Double:-6
Thanks. I'm not too familiar with how it is in the US other than I've been given the impression that it was more the melting pot idea.
I really do appreciate multiculturalism.
Yes, we have those gangs too. It is a damned shame. It is time our society here in Canada started to get to the root of the problem rather than just responding to the symptoms. We do the same with the homeless and the drug addicts as well. They always attack the symptoms instead of dealing with the causes. It is like the ongoing consumption of aspirins for a headache that never goes away. Eventually you have to find out the cause so that you can correct that.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Pope steps in dodo
Pope steps in dodo
Having just finished an hour of CNN, I'm wondering just how long it took some moronic maniac to make up his mind to kill a NUN in retaliation for the Pope's remarks? Gee...that convinces ME of their humanity and peaceful natures!
Is Al Jezeera whipping these people into a frenzy or are they capable of doing it themselves? Are tacticians somewhere working on how to ''spin'' this?
How long ago did the Pope make the statement? "It's not enough," shout (perpetually) outraged Muslims! What do they want now?
Is Al Jezeera whipping these people into a frenzy or are they capable of doing it themselves? Are tacticians somewhere working on how to ''spin'' this?
How long ago did the Pope make the statement? "It's not enough," shout (perpetually) outraged Muslims! What do they want now?
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
Pope steps in dodo
I'm sick of religion being someones motives for irrational behavior...
No one should ever kill in the name of god --
Only living and preserving life in the name of god...
if that means killing, then so be it. I certainly cant criticize that.
No one should ever kill in the name of god --
Only living and preserving life in the name of god...
if that means killing, then so be it. I certainly cant criticize that.
Pope steps in dodo
Lulu2 wrote: Having just finished an hour of CNN, I'm wondering just how long it took some moronic maniac to make up his mind to kill a NUN in retaliation for the Pope's remarks? Gee...that convinces ME of their humanity and peaceful natures!
Is Al Jezeera whipping these people into a frenzy or are they capable of doing it themselves? Are tacticians somewhere working on how to ''spin'' this?
How long ago did the Pope make the statement? "It's not enough," shout (perpetually) outraged Muslims! What do they want now?
Hi Lulu,
The same spin was happening on BBC news as well, yesterday the news was weirdly worded as if to insinuate that the Pope actually needed to apologise. He actually said that he was sorry that it had made Muslims angry, avoiding the 'apology' aspect anyway, but it was still repoted as 'an apology'. No real reference was made to the fact that the Muslim community had made a contextual error. Nothing was made of the fact that this was all a massive over reaction due to zealots hearing a snippet of a speech and then using it to become 'enraged' again. Why is this? Why are the news agencies seemingly not fairly reporting? Is it in fear of the wrath of political correctness? That shouldn't stand in the way of news reporting, don't they see that anyone with an inch of intelligence can see that something's awry in their representation of the 'story'?
Katy:-5
Is Al Jezeera whipping these people into a frenzy or are they capable of doing it themselves? Are tacticians somewhere working on how to ''spin'' this?
How long ago did the Pope make the statement? "It's not enough," shout (perpetually) outraged Muslims! What do they want now?
Hi Lulu,
The same spin was happening on BBC news as well, yesterday the news was weirdly worded as if to insinuate that the Pope actually needed to apologise. He actually said that he was sorry that it had made Muslims angry, avoiding the 'apology' aspect anyway, but it was still repoted as 'an apology'. No real reference was made to the fact that the Muslim community had made a contextual error. Nothing was made of the fact that this was all a massive over reaction due to zealots hearing a snippet of a speech and then using it to become 'enraged' again. Why is this? Why are the news agencies seemingly not fairly reporting? Is it in fear of the wrath of political correctness? That shouldn't stand in the way of news reporting, don't they see that anyone with an inch of intelligence can see that something's awry in their representation of the 'story'?
Katy:-5
Pope steps in dodo
Lulu2 wrote: Believing himself "infallible," the Pope CANNOT step in "doo doo". Instead, he delivers "the message."
Lu, I will assume for the time being that you are joking here.
Having joined the discussion late, I will make only a few random remarks.
On another recent but unrelated (except that the pope was mentioned) thread I remarked that the pope, besides being the earthly head of the Church, is also a head of state and therefore a diplomat.
While the remarks in question may reasonably be seen as undiplomatic, my guess is that the pope had no idea that they would be so widely reported; after all, the conference at which they were made was rather scholarly and specific in nature, not something in which the public at large would normally have much interest.
Now, that having been said, there is no question that the Roman Catholic Church, LIKE MUCH OF THE REST OF CHRISTIANITY, regards Islam as a false, idolatrous, and, yes, 'evil and inhuman' religion. I regard it as such and I am a Catholic, but in this case, that is merely a co-incidence. I don't understand how ANY Christian, or for that matter any person of good will, affiliation aside, who looks at the terrorism, atrocities, and mass murders occurring daily around the world, perpetrated by Muslims, encouraged and in many case even directed by Muslim clerics, and claimed by Muslims to represent the will of 'Al-lah', could come to any other conclusion.
Which is to say, apologize for what? The choice, it seems to me, is either to acknowledge Islam for what it is, not only the enemy of Christianity but also the biggest enemy of freedom and democracy in the world today, or to surrender or capitulate to the terrorists. Strange that that is such a difficult choice for some people, including some posters here.
When I see a modern-day pope, cardinal, bishop or priest directing terror cells and ordering mass murders in the name of Jesus Christ, then I will admit that perhaps there are two sides to this coin.
As a previous poster pointed out, when the Muslim hordes get over being outraged about this, they will undoubtedly find something else about which to be be equally outraged; after all, that gives them the right to go out and commit mass murder and other acts of terrorism.
Lu, I will assume for the time being that you are joking here.Having joined the discussion late, I will make only a few random remarks.
On another recent but unrelated (except that the pope was mentioned) thread I remarked that the pope, besides being the earthly head of the Church, is also a head of state and therefore a diplomat.
While the remarks in question may reasonably be seen as undiplomatic, my guess is that the pope had no idea that they would be so widely reported; after all, the conference at which they were made was rather scholarly and specific in nature, not something in which the public at large would normally have much interest.
Now, that having been said, there is no question that the Roman Catholic Church, LIKE MUCH OF THE REST OF CHRISTIANITY, regards Islam as a false, idolatrous, and, yes, 'evil and inhuman' religion. I regard it as such and I am a Catholic, but in this case, that is merely a co-incidence. I don't understand how ANY Christian, or for that matter any person of good will, affiliation aside, who looks at the terrorism, atrocities, and mass murders occurring daily around the world, perpetrated by Muslims, encouraged and in many case even directed by Muslim clerics, and claimed by Muslims to represent the will of 'Al-lah', could come to any other conclusion.
Which is to say, apologize for what? The choice, it seems to me, is either to acknowledge Islam for what it is, not only the enemy of Christianity but also the biggest enemy of freedom and democracy in the world today, or to surrender or capitulate to the terrorists. Strange that that is such a difficult choice for some people, including some posters here.
When I see a modern-day pope, cardinal, bishop or priest directing terror cells and ordering mass murders in the name of Jesus Christ, then I will admit that perhaps there are two sides to this coin.
As a previous poster pointed out, when the Muslim hordes get over being outraged about this, they will undoubtedly find something else about which to be be equally outraged; after all, that gives them the right to go out and commit mass murder and other acts of terrorism.
Pope steps in dodo
The Pope was right Mohamet did say that islam should be spread by the sword if that was the only way to spread it, he was such a pain in the backside that the people of his own village kicked him out as a trouble maker and general pain, and it was not untill he went to a village who did not know him that he got a following. I f his own village had kept him there and just ignored him there would be no islam today.
Pope steps in dodo
Bronwen wrote: Lu, I will assume for the time being that you are joking here.
Having joined the discussion late, I will make only a few random remarks.
On another recent but unrelated (except that the pope was mentioned) thread I remarked that the pope, besides being the earthly head of the Church, is also a head of state and therefore a diplomat.
While the remarks in question may reasonably be seen as undiplomatic, my guess is that the pope had no idea that they would be so widely reported; after all, the conference at which they were made was rather scholarly and specific in nature, not something in which the public at large would normally have much interest.
Now, that having been said, there is no question that the Roman Catholic Church, LIKE MUCH OF THE REST OF CHRISTIANITY, regards Islam as a false, idolatrous, and, yes, 'evil and inhuman' religion. I regard it as such and I am a Catholic, but in this case, that is merely a co-incidence. I don't understand how ANY Christian, or for that matter any person of good will, affiliation aside, who looks at the terrorism, atrocities, and mass murders occurring daily around the world, perpetrated by Muslims, encouraged and in many case even directed by Muslim clerics, and claimed by Muslims to represent the will of 'Al-lah', could come to any other conclusion.
Which is to say, apologize for what? The choice, it seems to me, is either to acknowledge Islam for what it is, not only the enemy of Christianity but also the biggest enemy of freedom and democracy in the world today, or to surrender or capitulate to the terrorists. Strange that that is such a difficult choice for some people, including some posters here.
When I see a modern-day pope, cardinal, bishop or priest directing terror cells and ordering mass murders in the name of Jesus Christ, then I will admit that perhaps there are two sides to this coin.
As a previous poster pointed out, when the Muslim hordes get over being outraged about this, they will undoubtedly find something else about which to be be equally outraged; after all, that gives them the right to go out and commit mass murder and other acts of terrorism.
Hi bronewn,
I don't think that the majority of Christians believe that Islam is 'evil and inhuman', certainly none that I know. To wander down that path is to become as hate filled and vitriolic as the fundamentalists themselves. And please remember thy ARE fundamentalists and aren't representative of all of within the Islamic world. 'Enemy of Christianity' as well? Does that mean that nice old Mr Mohammad that peacefully runs his corner shop is 'the enemy and evil and inhuman'? We see stories of men who have commited murder, rape and child abuse on our screens on a daily basis, does that mean that all men are murdering rapists? Of course not. What absurdity.
What you have said in your post pretty much goes to emphasise that it's religion in general that's the problem here, regardless of denomination. Don't forget, the Roman Catholic church has plenty of blood on it's hands as well.
Katy
Having joined the discussion late, I will make only a few random remarks.
On another recent but unrelated (except that the pope was mentioned) thread I remarked that the pope, besides being the earthly head of the Church, is also a head of state and therefore a diplomat.
While the remarks in question may reasonably be seen as undiplomatic, my guess is that the pope had no idea that they would be so widely reported; after all, the conference at which they were made was rather scholarly and specific in nature, not something in which the public at large would normally have much interest.
Now, that having been said, there is no question that the Roman Catholic Church, LIKE MUCH OF THE REST OF CHRISTIANITY, regards Islam as a false, idolatrous, and, yes, 'evil and inhuman' religion. I regard it as such and I am a Catholic, but in this case, that is merely a co-incidence. I don't understand how ANY Christian, or for that matter any person of good will, affiliation aside, who looks at the terrorism, atrocities, and mass murders occurring daily around the world, perpetrated by Muslims, encouraged and in many case even directed by Muslim clerics, and claimed by Muslims to represent the will of 'Al-lah', could come to any other conclusion.
