My thoughts on the Pope's statements, and Islam

[CocamoJoe]

I begin with a quote from myself. This was on the MSNBC bulletin boards, and I thought I would begin with that:I “know” that Islam is one of the Abrahamic religions, but I really don’t care anymore. I’m a devout, practicing Byzantine Rite (Melkite) Catholic, and I’m very fed up. Ever since 9/11, the news media has been brainwashing us to believe that Islam is a religion of peace. The Prophet Jeremiah warned of those who “cry ‘peace, peace’, when there is no peace.” Sure, Muslims can trace their heritage to Abraham; but, through a bastard child! Their “connecting” line is Ishmael, whom Abraham had with his slave, Hagar! Jews and Christians, trace their roots to Abraham through his legitimate child, Joshua, who was renamed Israel, after he “wrestled with God”. I know that there are moderate Muslims out there (we’re told that they’re the majority), but their religion, clearly, is anything but moderate! A simple google search will show how violent their religion, inherently, is, with numerous references in the Quran justifying violence. To be fair, I’ll let it be known that another simple google search will show Quran verses preaching peace. I think it shows that the book was written by a confused, misguided, uneducated man (Mohammed). I know there are some mighty bloody pages in the Old Testament, and that Christians, Catholics in particular, have done some violent things. In regards to the Old Testament, I think one must understand that there were several Covenants (resulting, Christians say, with Christ, inaugurating the New and Everlasting Covenant), where God revealed more and more of himself. Notice, how the more God revealed of himself, the less violent Jews became. Also, I think there is much symbolism in the Old Testament, and also some

anthropomorphosizing (“the hand of God”); and that these two things must be taken into account. In regards to the violence of the Catholic Church, I think any Catholic who defends the Crusades is a fool. The simple fact of the complex matter is that only the first one really accomplished anything; and, that the other ones… well the crusaders ignored the intentions of the pope (in Constaninople, bishops were pleading with them to stop). In regards to the Inquisition, remember that Spain was a Catholic nation, thus, to be Spanish, was also to be Catholic. Thus, an offense against the Church (read: sin, or heresy) could be tried in “secular” court (I put secular in quotes, as Spain was a Catholic nation). I don’t say this to defend the Inquisition’s results, although I do defend it’s intentions. It’s intent was to get rid of sin and heresy. It failed, because it failed to distinguish between sin and sinner, who you are and what you do (“We will get rid of heresy by killing heretics!”)… Then again, there are other historians, secular and religious, who say that the number of people who were killed in the Catholic court, as opposed to the secular Spanish court was much lower, and that, when the Inquisition was being “done away with”, there was an outcry from the public, realizing they had more “mercy” at the hands of the Church than of the state… I don’t know… I’m not a historian, nor was I in Spain way back then!
First off, I don’t think that the Pope was really even talking about Islam in his address; second, I like the way he really hasn’t apologized, but only said that he is “deeply sorry” that Muslims were offended
I’m fed up with my media (CNN—Communist News Network) trying to have us believe that Islam is a religion of peace! Heck, I was in New York City a few years ago, for the summer, and a Muslim street preacher told me on the street, “You will go to heaven, only to be my slave.” I mentioned this to a friend of mine who lives there in NYC (I live in Georgia!), and she said, “Near Times Square? Yeah, they told me that I’m going to heaven, only to be their whore.” How are we to believe that this is a religion of peace, when their “holy book” condemns so much that is anything but peace?

 

[bones_IV]

