. I am not saying he is wrong, just saying he is feeding the fire.

[BluffTHIS!]

AC,

Check out this link. Excerpt from same:

Jihad Against the Kuffar is of two Types

Offensive Jihad (where the enemy is attacked in his own territory).

Where the Kuffar are not gathering to fight the Muslims. The fighting becomes Fard Kifaya with the minimum requirement of appointing believers to guard borders, and the sending of an army at least once a year to terrorise the enemies of Allah. It is a duty of the Imam to assemble and send out an army unit into the land of war once or twice every year. Moreover, it is the responsibility of the Muslim population to assist him, and if he does not send an army he is in sin.- And the Ulama have mentioned that this type of jihad is for maintaining the payment of Jizya. The scholars of the principles of religion have also said: " Jihad is Daw'ah with a force, and is obligatory to perform with all available capabilities, until there remains only Muslims or people who submit to Islam."

Defensive Jihad

This is expelling the Kuffar from our land, and it is Fard Ayn, a compulsory duty upon all. It is the most important of all the compulsory duties and arises in the following conditions:

1) If the Kuffar enter a land of the Muslims.

2) If the rows meet in battle and they begin to approach each other.

3) If the Imam calls a person or a people to march forward then they must march.

4) If the Kuffar capture and imprison a group of Muslims.


And this quote at the top of that document:

"The first obligation after Iman is the repulsion of the enemy aggressor who assaults the religion and the worldly affairs".
--Ibn Taymia.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
This post is about as amusing as the one suggesting the Mickey and Cyrus are the same (clearly they are not to any one who can read).

[/ QUOTE ]


AC,

What is amusing is that you and apparently some others can read but not correctly interpret. Check out the threads in the ATF forum and determine the date of Cyrus' banning. Then compare that to the date of "Mickey" registering. Then check "Mickey's" posting history and compare certain topics he has posted about not dealing with politics/philosophy (i.e. gambling topics), and compare that to revelations made about Cyrus' actual real world identity given in one of those threads and topics he has knowledge of. Finally do a stylistic analysis of the posting styles and techniques of Cyrus and "Mickey" (yea it really is a coincidence they both like to change the thread titles in their posts to give just one example). All of this is so obvious I feel like I'm teaching 2nd grade by even having to spell it out.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
Check out the threads in the ATF forum and determine the date of Cyrus' banning. Then compare that to the date of "Mickey" registering. Then check "Mickey's" posting history and compare certain topics he has posted about not dealing with politics/philosophy (i.e. gambling topics), and compare that to revelations made about Cyrus' actual real world identity given in one of those threads and topics he has knowledge of. Finally do a stylistic analysis of the posting styles and techniques of Cyrus and "Mickey"

[/ QUOTE ]
Mmmmmmm........you make some persuasive points.
If 'Mickey' is Cyrus resurected then it is a more contrite and thoughtful Cyrus...
Despite your good points, I think the writing style of Mickey is different. But then again, Cyrus would probably be unable to accept banning and re-registering under a new synonym would fit his modus operandi.... I will pay closer attention to "Mickey's" posts. With Cyrus, I can't recall one instance where I agreed with him, with Mickey we have some common ground. Although not much. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]