Which is to say, apologize for what? The choice, it seems to me, is either to acknowledge Islam for what it is, not only the enemy of Christianity but also the biggest enemy of freedom and democracy in the world today, or to surrender or capitulate to the terrorists. Strange that that is such a difficult choice for some people, including some posters here.
When I see a modern-day pope, cardinal, bishop or priest directing terror cells and ordering mass murders in the name of Jesus Christ, then I will admit that perhaps there are two sides to this coin.
As a previous poster pointed out, when the Muslim hordes get over being outraged about this, they will undoubtedly find something else about which to be be equally outraged; after all, that gives them the right to go out and commit mass murder and other acts of terrorism.
Hi bronewn,
I don't think that the majority of Christians believe that Islam is 'evil and inhuman', certainly none that I know. To wander down that path is to become as hate filled and vitriolic as the fundamentalists themselves. And please remember thy ARE fundamentalists and aren't representative of all of within the Islamic world. 'Enemy of Christianity' as well? Does that mean that nice old Mr Mohammad that peacefully runs his corner shop is 'the enemy and evil and inhuman'? We see stories of men who have commited murder, rape and child abuse on our screens on a daily basis, does that mean that all men are murdering rapists? Of course not. What absurdity.
What you have said in your post pretty much goes to emphasise that it's religion in general that's the problem here, regardless of denomination. Don't forget, the Roman Catholic church has plenty of blood on it's hands as well.
Katy
Pope steps in dodo
What I find ironic is that some Muslims react to his remarks with violence thus proving the Byzantine Emperors point...
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Pope steps in dodo
Katy1 wrote: 1. Hi bronewn,
2. I don't think that the majority of Christians believe that Islam is 'evil and inhuman', certainly none that I know. To wander down that path is to become as hate filled and vitriolic as the fundamentalists themselves.
3. And please remember thy ARE fundamentalists and aren't representative of all of within the Islamic world. 'Enemy of Christianity' as well? Does that mean that nice old Mr Mohammad that peacefully runs his corner shop is 'the enemy and evil and inhuman'?
4. We see stories of men who have commited murder, rape and child abuse on our screens on a daily basis, does that mean that all men are murdering rapists? Of course not. What absurdity.
5. What you have said in your post pretty much goes to emphasise that it's religion in general that's the problem here, regardless of denomination.
6. Don't forget, the Roman Catholic church has plenty of blood on it's hands as well.
Katy1. Hi K!
2. If you are correct, and you may be, I have not taken nor seen any surveys on the subject, how do they then regard all of the Islamic terrorism menacing world democracy? Surely not as good and humanitarian! In any case, I did not say, 'the majority', I said, MUCH of Christianity, and in that respect I believe that I am correct. I personally have never met a Christian who supports Muslim atrocities. Have you?
3. I addressed this in an exchange on another thread. Then why are all of the 'nice, peace-loving' Muslims not openly condemning the terrorists? I have not heard of that.
4. Ah, but maleness does not purport to be a religion and does not support such things. Islam is and does.
5. Others have made the same argument, and I don't see it. My Christian religion does not, and never has, led me to such outrages as Islam is perpetrating all over the world, and has for centuries.
6. It's not a matter of forgetting but of knowing. Can you give some examples? If you are talking about the so-called 'dark ages', the Church provided much more light than darkness during that period. That the Church was involved in political and other intrigues that reflect badly on its history is well-established. That has little to do with the menace that Islam presents today. I see no such menace in Western religion, Catholic or Protestant. Of the other Eastern religions I know very little so do not feel qualified to comment.
2. I don't think that the majority of Christians believe that Islam is 'evil and inhuman', certainly none that I know. To wander down that path is to become as hate filled and vitriolic as the fundamentalists themselves.
3. And please remember thy ARE fundamentalists and aren't representative of all of within the Islamic world. 'Enemy of Christianity' as well? Does that mean that nice old Mr Mohammad that peacefully runs his corner shop is 'the enemy and evil and inhuman'?
4. We see stories of men who have commited murder, rape and child abuse on our screens on a daily basis, does that mean that all men are murdering rapists? Of course not. What absurdity.
5. What you have said in your post pretty much goes to emphasise that it's religion in general that's the problem here, regardless of denomination.
6. Don't forget, the Roman Catholic church has plenty of blood on it's hands as well.
Katy1. Hi K!
2. If you are correct, and you may be, I have not taken nor seen any surveys on the subject, how do they then regard all of the Islamic terrorism menacing world democracy? Surely not as good and humanitarian! In any case, I did not say, 'the majority', I said, MUCH of Christianity, and in that respect I believe that I am correct. I personally have never met a Christian who supports Muslim atrocities. Have you?
3. I addressed this in an exchange on another thread. Then why are all of the 'nice, peace-loving' Muslims not openly condemning the terrorists? I have not heard of that.
4. Ah, but maleness does not purport to be a religion and does not support such things. Islam is and does.
5. Others have made the same argument, and I don't see it. My Christian religion does not, and never has, led me to such outrages as Islam is perpetrating all over the world, and has for centuries.
6. It's not a matter of forgetting but of knowing. Can you give some examples? If you are talking about the so-called 'dark ages', the Church provided much more light than darkness during that period. That the Church was involved in political and other intrigues that reflect badly on its history is well-established. That has little to do with the menace that Islam presents today. I see no such menace in Western religion, Catholic or Protestant. Of the other Eastern religions I know very little so do not feel qualified to comment.
Pope steps in dodo
Bronwen wrote: Can you give some examples?
Leave it to you to ask for citations and sources. :rolleyes: Try giving some in your own posts. It is a good question for everyone who is making sweeping generalisations here. I include double helix in this comment. If you want to make statements please state the source of your reasoning. Otherwise, carry on with your biased rants.
Leave it to you to ask for citations and sources. :rolleyes: Try giving some in your own posts. It is a good question for everyone who is making sweeping generalisations here. I include double helix in this comment. If you want to make statements please state the source of your reasoning. Otherwise, carry on with your biased rants.
Pope steps in dodo
Bronwen wrote: 1. Hi K!
2. If you are correct, and you may be, I have not taken nor seen any surveys on the subject, how do they then regard all of the Islamic terrorism menacing world democracy? Surely not as good and humanitarian! In any case, I did not say, 'the majority', I said, MUCH of Christianity, and in that respect I believe that I am correct. I personally have never met a Christian who supports Muslim atrocities. Have you?
3. I addressed this in an exchange on another thread. Then why are all of the 'nice, peace-loving' Muslims not openly condemning the terrorists? I have not heard of that.
4. Ah, but maleness does not purport to be a religion and does not support such things. Islam is and does.
5. Others have made the same argument, and I don't see it. My Christian religion does not, and never has, led me to such outrages as Islam is perpetrating all over the world, and has for centuries.
6. It's not a matter of forgetting but of knowing. Can you give some examples? If you are talking about the so-called 'dark ages', the Church provided much more light than darkness during that period. That the Church was involved in political and other intrigues that reflect badly on its history is well-established. That has little to do with the menace that Islam presents today. I see no such menace in Western religion, Catholic or Protestant. Of the other Eastern religions I know very little so do not feel qualified to comment.
Hi Bronwen,
I think my problem with what you are saying is that you seem to to make no distinction between the zealots who do commit atrocities and are happy to make themselves martyrs and despise The West etc. etc. with other Muslim people who have no desire for any of these things. Muslims who lead similar lives to you or I, except for belief in one prophet over another. I have delved into bits of the Koran online recently out of my own interest given the present political climate and I have actually found many profoundly peaceful and inspiring words, preaching respect for women and tolerence for Christians and Jews. It is a case (as with most religions) of people deciding in their groups 'what God wants' which is the problem. The strange thing is I would have thought this in itself is blasphemous, to presume that God would ally him/herself to your particular part of the world or ideals, but I'm digressing somewhat.
I response to your question, no, I haven't met a Christian who has been in support of the atrocities, of course not, that seems a little bit of a meaningless question IMHO. I have though, met and heard of many, many Muslims who are as disgusted by the terrorists action. There was a wide scale poll of Muslim feeling here in the UK and the outcome was that only 6% believed that either 9/11 or 7/7 was right and justified. To be quite honest I believe that those people should pack their bags and go to a country with Sharia Law but that's only my opinion!!
So here in the UK, that leaves us with 94% of British Muslims who aren't budding terrorists and don't support terrorist actions. Do you seriously believe these people to be 'evil and inhuman'? How can you make such outrageously sweeping generalisations about the nature of an entire religion? Yes, they should be speaking publicly to condemn the actions of a few, I totally agree with you there. In that regard I feel that the moderates are letting themselves down, but who's to say that they themselves aren't frightened of speaking out against these lunatics within their own communities? But that doesn't mean that they shouldn't do this of course, but it may well part way explain their reticence.
I don't want to let this become too off topic so I'll keep my opinion here short. With regards to Roman Catholicism, I'd say the RC churches stance on the use of condoms in the developing world leading millions of people to die agonising deaths cause by STD's like HIV is just as bad as the use of guns and bombs in terrorism and that comes directly from the head of the RC religion. You don't need to use violence to destroy a nation.
Katy
2. If you are correct, and you may be, I have not taken nor seen any surveys on the subject, how do they then regard all of the Islamic terrorism menacing world democracy? Surely not as good and humanitarian! In any case, I did not say, 'the majority', I said, MUCH of Christianity, and in that respect I believe that I am correct. I personally have never met a Christian who supports Muslim atrocities. Have you?
3. I addressed this in an exchange on another thread. Then why are all of the 'nice, peace-loving' Muslims not openly condemning the terrorists? I have not heard of that.
4. Ah, but maleness does not purport to be a religion and does not support such things. Islam is and does.
5. Others have made the same argument, and I don't see it. My Christian religion does not, and never has, led me to such outrages as Islam is perpetrating all over the world, and has for centuries.
6. It's not a matter of forgetting but of knowing. Can you give some examples? If you are talking about the so-called 'dark ages', the Church provided much more light than darkness during that period. That the Church was involved in political and other intrigues that reflect badly on its history is well-established. That has little to do with the menace that Islam presents today. I see no such menace in Western religion, Catholic or Protestant. Of the other Eastern religions I know very little so do not feel qualified to comment.
Hi Bronwen,
I think my problem with what you are saying is that you seem to to make no distinction between the zealots who do commit atrocities and are happy to make themselves martyrs and despise The West etc. etc. with other Muslim people who have no desire for any of these things. Muslims who lead similar lives to you or I, except for belief in one prophet over another. I have delved into bits of the Koran online recently out of my own interest given the present political climate and I have actually found many profoundly peaceful and inspiring words, preaching respect for women and tolerence for Christians and Jews. It is a case (as with most religions) of people deciding in their groups 'what God wants' which is the problem. The strange thing is I would have thought this in itself is blasphemous, to presume that God would ally him/herself to your particular part of the world or ideals, but I'm digressing somewhat.
I response to your question, no, I haven't met a Christian who has been in support of the atrocities, of course not, that seems a little bit of a meaningless question IMHO. I have though, met and heard of many, many Muslims who are as disgusted by the terrorists action. There was a wide scale poll of Muslim feeling here in the UK and the outcome was that only 6% believed that either 9/11 or 7/7 was right and justified. To be quite honest I believe that those people should pack their bags and go to a country with Sharia Law but that's only my opinion!!