I begin with a quote from myself. This was on the MSNBC bulletin boards, and I thought I would begin with that:I “know” that Islam is one of the Abrahamic religions, but I really don’t care anymore. I’m a devout, practicing Byzantine Rite (Melkite) Catholic, and I’m very fed up. Ever since 9/11, the news media has been brainwashing us to believe that Islam is a religion of peace. The Prophet Jeremiah warned of those who “cry ‘peace, peace’, when there is no peace.” Sure, Muslims can trace their heritage to Abraham; but, through a bastard child! Their “connecting” line is Ishmael, whom Abraham had with his slave, Hagar! Jews and Christians, trace their roots to Abraham through his legitimate child, Joshua, who was renamed Israel, after he “wrestled with God”. I know that there are moderate Muslims out there (we’re told that they’re the majority), but their religion, clearly, is anything but moderate! A simple google search will show how violent their religion, inherently, is, with numerous references in the Quran justifying violence. To be fair, I’ll let it be known that another simple google search will show Quran verses preaching peace. I think it shows that the book was written by a confused, misguided, uneducated man (Mohammed). I know there are some mighty bloody pages in the Old Testament, and that Christians, Catholics in particular, have done some violent things. In regards to the Old Testament, I think one must understand that there were several Covenants (resulting, Christians say, with Christ, inaugurating the New and Everlasting Covenant), where God revealed more and more of himself. Notice, how the more God revealed of himself, the less violent Jews became. Also, I think there is much symbolism in the Old Testament, and also some
anthropomorphosizing (“the hand of God”); and that these two things must be taken into account. In regards to the violence of the Catholic Church, I think any Catholic who defends the Crusades is a fool. The simple fact of the complex matter is that only the first one really accomplished anything; and, that the other ones… well the crusaders ignored the intentions of the pope (in Constaninople, bishops were pleading with them to stop). In regards to the Inquisition, remember that Spain was a Catholic nation, thus, to be Spanish, was also to be Catholic. Thus, an offense against the Church (read: sin, or heresy) could be tried in “secular” court (I put secular in quotes, as Spain was a Catholic nation). I don’t say this to defend the Inquisition’s results, although I do defend it’s intentions. It’s intent was to get rid of sin and heresy. It failed, because it failed to distinguish between sin and sinner, who you are and what you do (“We will get rid of heresy by killing heretics!”)… Then again, there are other historians, secular and religious, who say that the number of people who were killed in the Catholic court, as opposed to the secular Spanish court was much lower, and that, when the Inquisition was being “done away with”, there was an outcry from the public, realizing they had more “mercy” at the hands of the Church than of the state… I don’t know… I’m not a historian, nor was I in Spain way back then!
First off, I don’t think that the Pope was really even talking about Islam in his address; second, I like the way he really hasn’t apologized, but only said that he is “deeply sorry” that Muslims were offended
I’m fed up with my damn media (CNN—Communist News Network) trying to have us believe that Islam is a religion of peace! Hell, I was in New York City a few years ago, for the summer, and a Muslim street preacher told me on the street, “You will go to heaven, only to be my slave.” I mentioned this to a friend of mine who lives there in NYC (I live in Georgia!), and she said, “Near Times Square? Yeah, they told me that I’m going to heaven, only to be their whore.” How are we to believe that this is a religion of peace, when their “holy book” condemns so much that is anything but peace?

I understand. Let’s pray for them.

 

[Deacon2006]

Listening Mohamedians complain about the Pope is like listening to the KKK complain about MLK. They need our prayers and firm dialogue.

God Bless

 

[Darrel]

I’m very pleased that the Pope has stood up as he has to Islam. Everyone (myself included) want’s to see positive dialogue with Islam. The problem is that most people can’t seem to deal with the fact that positive dialogue requires mutual respect. How do you get any respect in dialogue if your viewed as a door mat? We all need to stand up to people who would threaten us.

The more we walk on Islamic egg shells the bigger the bully gets. I hope this all starts a new trend and a changed assumption towards Islam. Maybe Islam will start to understand that we will stand up for ourselves. They already know we can crush them if we wanted to stoop to there tactics.

-D

 

[CocamoJoe]

I’m very pleased that the Pope has stood up as he has to Islam. Everyone (myself included) want’s to see positive dialogue with Islam. The problem is that most people can’t seem to deal with the fact that positive dialogue requires mutual respect. How do you get any respect in dialogue if your viewed as a door mat? We all need to stand up to people who would threaten us.

The more we walk on Islamic egg shells the bigger the bully gets. I hope this all starts a new trend and a changed assumption towards Islam. Maybe Islam will start to understand that we will stand up for ourselves. They already know we can crush them if we wanted to stoop to there tactics.