So here in the UK, that leaves us with 94% of British Muslims who aren't budding terrorists and don't support terrorist actions. Do you seriously believe these people to be 'evil and inhuman'? How can you make such outrageously sweeping generalisations about the nature of an entire religion? Yes, they should be speaking publicly to condemn the actions of a few, I totally agree with you there. In that regard I feel that the moderates are letting themselves down, but who's to say that they themselves aren't frightened of speaking out against these lunatics within their own communities? But that doesn't mean that they shouldn't do this of course, but it may well part way explain their reticence.
I don't want to let this become too off topic so I'll keep my opinion here short. With regards to Roman Catholicism, I'd say the RC churches stance on the use of condoms in the developing world leading millions of people to die agonising deaths cause by STD's like HIV is just as bad as the use of guns and bombs in terrorism and that comes directly from the head of the RC religion. You don't need to use violence to destroy a nation.
Katy
Pope steps in dodo
Katy1 wrote: Hi Bronwen,
I think my problem with what you are saying is that you seem to to make no distinction between the zealots who do commit atrocities and are happy to make themselves martyrs and despise The West etc. etc. with other Muslim people who have no desire for any of these things. Muslims who lead similar lives to you or I, except for belief in one prophet over another. I have delved into bits of the Koran online recently out of my own interest given the present political climate and I have actually found many profoundly peaceful and inspiring words, preaching respect for women and tolerence for Christians and Jews. It is a case (as with most religions) of people deciding in their groups 'what God wants' which is the problem. The strange thing is I would have thought this in itself is blasphemous, to presume that God would ally him/herself to your particular part of the world or ideals, but I'm digressing somewhat.
I response to your question, no, I haven't met a Christian who has been in support of the atrocities, of course not, that seems a little bit of a meaningless question IMHO. I have though, met and heard of many, many Muslims who are as disgusted by the terrorists action. There was a wide scale poll of Muslim feeling here in the UK and the outcome was that only 6% believed that either 9/11 or 7/7 was right and justified. To be quite honest I believe that those people should pack their bags and go to a country with Sharia Law but that's only my opinion!!
So here in the UK, that leaves us with 94% of British Muslims who aren't budding terrorists and don't support terrorist actions. Do you seriously believe these people to be 'evil and inhuman'? How can you make such outrageously sweeping generalisations about the nature of an entire religion? Yes, they should be speaking publicly to condemn the actions of a few, I totally agree with you there. In that regard I feel that the moderates are letting themselves down, but who's to say that they themselves aren't frightened of speaking out against these lunatics within their own communities? But that doesn't mean that they shouldn't do this of course, but it may well part way explain their reticence.
I don't want to let this become too off topic so I'll keep my opinion here short. With regards to Roman Catholicism, I'd say the RC churches stance on the use of condoms in the developing world leading millions of people to die agonising deaths cause by STD's like HIV is just as bad as the use of guns and bombs in terrorism and that comes directly from the head of the RC religion. You don't need to use violence to destroy a nation.
Katy
The Qu'ran also has the following statements in it. Koan don't get mad at me I'm just trying to make the point that there is argument in the Muslim community about the spread of Islam using the sword. These statements come chronologically later in the Koran than the more gentle ones at the beginning. The Qu'ran implies the validity pf something called abbrogation where the later statements override the the earlier ones. Some Muslims says that the early statements were given bcause the Muslim community at the the time was outnumbered by potentially hostile neighbors, as Islam spread the message was changed. I make no judgement hear just be aware these statements are in there:
IV.138: Those who believe, then disbelieve, then again believe, then disbelieve and then increase in disbelief, Allah will never forgive them nor will He guide them to the right way.
IV.89: 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.
IV.92: And it does not behoove a believer to kill a believer except by mistake, and whoever kills a believer by mistake, he should free a believing slave , and blood-money should be paid to his people unless they remit it as alms; but if he be from a tribe hostile to you and he is a believer, the freeing of a believing slave (suffices), and if he is from a tribe between whom and you there is a covenant, the blood-money should be paid to his people along with the freeing of a believing slave; but he who cannot find (a slave) should fast for two months successively: a penance from Allah, and Allah is Knowing, Wise.
XVI.8: It may be that your Lord will have mercy on you, and if you (again return to disobedience) We too will return (to punishment), and We have made hell a prison for the unbelievers.
II.161: Surely those who disbelieve and die while they are disbelievers, these it is on whom is the curse of Allah and the angels and men all;
IX. 5-6: Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them.
IV.76: Those who believe fight in the cause of God.
IV.74: Let those who fight in the cause of God who barter the life of this world for that which is to come; for whoever fights on God's path, whether he is killed or triumphs, We will give him a handsome reward.
VIII.39-42: Say to the Infidels: if they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God's
I think my problem with what you are saying is that you seem to to make no distinction between the zealots who do commit atrocities and are happy to make themselves martyrs and despise The West etc. etc. with other Muslim people who have no desire for any of these things. Muslims who lead similar lives to you or I, except for belief in one prophet over another. I have delved into bits of the Koran online recently out of my own interest given the present political climate and I have actually found many profoundly peaceful and inspiring words, preaching respect for women and tolerence for Christians and Jews. It is a case (as with most religions) of people deciding in their groups 'what God wants' which is the problem. The strange thing is I would have thought this in itself is blasphemous, to presume that God would ally him/herself to your particular part of the world or ideals, but I'm digressing somewhat.
I response to your question, no, I haven't met a Christian who has been in support of the atrocities, of course not, that seems a little bit of a meaningless question IMHO. I have though, met and heard of many, many Muslims who are as disgusted by the terrorists action. There was a wide scale poll of Muslim feeling here in the UK and the outcome was that only 6% believed that either 9/11 or 7/7 was right and justified. To be quite honest I believe that those people should pack their bags and go to a country with Sharia Law but that's only my opinion!!
So here in the UK, that leaves us with 94% of British Muslims who aren't budding terrorists and don't support terrorist actions. Do you seriously believe these people to be 'evil and inhuman'? How can you make such outrageously sweeping generalisations about the nature of an entire religion? Yes, they should be speaking publicly to condemn the actions of a few, I totally agree with you there. In that regard I feel that the moderates are letting themselves down, but who's to say that they themselves aren't frightened of speaking out against these lunatics within their own communities? But that doesn't mean that they shouldn't do this of course, but it may well part way explain their reticence.
I don't want to let this become too off topic so I'll keep my opinion here short. With regards to Roman Catholicism, I'd say the RC churches stance on the use of condoms in the developing world leading millions of people to die agonising deaths cause by STD's like HIV is just as bad as the use of guns and bombs in terrorism and that comes directly from the head of the RC religion. You don't need to use violence to destroy a nation.
Katy
The Qu'ran also has the following statements in it. Koan don't get mad at me I'm just trying to make the point that there is argument in the Muslim community about the spread of Islam using the sword. These statements come chronologically later in the Koran than the more gentle ones at the beginning. The Qu'ran implies the validity pf something called abbrogation where the later statements override the the earlier ones. Some Muslims says that the early statements were given bcause the Muslim community at the the time was outnumbered by potentially hostile neighbors, as Islam spread the message was changed. I make no judgement hear just be aware these statements are in there:
IV.138: Those who believe, then disbelieve, then again believe, then disbelieve and then increase in disbelief, Allah will never forgive them nor will He guide them to the right way.
IV.89: 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.
IV.92: And it does not behoove a believer to kill a believer except by mistake, and whoever kills a believer by mistake, he should free a believing slave , and blood-money should be paid to his people unless they remit it as alms; but if he be from a tribe hostile to you and he is a believer, the freeing of a believing slave (suffices), and if he is from a tribe between whom and you there is a covenant, the blood-money should be paid to his people along with the freeing of a believing slave; but he who cannot find (a slave) should fast for two months successively: a penance from Allah, and Allah is Knowing, Wise.
XVI.8: It may be that your Lord will have mercy on you, and if you (again return to disobedience) We too will return (to punishment), and We have made hell a prison for the unbelievers.
II.161: Surely those who disbelieve and die while they are disbelievers, these it is on whom is the curse of Allah and the angels and men all;
IX. 5-6: Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them.
IV.76: Those who believe fight in the cause of God.
IV.74: Let those who fight in the cause of God who barter the life of this world for that which is to come; for whoever fights on God's path, whether he is killed or triumphs, We will give him a handsome reward.
VIII.39-42: Say to the Infidels: if they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God's
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Pope steps in dodo
I wouldn't doubt it Zinky, it's and ancient text and much of it reflects the harshness of the times (thanks for sharing them though 
)
Fundamentalist Muslims much like Christian fundamentalists (ahem...sorry, Evangelists) live by the scriptures or original text with no room for deviation. Moderate (and incidentally the vast majority) Muslims and Christians understand the original text in context with the time in which they were written; and adjust them for their lives in the 21st century.
I sometimes wonder whether it's that these books and scriptures are available to the every person which creates fundamentalism. In years gone by when ordinary people were read to in their place of worship, often in a foreign tongue, the stories were meant as allegories, general Good's to live their lives by. But now it seems that every word is poured over and it's literal meaning taken to extremes and quoted back at people, the words used as weapons to defend themselves from the paranoid feeling of fear that forces individuals into fundamentalism in the first place.
There are bits in the Bible that some use to condemn homosexuals and women, and maybe in that time those were the the accepted 'rules' of society, but most intelligent and forward thinking Christians would understand that we have evolved as societies, culturally and scientifically to realise that these were just fearful ignorants imposing their own brand of intolerance. I hope, no, I know that there are a majority of Muslims who would feel very uncomfortable with some of those passages that you have quoted.
Katy
)Fundamentalist Muslims much like Christian fundamentalists (ahem...sorry, Evangelists) live by the scriptures or original text with no room for deviation. Moderate (and incidentally the vast majority) Muslims and Christians understand the original text in context with the time in which they were written; and adjust them for their lives in the 21st century.
I sometimes wonder whether it's that these books and scriptures are available to the every person which creates fundamentalism. In years gone by when ordinary people were read to in their place of worship, often in a foreign tongue, the stories were meant as allegories, general Good's to live their lives by. But now it seems that every word is poured over and it's literal meaning taken to extremes and quoted back at people, the words used as weapons to defend themselves from the paranoid feeling of fear that forces individuals into fundamentalism in the first place.
There are bits in the Bible that some use to condemn homosexuals and women, and maybe in that time those were the the accepted 'rules' of society, but most intelligent and forward thinking Christians would understand that we have evolved as societies, culturally and scientifically to realise that these were just fearful ignorants imposing their own brand of intolerance. I hope, no, I know that there are a majority of Muslims who would feel very uncomfortable with some of those passages that you have quoted.
Katy
Pope steps in dodo
I read about this,and I think the Muslims are upset that he quoted a source that said the Muslim religeon is a religeon of violence. They also said, I believe, that he him self was implying that this is what he thinks about muslims as well.
The report that I read had a picture of the reaction of muslims in india, an image of them burning an effegee of the pope, whilst beating it and stamping on it. It's not a violent religeon at all...:rolleyes:
The report that I read had a picture of the reaction of muslims in india, an image of them burning an effegee of the pope, whilst beating it and stamping on it. It's not a violent religeon at all...:rolleyes:
Behaviour breeds behaviour - treat people how you would like to be treated yourself
Pope steps in dodo
zinky wrote: Koan don't get mad at me
:wah:
I have no problem with passages being quoted. That was the point of my previous post.
I would be interested to hear if any of those passages have been quoted by Muslims recently to raise a jihad. There are Muslims that call for jihad and they do make public statements. Perhaps looking specifically at what they are saying is more helpful.
I would also like a link to any articles that quote the Iranian president's comments that double helix refered to. I want to know what he said and forgive me if I don't take DH's summary as the authority.
:wah:
I have no problem with passages being quoted. That was the point of my previous post.
I would be interested to hear if any of those passages have been quoted by Muslims recently to raise a jihad. There are Muslims that call for jihad and they do make public statements. Perhaps looking specifically at what they are saying is more helpful.
I would also like a link to any articles that quote the Iranian president's comments that double helix refered to. I want to know what he said and forgive me if I don't take DH's summary as the authority.
Pope steps in dodo
woppy71 wrote: I read about this,and I think the Muslims are upset that he quoted a source that said the Muslim religeon is a religeon of violence. They also said, I believe, that he him self was implying that this is what he thinks about muslims as well.
The report that I read had a picture of the reaction of muslims in india, an image of them burning an effegee of the pope, whilst beating it and stamping on it. It's not a violent religeon at all...:rolleyes:
This particular Pope is being watched carefully by Muslims and Jews alike due to his connection with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly the Inquisition) and his membership in the Hitler Youth as a child (which he was forced to join). Though reasonable explanations have been given many are a little sensitive and wary of Pope Benedict XVI.
The report that I read had a picture of the reaction of muslims in india, an image of them burning an effegee of the pope, whilst beating it and stamping on it. It's not a violent religeon at all...:rolleyes:
This particular Pope is being watched carefully by Muslims and Jews alike due to his connection with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly the Inquisition) and his membership in the Hitler Youth as a child (which he was forced to join). Though reasonable explanations have been given many are a little sensitive and wary of Pope Benedict XVI.
Pope steps in dodo
I really am a layman when it comes to religeon, but the conclusion I have come to, with my limited knowledge of the subject, is that all religeons can be linked to violence on some way, wether they be the agressors or the suppressed.
For example, in history, The catholics and protestants have been at it for years (sorry about my words, I am a layman after all), The jews and the muslims. I can only put this down to the fact that with true faith comes a passionate belief in the faith, hence like any subject people feel strongly about, they will defend it.
For example, in history, The catholics and protestants have been at it for years (sorry about my words, I am a layman after all
), The jews and the muslims. I can only put this down to the fact that with true faith comes a passionate belief in the faith, hence like any subject people feel strongly about, they will defend it.Behaviour breeds behaviour - treat people how you would like to be treated yourself
Pope steps in dodo
woppy71 wrote:
The report that I read had a picture of the reaction of muslims in india, an image of them burning an effegee of the pope, whilst beating it and stamping on it. It's not a violent religeon at all...:rolleyes:
Harming an image of the Pope is not a new thing.
October 3, 1992: Sinead O'Connor appears as the musical guest on "Saturday Night Live." Toward the end of the show O'Connor performs a remarkable a capella version of the Bob Marley song "War," which Marley wrote using words from a speech given by Ethiopia's last emperor, Haile Selassie, who died in 1975. The song basically says war is an appropriate response for victims of racial injustice, child abuse and other types of cruelty. At the song's conclusion O'Connor held up an 8" x 10" color photo of Pope John Paul II, ripped it into pieces and said, "Fight the real enemy."
The report that I read had a picture of the reaction of muslims in india, an image of them burning an effegee of the pope, whilst beating it and stamping on it. It's not a violent religeon at all...:rolleyes:
Harming an image of the Pope is not a new thing.
October 3, 1992: Sinead O'Connor appears as the musical guest on "Saturday Night Live." Toward the end of the show O'Connor performs a remarkable a capella version of the Bob Marley song "War," which Marley wrote using words from a speech given by Ethiopia's last emperor, Haile Selassie, who died in 1975. The song basically says war is an appropriate response for victims of racial injustice, child abuse and other types of cruelty. At the song's conclusion O'Connor held up an 8" x 10" color photo of Pope John Paul II, ripped it into pieces and said, "Fight the real enemy."
Pope steps in dodo
Katy1 wrote: Hi Lulu,
The same spin was happening on BBC news as well, yesterday the news was weirdly worded as if to insinuate that the Pope actually needed to apologise. He actually said that he was sorry that it had made Muslims angry, avoiding the 'apology' aspect anyway, but it was still repoted as 'an apology'. No real reference was made to the fact that the Muslim community had made a contextual error. Nothing was made of the fact that this was all a massive over reaction due to zealots hearing a snippet of a speech and then using it to become 'enraged' again. Why is this? Why are the news agencies seemingly not fairly reporting? Is it in fear of the wrath of political correctness? That shouldn't stand in the way of news reporting, don't they see that anyone with an inch of intelligence can see that something's awry in their representation of the 'story'?
Katy:-5
There is a difference between reporting events as they are happening and making comment on them if you want that look at the discussion programmes like newsnight. saying sorry is making an apology for unintended offence. It was also reported that the comments are being used to whip up feelings by extremists with all the riots around the middle east resdulting from it. I also saw the chairmen of the muslim council of britain pointing out that the muslims protesting in london are the same rent a mobs that appear at very opportunity.
It's about time we took a hard line against all religon and stopped worrying about the sensibilities of religious nutters everywhere and took steps like repealing the blasphemy laws-which only apply to the C of E anyway, ending faith schools which only encporage sectarianism. It took centuries of warfare for sectarian violence to peter out in europe the middle east is in kind of a medaival time warp. Respecting other cultures doen't mean you should be precious about criticising them whether muslim or western.
Sure the pope was a bit insensitive but he is making it harder for moderates to get hearing, people believe what they want just like us in the west.
We need to get away from this idea that Islamic terrorists are a threat to democracy. The only theat to freedom and democracy we need worry about is the one from our leaders who would have us give up liberty to fight an enemy they created that had got no chance if it came to open conflict. not to mention the christian brotherhood that seems to be eager to start a war at every oppportunity.
posted by woppy71
he report that I read had a picture of the reaction of muslims in india, an image of them burning an effegee of the pope, whilst beating it and stamping on it. It's not a violent religeon at all..
It's also a not terribly common religon in India most mulims fled in 1947 to get away from the hindu and sikhs. Given a good enough reason India is the country most likey to use nuclear weapons against muslims. There is one muslim state already that has nuclear weapons with the means to deliver them and it is a lot more worrying than Iran Given the likelihood of a islamic fundamentalist takeover in Pakistan it might be sooner rather than later if they decide on a pre-emptive strike. If you had religious fanatics living next door and they had nuclkear weapons would you not be tempted to get them first?
The same spin was happening on BBC news as well, yesterday the news was weirdly worded as if to insinuate that the Pope actually needed to apologise. He actually said that he was sorry that it had made Muslims angry, avoiding the 'apology' aspect anyway, but it was still repoted as 'an apology'. No real reference was made to the fact that the Muslim community had made a contextual error. Nothing was made of the fact that this was all a massive over reaction due to zealots hearing a snippet of a speech and then using it to become 'enraged' again. Why is this? Why are the news agencies seemingly not fairly reporting? Is it in fear of the wrath of political correctness? That shouldn't stand in the way of news reporting, don't they see that anyone with an inch of intelligence can see that something's awry in their representation of the 'story'?
Katy:-5
There is a difference between reporting events as they are happening and making comment on them if you want that look at the discussion programmes like newsnight. saying sorry is making an apology for unintended offence. It was also reported that the comments are being used to whip up feelings by extremists with all the riots around the middle east resdulting from it. I also saw the chairmen of the muslim council of britain pointing out that the muslims protesting in london are the same rent a mobs that appear at very opportunity.
It's about time we took a hard line against all religon and stopped worrying about the sensibilities of religious nutters everywhere and took steps like repealing the blasphemy laws-which only apply to the C of E anyway, ending faith schools which only encporage sectarianism. It took centuries of warfare for sectarian violence to peter out in europe the middle east is in kind of a medaival time warp. Respecting other cultures doen't mean you should be precious about criticising them whether muslim or western.
Sure the pope was a bit insensitive but he is making it harder for moderates to get hearing, people believe what they want just like us in the west.
We need to get away from this idea that Islamic terrorists are a threat to democracy. The only theat to freedom and democracy we need worry about is the one from our leaders who would have us give up liberty to fight an enemy they created that had got no chance if it came to open conflict. not to mention the christian brotherhood that seems to be eager to start a war at every oppportunity.
posted by woppy71
he report that I read had a picture of the reaction of muslims in india, an image of them burning an effegee of the pope, whilst beating it and stamping on it. It's not a violent religeon at all..
It's also a not terribly common religon in India most mulims fled in 1947 to get away from the hindu and sikhs. Given a good enough reason India is the country most likey to use nuclear weapons against muslims. There is one muslim state already that has nuclear weapons with the means to deliver them and it is a lot more worrying than Iran Given the likelihood of a islamic fundamentalist takeover in Pakistan it might be sooner rather than later if they decide on a pre-emptive strike. If you had religious fanatics living next door and they had nuclkear weapons would you not be tempted to get them first?
Pope steps in dodo
gmc wrote:
It's also a not terribly common religon in India most mulims fled in 1947 to get away from the hindu and sikhs. Given a good enough reason India is the country most likey to use nuclear weapons against muslims. There is one muslim state already that has nuclear weapons with the means to deliver them and it is a lot more worrying than Iran Given the likelihood of a islamic fundamentalist takeover in Pakistan it might be sooner rather than later if they decide on a pre-emptive strike. If you had religious fanatics living next door and they had nuclkear weapons would you not be tempted to get them first?
Thats exactly what worries me, that pakistan and india are going to go to war, with the possibility of it escallating into annihilation. I think we should be keeping a close eye on these two, rather than on north korea.
It's also a not terribly common religon in India most mulims fled in 1947 to get away from the hindu and sikhs. Given a good enough reason India is the country most likey to use nuclear weapons against muslims. There is one muslim state already that has nuclear weapons with the means to deliver them and it is a lot more worrying than Iran Given the likelihood of a islamic fundamentalist takeover in Pakistan it might be sooner rather than later if they decide on a pre-emptive strike. If you had religious fanatics living next door and they had nuclkear weapons would you not be tempted to get them first?
Thats exactly what worries me, that pakistan and india are going to go to war, with the possibility of it escallating into annihilation. I think we should be keeping a close eye on these two, rather than on north korea.
Behaviour breeds behaviour - treat people how you would like to be treated yourself
Pope steps in dodo
Wow!
The Canadian Assn. of Muslims has spoken openly and strongly against the fundamentalist tactics being used by the terrorists. I read where one Muslim scholar has openly said that these fundamentalists have usurped the term Islam and turned it into a different faith. Sorry I can't remember hes name. I do believe that the basic tenets of Islam likes those of Christianity call for a peaceful life and not war.
Having a copy of the Qur'an I have read parts and it does say, without trying to actually find the quote, that Muslims are not to strike first but only in defense of themselves.
As for Christianity, we too have our fundamentalist extremists. They picket at the funerals of gays, they shoot abortion doctors, the call for the assassination of the president of Venezuela, the picket abortion clinics etc. This call for violence and war has even reached the level of the White House. Some may say they are not true Christians. That is a matter of opinion. They believe they are.
None of the great faiths of the world are immune to this nonsense in spite of the basic tenets of their faith.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The Canadian Assn. of Muslims has spoken openly and strongly against the fundamentalist tactics being used by the terrorists. I read where one Muslim scholar has openly said that these fundamentalists have usurped the term Islam and turned it into a different faith. Sorry I can't remember hes name. I do believe that the basic tenets of Islam likes those of Christianity call for a peaceful life and not war.
Having a copy of the Qur'an I have read parts and it does say, without trying to actually find the quote, that Muslims are not to strike first but only in defense of themselves.
As for Christianity, we too have our fundamentalist extremists. They picket at the funerals of gays, they shoot abortion doctors, the call for the assassination of the president of Venezuela, the picket abortion clinics etc. This call for violence and war has even reached the level of the White House. Some may say they are not true Christians. That is a matter of opinion. They believe they are.
None of the great faiths of the world are immune to this nonsense in spite of the basic tenets of their faith.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Pope steps in dodo
gmc wrote: There is a difference between reporting events as they are happening and making comment on them if you want that look at the discussion programmes like newsnight. saying sorry is making an apology for unintended offence. It was also reported that the comments are being used to whip up feelings by extremists with all the riots around the middle east resdulting from it. I also saw the chairmen of the muslim council of britain pointing out that the muslims protesting in london are the same rent a mobs that appear at very opportunity.
I know what you're saying, I try and catch newsnight whenever I can. Without having the news coverage to hand I can't really explain exactly what I mean GMC. Tbh I think that the BBC do a lot of subtly 'making comment' reports anyway, I certainly think there is an agenda. I find ITV news a lot more straight in terms of it's delivery. Also news at different times in the day can have different contents, I have to admit what I saw today was on BBC Breakfast news, sometimes by 6 O'clock they have changed their reports quite substantially.
Katy
I know what you're saying, I try and catch newsnight whenever I can. Without having the news coverage to hand I can't really explain exactly what I mean GMC. Tbh I think that the BBC do a lot of subtly 'making comment' reports anyway, I certainly think there is an agenda. I find ITV news a lot more straight in terms of it's delivery. Also news at different times in the day can have different contents, I have to admit what I saw today was on BBC Breakfast news, sometimes by 6 O'clock they have changed their reports quite substantially.
Katy
Pope steps in dodo
GMC "It was also reported that the comments are being used to whip up feelings by extremists with all the riots around the middle east resdulting from it. I also saw the chairmen of the muslim council of britain pointing out that the muslims protesting in london are the same rent a mobs that appear at very opportunity."
++++++++++ Exactly! which is why it took several days for some of this violence to appear. ("Rent a Mob!" Great concept! You can have artificial beards/turbans for the Muslim-y ones and "skin-heads" at the KKK parades and even "SNOW-WHITE, UPTIGHT-y" ones for the anti-abortion mobs outside womens' health clinics.)
There...have we covered all the options? :sneaky:
++++++++++ Exactly! which is why it took several days for some of this violence to appear. ("Rent a Mob!" Great concept! You can have artificial beards/turbans for the Muslim-y ones and "skin-heads" at the KKK parades and even "SNOW-WHITE, UPTIGHT-y" ones for the anti-abortion mobs outside womens' health clinics.)
There...have we covered all the options? :sneaky:
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
-
Adam Zapple
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:13 am
Pope steps in dodo
They say the pope must die and then there is this (ain't it sweet?):
DUBAI (Reuters) - An Iraqi militant group led by al Qaeda vowed a war against the "worshippers of the cross" in response to a recent speech by Pope Benedict on Islam that sparked anger across the Muslim world.
"We tell the worshipper of the cross (the Pope) that you and the West will be defeated, as is the case in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya," said an Internet statement by the Mujahideen Shura Council, an umbrella group led by Iraq's branch of al Qaeda.
"We shall break the cross and spill the wine. ... God will (help) Muslims to conquer Rome. ... God enable us to slit their throats, and make their money and descendants the bounty of the mujahideen," said the statement.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlene ... -topNews-1
DUBAI (Reuters) - An Iraqi militant group led by al Qaeda vowed a war against the "worshippers of the cross" in response to a recent speech by Pope Benedict on Islam that sparked anger across the Muslim world.
"We tell the worshipper of the cross (the Pope) that you and the West will be defeated, as is the case in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya," said an Internet statement by the Mujahideen Shura Council, an umbrella group led by Iraq's branch of al Qaeda.
"We shall break the cross and spill the wine. ... God will (help) Muslims to conquer Rome. ... God enable us to slit their throats, and make their money and descendants the bounty of the mujahideen," said the statement.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlene ... -topNews-1
-
Adam Zapple
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:13 am
Pope steps in dodo
By contrast, it is not immediately apparent how much blame to attach to Benedict XVI for the worldwide furore over last week's lecture. On reflection, the answer must be: not very much. Presumably, the Pope regrets quoting the Byzantine emperor's opinion that aspects of Islam were "inhuman". Moderate Muslims have been upset by it, and Benedict reiterated yesterday that he was sorry that they had taken offence. But he is even more sorry that this offence has been exacerbated by the deliberate manipulation of his words by Islamic firebrands and their slick media operation.
The combination of grievance-nurturing multiculturalism and instant headlines is having a disastrous effect on the worldwide Muslim community. There seems to be no limit to its spokesmen's willingness to voice outrage; and their messages are then picked up by fanatics who mount appalling attacks on Christians in Muslim countries. When was the last time a Muslim leader apologised for such atrocities?
The truth is that barbaric attacks happen weekly. No wonder that Benedict favours an urgent dialogue with Muslims on the subject of religious violence, rather than the usual touchy-feely exchange of compliments.
Well, he has started a dialogue now, albeit not quite in the way that he intended. And it is essential that it continue. A self-abasing apology from the Pope would have postponed that discussion yet again.
We suspect that Western public opinion is not displeased that Benedict has said the unsayable. Now it is time for other churchmen to tell their Muslim counterparts that, in addition to dishing out criticism, they must learn how to take it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main ... dl1801.xml
:yh_clap :yh_clap :yh_clap
The combination of grievance-nurturing multiculturalism and instant headlines is having a disastrous effect on the worldwide Muslim community. There seems to be no limit to its spokesmen's willingness to voice outrage; and their messages are then picked up by fanatics who mount appalling attacks on Christians in Muslim countries. When was the last time a Muslim leader apologised for such atrocities?
The truth is that barbaric attacks happen weekly. No wonder that Benedict favours an urgent dialogue with Muslims on the subject of religious violence, rather than the usual touchy-feely exchange of compliments.
Well, he has started a dialogue now, albeit not quite in the way that he intended. And it is essential that it continue. A self-abasing apology from the Pope would have postponed that discussion yet again.
We suspect that Western public opinion is not displeased that Benedict has said the unsayable. Now it is time for other churchmen to tell their Muslim counterparts that, in addition to dishing out criticism, they must learn how to take it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main ... dl1801.xml
:yh_clap :yh_clap :yh_clap
Pope steps in dodo
I've often thought of this being the beginning of the third world war. It will, however, be a very different kind of war. Guerilla warfare is not as easy to defend against.
Once again the extremists make their noises and rattle their sabres. Our 9/11 will happen one day here in Canada.
Moderate Muslims may have to speak up more than they have. Yet, I suppose there is the fear that if they make too much noise there will be a backlash in otherwise decent and democratic countries.
How does one deal with lunatics who put no value to human life?
Shalom
Ted:-6
Once again the extremists make their noises and rattle their sabres. Our 9/11 will happen one day here in Canada.
Moderate Muslims may have to speak up more than they have. Yet, I suppose there is the fear that if they make too much noise there will be a backlash in otherwise decent and democratic countries.
How does one deal with lunatics who put no value to human life?
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Adam Zapple
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:13 am
Pope steps in dodo
Ted wrote: Moderate Muslims may have to speak up more than they have. Yet, I suppose there is the fear that if they make too much noise there will be a backlash in otherwise decent and democratic countries.
How so, Ted? I would think that could only help public sentiment toward Islam as a whole. The KKK in America did not become irrelevant until its silent supporters finally took a public stand against them and said enough is enough. I suspect that it will likewise take the unified voice of moderate muslims standing against the extremists to weaken the influence of the terrorists. I keep waiting for that to happen.
How so, Ted? I would think that could only help public sentiment toward Islam as a whole. The KKK in America did not become irrelevant until its silent supporters finally took a public stand against them and said enough is enough. I suspect that it will likewise take the unified voice of moderate muslims standing against the extremists to weaken the influence of the terrorists. I keep waiting for that to happen.
Pope steps in dodo
Adam:-6
I cannot speak for the US but in Canada there has been a backlash against some of the decent folks of the Islamic faith. As individuals I suspect that they are living in fear of more and hope that by being quiet they will not attract attention to themselves. I could be wrong. I'm just thinking about human behaviour.
Consider the folks who think they might have cancer so avoid going to the doctor because they really don't want to know and hope they are wrong. A bad move but many make it.
You make a good point and I would not try to refute it. This is uncharted waters and we will have to proceed with care.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I cannot speak for the US but in Canada there has been a backlash against some of the decent folks of the Islamic faith. As individuals I suspect that they are living in fear of more and hope that by being quiet they will not attract attention to themselves. I could be wrong. I'm just thinking about human behaviour.
Consider the folks who think they might have cancer so avoid going to the doctor because they really don't want to know and hope they are wrong. A bad move but many make it.
You make a good point and I would not try to refute it. This is uncharted waters and we will have to proceed with care.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Pope steps in dodo
Katy1 wrote: 1. I think my problem with what you are saying is that you seem to to make no distinction between the zealots who do commit atrocities and are happy to make themselves martyrs and despise The West etc. etc. with other Muslim people who have no desire for any of these things. Muslims who lead similar lives to you or I, except for belief in one prophet over another.
2. There was a wide scale poll of Muslim feeling here in the UK and the outcome was that only 6% believed that either 9/11 or 7/7 was right and justified. To be quite honest I believe that those people should pack their bags and go to a country with Sharia Law but that's only my opinion!!
3. So here in the UK, that leaves us with 94% of British Muslims who aren't budding terrorists and don't support terrorist actions. Do you seriously believe these people to be 'evil and inhuman'? How can you make such outrageously sweeping generalisations about the nature of an entire religion?
4. Yes, they should be speaking publicly to condemn the actions of a few, I totally agree with you there. In that regard I feel that the moderates are letting themselves down, but who's to say that they themselves aren't frightened of speaking out against these lunatics within their own communities? But that doesn't mean that they shouldn't do this of course, but it may well part way explain their reticence.
5. I don't want to let this become too off topic so I'll keep my opinion here short. With regards to Roman Catholicism, I'd say the RC churches stance on the use of condoms in the developing world leading millions of people to die agonising deaths cause by STD's like HIV is just as bad as the use of guns and bombs in terrorism and that comes directly from the head of the RC religion. You don't need to use violence to destroy a nation.Hi again, Katy! This thread is running much faster than I am able to keep up with it, as I normally have only about an hour online - two if I'm VERY lucky - every weekday morning, plus sometimes a few minutes later in the day. Nonetheless, your excellent post deserves a personal reply, and I will briefly address the points I've numbered above.
1. Well, I tried to make that distinction, I said that I could not understand why these Muslims were not openly condemning Islamic terrorism. I said in an earlier thread that if I were to see an MMMMMM - a million-man Muslim march to the middle of Mecca - where that cube thingy is - with everyone carrying signs and banners saying 'STOP ISLAMIC TERROR NOW' - then I would be more inclined to believe that such Muslims exist in large quantities. So far all I normally hear from them is, 'We can't oppose our fellow Muslims', or something similar, and when one encounters a magazine article or speech by a 'peaceful' Muslim leader or cleric, it is usually outrageously slanted, something like, 'Yes, we condemn terrorist acts by misguided Muslims, but we just as strongly condemn the terrorism of the West against Islam and their support of the Zionist enemy', or some such crapola. That is, of course, not an actual quote but rather my paraphrase. If you want exapmles of actual statements of this type I will gladly provide links.
2. I think that the British government agrees with you here (as do I, of course), and I saw on BBC teletext just last week where another such sleezeball had been deported. One can only hope that the rest of the 6% - if that is an accurate figure - will follow.
3. No, I didn't say that. I said that the RC Church, as well as much of the rest of Christianity, has always regarded Islam as an idolatrous religion, and if the average Muslim knew the true history of the religion's founder it's hard to believe that they would remain Muslims. But this knowledge is denied them, and people who dare to tell the truth about Islam and its so-called 'prophet', like Rushdie and the Dutch TV producer who was murdered, do so at great peril to their very lives.
4. Absolutely.
5. Well, my problem with this item is that it's completely off the topic, and I have discussed it ad nauseam on other threads. It is very hard for any Catholic to understand your position here - it just doesn't make sense to compare the Church's advocacy of chastity and marital fidelity with Islamic terrorism. You really need to think this through logically. Any couple who remain faithful to each other and any single person who remains chaste, which is to say, those who follow the Church's teachings, have little chance of contracting AIDS. OF COURSE those who wish to engage in sexual immorality, which has ALWAYS been risky, even before AIDS was known to exist, should use protective devices, and there are various social agencies in AIDS-ravaged countries who make such items available and MAKE NO MORAL JUDGMENTS. The Church cannot do that, it cannot say, 'Here is how you should sin'. That would be ludicrous. But if you wish to discuss this further, we should do so on a separate thread.
2. There was a wide scale poll of Muslim feeling here in the UK and the outcome was that only 6% believed that either 9/11 or 7/7 was right and justified. To be quite honest I believe that those people should pack their bags and go to a country with Sharia Law but that's only my opinion!!
3. So here in the UK, that leaves us with 94% of British Muslims who aren't budding terrorists and don't support terrorist actions. Do you seriously believe these people to be 'evil and inhuman'? How can you make such outrageously sweeping generalisations about the nature of an entire religion?
4. Yes, they should be speaking publicly to condemn the actions of a few, I totally agree with you there. In that regard I feel that the moderates are letting themselves down, but who's to say that they themselves aren't frightened of speaking out against these lunatics within their own communities? But that doesn't mean that they shouldn't do this of course, but it may well part way explain their reticence.
5. I don't want to let this become too off topic so I'll keep my opinion here short. With regards to Roman Catholicism, I'd say the RC churches stance on the use of condoms in the developing world leading millions of people to die agonising deaths cause by STD's like HIV is just as bad as the use of guns and bombs in terrorism and that comes directly from the head of the RC religion. You don't need to use violence to destroy a nation.Hi again, Katy! This thread is running much faster than I am able to keep up with it, as I normally have only about an hour online - two if I'm VERY lucky - every weekday morning, plus sometimes a few minutes later in the day. Nonetheless, your excellent post deserves a personal reply, and I will briefly address the points I've numbered above.
1. Well, I tried to make that distinction, I said that I could not understand why these Muslims were not openly condemning Islamic terrorism. I said in an earlier thread that if I were to see an MMMMMM - a million-man Muslim march to the middle of Mecca - where that cube thingy is - with everyone carrying signs and banners saying 'STOP ISLAMIC TERROR NOW' - then I would be more inclined to believe that such Muslims exist in large quantities. So far all I normally hear from them is, 'We can't oppose our fellow Muslims', or something similar, and when one encounters a magazine article or speech by a 'peaceful' Muslim leader or cleric, it is usually outrageously slanted, something like, 'Yes, we condemn terrorist acts by misguided Muslims, but we just as strongly condemn the terrorism of the West against Islam and their support of the Zionist enemy', or some such crapola. That is, of course, not an actual quote but rather my paraphrase. If you want exapmles of actual statements of this type I will gladly provide links.
2. I think that the British government agrees with you here (as do I, of course), and I saw on BBC teletext just last week where another such sleezeball had been deported. One can only hope that the rest of the 6% - if that is an accurate figure - will follow.
3. No, I didn't say that. I said that the RC Church, as well as much of the rest of Christianity, has always regarded Islam as an idolatrous religion, and if the average Muslim knew the true history of the religion's founder it's hard to believe that they would remain Muslims. But this knowledge is denied them, and people who dare to tell the truth about Islam and its so-called 'prophet', like Rushdie and the Dutch TV producer who was murdered, do so at great peril to their very lives.
4. Absolutely.
5. Well, my problem with this item is that it's completely off the topic, and I have discussed it ad nauseam on other threads. It is very hard for any Catholic to understand your position here - it just doesn't make sense to compare the Church's advocacy of chastity and marital fidelity with Islamic terrorism. You really need to think this through logically. Any couple who remain faithful to each other and any single person who remains chaste, which is to say, those who follow the Church's teachings, have little chance of contracting AIDS. OF COURSE those who wish to engage in sexual immorality, which has ALWAYS been risky, even before AIDS was known to exist, should use protective devices, and there are various social agencies in AIDS-ravaged countries who make such items available and MAKE NO MORAL JUDGMENTS. The Church cannot do that, it cannot say, 'Here is how you should sin'. That would be ludicrous. But if you wish to discuss this further, we should do so on a separate thread.
-
Adam Zapple
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:13 am
Pope steps in dodo
Bronwen, I'm gonna have to start seeking out your posts. I like your thinking.
Pope steps in dodo
Adam Zapple wrote: Bronwen, I'm gonna have to start seeking out your posts. I like your thinking.Well, needless to say, I appreciate the compliment, and as you have no doubt noticed, not everyone here agrees with you, nor would I expect even you to agree with everything I post.
Pope steps in dodo
Hi Bronwen and thanks for taking the time to reply.
I have to say that there are some points to which I agree with you. The Muslim community needs to be audible and visible in it's condemnation of the terrorists actions, I think that that would really help relations.
I do find it difficult to concur in the main with your thinking because your views are influenced with the ideologies of your own religion, and so your angle is at the outset partisan which automatically adds another dimension to your reasoning.
It seems from your previous post that the Roman Catholic church's thinking on condoms is the same as the Muslim fanaticists on terrorism though; 'abide by our sets of values and rules and there need not be death and suffering'. I mention this not to carry on an off topic point rather than accentuate the futility of trying to reason with people of strong faith, that's why IMHO this conflict has no obvious or even possible solution.
I have to say that there are some points to which I agree with you. The Muslim community needs to be audible and visible in it's condemnation of the terrorists actions, I think that that would really help relations.
I do find it difficult to concur in the main with your thinking because your views are influenced with the ideologies of your own religion, and so your angle is at the outset partisan which automatically adds another dimension to your reasoning.
It seems from your previous post that the Roman Catholic church's thinking on condoms is the same as the Muslim fanaticists on terrorism though; 'abide by our sets of values and rules and there need not be death and suffering'. I mention this not to carry on an off topic point rather than accentuate the futility of trying to reason with people of strong faith, that's why IMHO this conflict has no obvious or even possible solution.
Pope steps in dodo
posted by bronwen
3. No, I didn't say that. I said that the RC Church, as well as much of the rest of Christianity, has always regarded Islam as an idolatrous religion, and if the average Muslim knew the true history of the religion's founder it's hard to believe that they would remain Muslims. But this knowledge is denied them, and people who dare to tell the truth about Islam and its so-called 'prophet', like Rushdie and the Dutch TV producer who was murdered, do so at great peril to their very lives.
You know I really can't believe the level of ignorance you show sometimes. Islam does not allow the use of idols in their religon, Islam has always been wary of representations of the human figure and anything which could even remotely suggest idolatry is frowned upon, unlike the catholic church.
If any religon is idolatrous it the catholicism. Indeed the use of idols is one of the bones of contention between catholic and protestant churches as is the veneration of bits of saints and other holy relics all of which is anathema to any good protestant-or as they would have it good christian.
Quite clearly you are a religious zealot who thinks we should be embarked on a crusade to wipe out islam altogether regardless of the right or wrong of it and even if it means genocidal warfare and misery for millions. I dare say after that you would turn on all those who don't follow the true church-at least that is what your language suggests you would do.
Why don't you just come out the closet and confess you want a holy war and believe this is the start of the apocalypse as foretold in the bible. Although how anyone can take the book of revalations seriously is beyond me.
Personally I don't think the pope needs to say any more than he has but he should perhaps have chosen the quotation a bit more carefully. There are religious fanatics on all sides who want to stir things up just for the sake of their absurd beliefs.
Actually there are plenty of muslims protesting against extremism just as there are many christians protesting usually together in crowds protesting against the war in Iraq and what is going on generally.
3. No, I didn't say that. I said that the RC Church, as well as much of the rest of Christianity, has always regarded Islam as an idolatrous religion, and if the average Muslim knew the true history of the religion's founder it's hard to believe that they would remain Muslims. But this knowledge is denied them, and people who dare to tell the truth about Islam and its so-called 'prophet', like Rushdie and the Dutch TV producer who was murdered, do so at great peril to their very lives.
You know I really can't believe the level of ignorance you show sometimes. Islam does not allow the use of idols in their religon, Islam has always been wary of representations of the human figure and anything which could even remotely suggest idolatry is frowned upon, unlike the catholic church.
If any religon is idolatrous it the catholicism. Indeed the use of idols is one of the bones of contention between catholic and protestant churches as is the veneration of bits of saints and other holy relics all of which is anathema to any good protestant-or as they would have it good christian.
Quite clearly you are a religious zealot who thinks we should be embarked on a crusade to wipe out islam altogether regardless of the right or wrong of it and even if it means genocidal warfare and misery for millions. I dare say after that you would turn on all those who don't follow the true church-at least that is what your language suggests you would do.
Why don't you just come out the closet and confess you want a holy war and believe this is the start of the apocalypse as foretold in the bible. Although how anyone can take the book of revalations seriously is beyond me.
Personally I don't think the pope needs to say any more than he has but he should perhaps have chosen the quotation a bit more carefully. There are religious fanatics on all sides who want to stir things up just for the sake of their absurd beliefs.
Actually there are plenty of muslims protesting against extremism just as there are many christians protesting usually together in crowds protesting against the war in Iraq and what is going on generally.
Pope steps in dodo
gmc wrote: posted by bronwen
You know I really can't believe the level of ignorance you show sometimes. Islam does not allow the use of idols in their religon, Islam has always been wary of representations of the human figure and anything which could even remotely suggest idolatry is frowned upon, unlike the catholic church.
If any religon is idolatrous it the catholicism. Indeed the use of idols is one of the bones of contention between catholic and protestant churches as is the veneration of bits of saints and other holy relics all of which is anathema to any good protestant-or as they would have it good christian.
Quite clearly you are a religious zealot who thinks we should be embarked on a crusade to wipe out islam altogether regardless of the right or wrong of it and even if it means genocidal warfare and misery for millions. I dare say after that you would turn on all those who don't follow the true church-at least that is what your language suggests you would do.
Why don't you just come out the closet and confess you want a holy war and believe this is the start of the apocalypse as foretold in the bible. Although how anyone can take the book of revalations seriously is beyond me.
Personally I don't think the pope needs to say any more than he has but he should perhaps have chosen the quotation a bit more carefully. There are religious fanatics on all sides who want to stir things up just for the sake of their absurd beliefs.
Actually there are plenty of muslims protesting against extremism just as there are many christians protesting usually together in crowds protesting against the war in Iraq and what is going on generally.
Phew GMC!
For a while there I thought I might be the only one here thinking what you have posted. thanks for saying what I was too cautious to!
Katy
You know I really can't believe the level of ignorance you show sometimes. Islam does not allow the use of idols in their religon, Islam has always been wary of representations of the human figure and anything which could even remotely suggest idolatry is frowned upon, unlike the catholic church.
If any religon is idolatrous it the catholicism. Indeed the use of idols is one of the bones of contention between catholic and protestant churches as is the veneration of bits of saints and other holy relics all of which is anathema to any good protestant-or as they would have it good christian.
Quite clearly you are a religious zealot who thinks we should be embarked on a crusade to wipe out islam altogether regardless of the right or wrong of it and even if it means genocidal warfare and misery for millions. I dare say after that you would turn on all those who don't follow the true church-at least that is what your language suggests you would do.
Why don't you just come out the closet and confess you want a holy war and believe this is the start of the apocalypse as foretold in the bible. Although how anyone can take the book of revalations seriously is beyond me.
Personally I don't think the pope needs to say any more than he has but he should perhaps have chosen the quotation a bit more carefully. There are religious fanatics on all sides who want to stir things up just for the sake of their absurd beliefs.
Actually there are plenty of muslims protesting against extremism just as there are many christians protesting usually together in crowds protesting against the war in Iraq and what is going on generally.
Phew GMC!
For a while there I thought I might be the only one here thinking what you have posted. thanks for saying what I was too cautious to!
Katy
Pope steps in dodo
The use of statues in the Roman Catholic Church and the veneration of relics is much more complicated than that.
I don't have much time at the moment but later on if Bronwen hasn't responded than I shall add some thoughts.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I don't have much time at the moment but later on if Bronwen hasn't responded than I shall add some thoughts.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Pope steps in dodo
BRONWYN "if I were to see an MMMMMM - a million-man Muslim march to the middle of Mecca - where that cube thingy is - with everyone carrying signs and banners saying 'STOP ISLAMIC TERROR NOW' - then I would be more inclined to believe that such Muslims exist in large quantities. So far all I normally hear from them is, 'We can't oppose our fellow Muslims', or something similar, and when one encounters a magazine article or speech by a 'peaceful' Muslim leader or cleric, it is usually outrageously slanted, something like, 'Yes, we condemn terrorist acts by misguided Muslims, but we just as strongly condemn the terrorism of the West against Islam and their support of the Zionist enemy', or some such crapola. That is, of course, not an actual quote but rather my paraphrase. If you want exapmles of actual statements of this type I will gladly provide links."
:yh_clap :yh_clap You needn't give links...we ALL know this is true! Sometimes I think the "politically correct" folks give more aid than not to terrorists, because they quickly come murmurring in, chastizing people who make a statement such as yours.
Never mind, I've got your back on this one! The truth is, until we see an enormous uprising of the "moderate Muslims," we need to wonder just where their loyalties lie.
:yh_clap :yh_clap You needn't give links...we ALL know this is true! Sometimes I think the "politically correct" folks give more aid than not to terrorists, because they quickly come murmurring in, chastizing people who make a statement such as yours.
Never mind, I've got your back on this one! The truth is, until we see an enormous uprising of the "moderate Muslims," we need to wonder just where their loyalties lie.
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
Pope steps in dodo
I am beginning to wonder where all these moderate Muslims are. I sure hope that's not becoming an oxymoron..
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Pope steps in dodo
Remember that "ISLAM" means "SUBMISSION."
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
Pope steps in dodo
Ted wrote: The use of statues in the Roman Catholic Church and the veneration of relics is much more complicated than that.
I don't have much time at the moment but later on if Bronwen hasn't responded than I shall add some thoughts.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I know it is it was just Bronwen's ridiculous description of islam as being idolatorous I was responding to.
Sectarian debates are not of interest to me. Having been brouight up with it I can more than hold my own of so disposed I just decided a long time ago to leave it alone.
arguements about the obscure differences amongst monotheistic religons are a bit like several groups of people deciding they are all going to the same restaurant.
They all know they want the main course but instead of going in they stand around fighting with each other-over which is the right door to go in and whether you go in backwards, on your face or on your knees with one trouser leg rolled up- and if you don't do it right you're not going to get in to the extent they forget what they were going to do in the first place.
God save us all from religon.
I don't have much time at the moment but later on if Bronwen hasn't responded than I shall add some thoughts.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I know it is it was just Bronwen's ridiculous description of islam as being idolatorous I was responding to.
Sectarian debates are not of interest to me. Having been brouight up with it I can more than hold my own of so disposed I just decided a long time ago to leave it alone.
arguements about the obscure differences amongst monotheistic religons are a bit like several groups of people deciding they are all going to the same restaurant.
They all know they want the main course but instead of going in they stand around fighting with each other-over which is the right door to go in and whether you go in backwards, on your face or on your knees with one trouser leg rolled up- and if you don't do it right you're not going to get in to the extent they forget what they were going to do in the first place.
God save us all from religon.
Pope steps in dodo
gmc:-6
LOL
Shalom
Ted:-6
LOL
Shalom
Ted:-6
Pope steps in dodo
Well, as long as we're discussing things which irritate our Muslim pals....take a look here at the newest magazine...
http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/
I'm only laughing at the magazine, folks, and make no comment on the scantily-clad girls and the dogs with strange dentition!
I only read it for the pictures, not the articles!
http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/
I'm only laughing at the magazine, folks, and make no comment on the scantily-clad girls and the dogs with strange dentition!
I only read it for the pictures, not the articles!
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
Pope steps in dodo
'God save us all from religon'
:yh_clap
:yh_clap
Pope steps in dodo
I dont think it is so much religion thats the problem, but the adherents of said religion. There are as many ways of interpreting religious texts as there are people who follow them.
Islam, from it's very foundations has been a violent one. It's all written down. Right there in the Koran should anyone choose to read it.
Christianity and Islam have been at loggerheads since islam came on the scene. Christianity came first. The middle east were worshipping baal and zoaraster before muhammed.
Islam, from it's very foundations has been a violent one. It's all written down. Right there in the Koran should anyone choose to read it.
Christianity and Islam have been at loggerheads since islam came on the scene. Christianity came first. The middle east were worshipping baal and zoaraster before muhammed.
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
Pope steps in dodo
Katy1 wrote: 1. I do find it difficult to concur in the main with your thinking because your views are influenced with the ideologies of your own religion, and so your angle is at the outset partisan which automatically adds another dimension to your reasoning.
2. It seems from your previous post that the Roman Catholic church's thinking on condoms is the same as the Muslim fanaticists on terrorism though; 1. Katy, we are all, obviously, influenced by our BELIEFS, not all of which are religious beliefs. Nor am I a particularly strict Catholic. I have studied the history of the Church and, based on that history, find no legitimacy in the bastardization of Christianity brought about by the various so-called 'reformers', and that is why I remain a practicing Catholic rather than something else. I'm not sure, however, how that influences my opinions on the issue of Islamic terrorism. Maybe you could explain in a little more detail why you would make such an assertion. Please be specific.
2. Well, you are on the outside looking in here, which is not always the best place to be. The Catholic Church has no 'thinking on condoms'. The Catholic Church has always taught that birth control should be by natural rather than artificial means, and it gives its reasons for that teaching. Artificial means would include barrier devices, of which there are many kinds, including condoms. Nowadays, however, at least here in Germany, the Church leaves family planning pretty much up to the consciences of the married couples, which is to say, birth control is no big deal. In seven years here, I've never heard it mentioned from the pulpit once, nor have I seen any reference to it in Catholic publications. In short, non-Catholics seem much more concerned about it than Catholics. Kinda strange really.
I might also add that millions of Catholic couples use natural family planning with complete success.
Birth control, however, has little or nothing to do with the AIDS crisis, which is the result of adulterous and promiscuous sex. In that regard, what other position could the Church possibly take? What part of my previous comments didn't you understand?
2. It seems from your previous post that the Roman Catholic church's thinking on condoms is the same as the Muslim fanaticists on terrorism though; 1. Katy, we are all, obviously, influenced by our BELIEFS, not all of which are religious beliefs. Nor am I a particularly strict Catholic. I have studied the history of the Church and, based on that history, find no legitimacy in the bastardization of Christianity brought about by the various so-called 'reformers', and that is why I remain a practicing Catholic rather than something else. I'm not sure, however, how that influences my opinions on the issue of Islamic terrorism. Maybe you could explain in a little more detail why you would make such an assertion. Please be specific.
2. Well, you are on the outside looking in here, which is not always the best place to be. The Catholic Church has no 'thinking on condoms'. The Catholic Church has always taught that birth control should be by natural rather than artificial means, and it gives its reasons for that teaching. Artificial means would include barrier devices, of which there are many kinds, including condoms. Nowadays, however, at least here in Germany, the Church leaves family planning pretty much up to the consciences of the married couples, which is to say, birth control is no big deal. In seven years here, I've never heard it mentioned from the pulpit once, nor have I seen any reference to it in Catholic publications. In short, non-Catholics seem much more concerned about it than Catholics. Kinda strange really.
I might also add that millions of Catholic couples use natural family planning with complete success.
Birth control, however, has little or nothing to do with the AIDS crisis, which is the result of adulterous and promiscuous sex. In that regard, what other position could the Church possibly take? What part of my previous comments didn't you understand?
Pope steps in dodo
Ted wrote: The use of statues in the Roman Catholic Church and the veneration of relics is much more complicated than that.
I don't have much time at the moment but later on if Bronwen hasn't responded than I shall add some thoughts.
Shalom
Ted:-6I also have too little time right now to respond to gmc, except to say that he is confusing idols with icons.
gmc, the idolatry within Islam is the man (Muhammed) himself, not a graphic representation.
But I will respond to your entire post as soon as time permits. You can count on it.
I don't have much time at the moment but later on if Bronwen hasn't responded than I shall add some thoughts.
Shalom
Ted:-6I also have too little time right now to respond to gmc, except to say that he is confusing idols with icons.
gmc, the idolatry within Islam is the man (Muhammed) himself, not a graphic representation.
But I will respond to your entire post as soon as time permits. You can count on it.
Pope steps in dodo
Bronwen wrote: 1. Katy, we are all, obviously, influenced by our BELIEFS, not all of which are religious beliefs. Nor am I a particularly strict Catholic. I have studied the history of the Church and, based on that history, find no legitimacy in the bastardization of Christianity brought about by the various so-called 'reformers', and that is why I remain a practicing Catholic rather than something else. I'm not sure, however, how that influences my opinions on the issue of Islamic terrorism. Maybe you could explain in a little more detail why you would make such an assertion. Please be specific.
2. Well, you are on the outside looking in here, which is not always the best place to be. The Catholic Church has no 'thinking on condoms'. The Catholic Church has always taught that birth control should be by natural rather than artificial means, and it gives its reasons for that teaching. Artificial means would include barrier devices, of which there are many kinds, including condoms. Nowadays, however, at least here in Germany, the Church leaves family planning pretty much up to the consciences of the married couples, which is to say, birth control is no big deal. In seven years here, I've never heard it mentioned from the pulpit once, nor have I seen any reference to it in Catholic publications. In short, non-Catholics seem much more concerned about it than Catholics. Kinda strange really.
I might also add that millions of Catholic couples use natural family planning with complete success.
Birth control, however, has little or nothing to do with the AIDS crisis, which is the result of adulterous and promiscuous sex. In that regard, what other position could the Church possibly take? What part of my previous comments didn't you understand?
Bronwen, if you wish to discuss the RC church's views on contraception in general then please set up a new thread. This is going completely off topic.
To be quite honest I believe that it is the deluded masses who are the problem, whichever denomination they wish to chose. Personally I wish to be a free-thinker. And with regards to being on 'the outside looking in' I would think that is exactly the best place to be to judge the point in question. Isn't that how the judicial system works, pulling members of the jury from all over the country so that they have little or no knowledge of the case prior to the trial? How pointless would it be to try a criminal by a jury peppered with biased individuals?
It's so depressing that there even needs to be discussion on what is an icon or an idol. If only humankind just decided to be good, generous and diplomatic with each other without the need to cling to outdated scriptures and text, then all this pathetic bickering as to 'which religion is evil and who's faith is 'right'' wouldn't be necessary.
Katy
2. Well, you are on the outside looking in here, which is not always the best place to be. The Catholic Church has no 'thinking on condoms'. The Catholic Church has always taught that birth control should be by natural rather than artificial means, and it gives its reasons for that teaching. Artificial means would include barrier devices, of which there are many kinds, including condoms. Nowadays, however, at least here in Germany, the Church leaves family planning pretty much up to the consciences of the married couples, which is to say, birth control is no big deal. In seven years here, I've never heard it mentioned from the pulpit once, nor have I seen any reference to it in Catholic publications. In short, non-Catholics seem much more concerned about it than Catholics. Kinda strange really.
I might also add that millions of Catholic couples use natural family planning with complete success.
Birth control, however, has little or nothing to do with the AIDS crisis, which is the result of adulterous and promiscuous sex. In that regard, what other position could the Church possibly take? What part of my previous comments didn't you understand?
Bronwen, if you wish to discuss the RC church's views on contraception in general then please set up a new thread. This is going completely off topic.
To be quite honest I believe that it is the deluded masses who are the problem, whichever denomination they wish to chose. Personally I wish to be a free-thinker. And with regards to being on 'the outside looking in' I would think that is exactly the best place to be to judge the point in question. Isn't that how the judicial system works, pulling members of the jury from all over the country so that they have little or no knowledge of the case prior to the trial? How pointless would it be to try a criminal by a jury peppered with biased individuals?
It's so depressing that there even needs to be discussion on what is an icon or an idol. If only humankind just decided to be good, generous and diplomatic with each other without the need to cling to outdated scriptures and text, then all this pathetic bickering as to 'which religion is evil and who's faith is 'right'' wouldn't be necessary.
Katy
Pope steps in dodo
gmc wrote: 1. You know I really can't believe the level of ignorance you show sometimes.
2. Islam does not allow the use of idols in their religon, Islam has always been wary of representations of the human figure and anything which could even remotely suggest idolatry is frowned upon, unlike the catholic church.
3. If any religon is idolatrous it the catholicism. Indeed the use of idols is one of the bones of contention between catholic and protestant churches as is the veneration of bits of saints and other holy relics all of which is anathema to any good protestant-or as they would have it good christian.
4. Quite clearly you are a religious zealot who thinks we should be embarked on a crusade to wipe out islam altogether regardless of the right or wrong of it and even if it means genocidal warfare and misery for millions. I dare say after that you would turn on all those who don't follow the true church-at least that is what your language suggests you would do.
5. Why don't you just come out the closet and confess you want a holy war and believe this is the start of the apocalypse as foretold in the bible. Although how anyone can take the book of revalations seriously is beyond me.
6a. Personally I don't think the pope needs to say any more than he has but he should perhaps have chosen the quotation a bit more carefully.
6b. There are religious fanatics on all sides who want to stir things up just for the sake of their absurd beliefs.
7. Actually there are plenty of muslims protesting against extremism just as there are many christians protesting usually together in crowds protesting against the war in Iraq and what is going on generally.1. Lemme get this straight: you disagree with me, therefore I'm ignorant and you're a ****ing genius. Is that aabout right?
2 & 3. I addressed this briefly in the previous, short post. You're a little confused here, gmc, but that's nothing new. Idols were the problem of Judaism, not Christianity. That is pretty much the theme of the entire Old Testament. God made a covenant with Abraham that the Jews would be His people and He would be their God, yet they kept worshipping idols. Christianity regards Muhammed as such an idol. IKONS, that is, works of art depicting God, Jesus Christ, his Holy Mother and the other saints, are as old as Christianity itself. I have seen lots of pictorial representations of Christ in Protestantism, in spite of the fact that no one knows what he looked like, but you are correct that they are more widely used in the LITURGY of Catholic and Orthodox Christianity than in Protestantism. The Anglican Churches are somewhere in the middle. None of this, however, has anything to do with idolatry.
4. Quite clearly you are full of fertilizer. You are blaming the messenger here. I don't want to see a nuclear war any more than you or any other poster here. The fact remains, Islamic terrorist nations like Iran are determined to develop nuclear weapons and they will not be allowed to do so. If Israel doesn't stop them the US and its allies will. It has less - MUCH less - to do with religion than with preserving our freedom and our way of life.
5. That's absolute nonsense, and there is no 'book of revalations' that I know of. The last book of the NT is Revelation and was written for the author's own time. It makes no reference to our time whatever. Wherever you got that idea, it certainly wasn't from me.
6a. Here we agree.
6b. That may also be partially true, but the fact is that Islam enslaves millions and has left no doubt that it wants to enslave you and me also. You can surrender or fight. Can you name ANY Christian country, anywhere in the world, or ANY Christian denomination, that performs the various atrocities for which Islam is noted?
7. Yeah, yeah, very easy to say. Show me some.
2. Islam does not allow the use of idols in their religon, Islam has always been wary of representations of the human figure and anything which could even remotely suggest idolatry is frowned upon, unlike the catholic church.
3. If any religon is idolatrous it the catholicism. Indeed the use of idols is one of the bones of contention between catholic and protestant churches as is the veneration of bits of saints and other holy relics all of which is anathema to any good protestant-or as they would have it good christian.
4. Quite clearly you are a religious zealot who thinks we should be embarked on a crusade to wipe out islam altogether regardless of the right or wrong of it and even if it means genocidal warfare and misery for millions. I dare say after that you would turn on all those who don't follow the true church-at least that is what your language suggests you would do.
5. Why don't you just come out the closet and confess you want a holy war and believe this is the start of the apocalypse as foretold in the bible. Although how anyone can take the book of revalations seriously is beyond me.
6a. Personally I don't think the pope needs to say any more than he has but he should perhaps have chosen the quotation a bit more carefully.
6b. There are religious fanatics on all sides who want to stir things up just for the sake of their absurd beliefs.
7. Actually there are plenty of muslims protesting against extremism just as there are many christians protesting usually together in crowds protesting against the war in Iraq and what is going on generally.1. Lemme get this straight: you disagree with me, therefore I'm ignorant and you're a ****ing genius. Is that aabout right?
2 & 3. I addressed this briefly in the previous, short post. You're a little confused here, gmc, but that's nothing new. Idols were the problem of Judaism, not Christianity. That is pretty much the theme of the entire Old Testament. God made a covenant with Abraham that the Jews would be His people and He would be their God, yet they kept worshipping idols. Christianity regards Muhammed as such an idol. IKONS, that is, works of art depicting God, Jesus Christ, his Holy Mother and the other saints, are as old as Christianity itself. I have seen lots of pictorial representations of Christ in Protestantism, in spite of the fact that no one knows what he looked like, but you are correct that they are more widely used in the LITURGY of Catholic and Orthodox Christianity than in Protestantism. The Anglican Churches are somewhere in the middle. None of this, however, has anything to do with idolatry.
4. Quite clearly you are full of fertilizer. You are blaming the messenger here. I don't want to see a nuclear war any more than you or any other poster here. The fact remains, Islamic terrorist nations like Iran are determined to develop nuclear weapons and they will not be allowed to do so. If Israel doesn't stop them the US and its allies will. It has less - MUCH less - to do with religion than with preserving our freedom and our way of life.
5. That's absolute nonsense, and there is no 'book of revalations' that I know of. The last book of the NT is Revelation and was written for the author's own time. It makes no reference to our time whatever. Wherever you got that idea, it certainly wasn't from me.
6a. Here we agree.
6b. That may also be partially true, but the fact is that Islam enslaves millions and has left no doubt that it wants to enslave you and me also. You can surrender or fight. Can you name ANY Christian country, anywhere in the world, or ANY Christian denomination, that performs the various atrocities for which Islam is noted?
7. Yeah, yeah, very easy to say. Show me some.
Pope steps in dodo
Katy1 wrote: Bronwen, if you wish to discuss the RC church's views on contraception in general then please set up a new thread. This is going completely off topic. No, I don't particularly want to discuss that, but in any case it has little to do with the AIDS crisis. I guess my problem here is that I don't quite understand your position in that regard. If you are trying to say that the Catholic Church somehow regards sexual promiscuity and adultery as being more sinful if performed with a condom than without one, that is illogical. Sin is sin. Religion makes moral judgments, that's part of what religion's about. Condemnation of adultery and sexual promiscuity is hardly specific to Catholicism.
Pope steps in dodo
katy:-6
I cannot agree that the screptures are outdated. We ought to be paying attention to the wisdom of the past 3000 or so years. The relavence of the wisdom has not become outdated. What has become outdated is the literal interpretation of the scriptures.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I cannot agree that the screptures are outdated. We ought to be paying attention to the wisdom of the past 3000 or so years. The relavence of the wisdom has not become outdated. What has become outdated is the literal interpretation of the scriptures.
Shalom
Ted:-6