-D

I disagree with your saying that we can “crush them if we wanted to stoop to there [sic] tactics”. I had lunch today with a soldier, who was in Baghdad for a year. He said, from first-hand experience—and this is his opinion, which I agree with, and have for at least a year, now—that there is no way we can simply crush the insurgents over there, or just “win” this war the way the neocons think we can. We have soldiers over there that got a few months training, sent there to fight the Muslims, who were, literally, born into this, and have probably been “trained” in one way or another since they could walk (if not physically trained, at least “brainwashed trained”)…

 

[CocamoJoe]

I just re-read my post, and found a typo in my last sentence. I would edit it, but the option isn’t available to me anymore. Above, the final sentence reads as follows: “How are we to believe that this is a religion of peace, when their “holy book” condemns so much that is anything but peace?” The word “condemns” is supposed to be “condones”. I apologize for any confusion my speedy typing may have caused…

 

[Darrel]

I disagree with your saying that we can “crush them if we wanted to stoop to there [sic] tactics”. I had lunch today with a soldier, who was in Baghdad for a year. He said, from first-hand experience—and this is his opinion, which I agree with, and have for at least a year, now—that there is no way we can simply crush the insurgents over there, or just “win” this war the way the neocons think we can. We have soldiers over there that got a few months training, sent there to fight the Muslims, who were, literally, born into this, and have probably been “trained” in one way or another since they could walk (if not physically trained, at least “brainwashed trained”)…

Believe me we could,

Stooping to there tactics would mean killing hundreds of thousands or millions of people if needed to stop the insurgents. And that is just what they would do if the situation was reversed. We are bound by the US constitution and they are not. The Roman empire would have had no problem crushing this little insurgency in Iraq. How much more could we with our fire power? If a pocket of resistance flared up we would simply erase the entire area with MOAB or fuel air bombs. Then we continue doing the same as needed. It works great and history proves it. The only way we would ever do this sort of thing would be in response to chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. Our enemies would do it as a routine practice.

-D

 

[CocamoJoe]

Believe me we could,

Stooping to there tactics would mean killing hundreds of thousands or millions of people if needed to stop the insurgents. And that is just what they would do if the situation was reversed. We are bound by the US constitution and they are not. The Roman empire would have had no problem crushing this little insurgency in Iraq. How much more could we with our fire power? If a pocket of resistance flared up we would simply erase the entire area with MOAB or fuel air bombs. Then we continue doing the same as needed. It works great and history proves it. The only way we would ever do this sort of thing would be in response to chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. Our enemies would do it as a routine practice.

-D

I see your point in regards to physically “winning” this war; but, I think it goes deeper than the physical—to the heart. I think that is where the issue with terrorism (doesn’t our government refer to this war—of which I emphatically disagree with, at least pertaining to the invasion of Iraq—as the “War on Terror”?), a corrupt heart. Terrorism will never completely be done away with. I believe in working for world peace, but at the same time, I don’t think it can really be accomplished, as the human person is a rather fickle thing. Remember that Christ promised his peace, which the world cannot give, and which surpasses all understanding.

 

[Richardols]

I’m fed up with my damn media (CNN—Communist News Network) trying to have us believe that Islam is a religion of peace!

If they’re Communists, why would they have any interest in characterizing any religion except negatively?

Secondly, both George Bush and John Paul II have referred to Islam as a religion of peace. Neither man can do anything about it if individuals or groups in that religion are violent.

Hell, I was in New York City a few years ago, for the summer, and a Muslim street preacher told me on the street, “You will go to heaven, only to be my slave.”

I didn’t have to go that far. A Fundamentalist street preacher right here in Little Rock told me that all Catholics are going to Hell if they don’t accept Jesus.

 

[OriginalJS]

All of this furor and these postings remind me that the centuries old tensions between true believers in Christianity and Islam have never gone away. While both have developed complex theologies, the fundamentals of both Christianity and Islam are simple: anyone can join, each claims to be the repository of ultimate truth, and each has a mandate to proselytize (“go into all the world etc.”). These fundamentals have lead to the conclusion that anyone who disagrees with whichever side is going to Hell.

Both Christian and Islamic factions have been guilty of acts of extreme violence over the centuries done in the name of religion. The Crusades and the Thirty Years War are a couple of examples. The Old Testament abounds with violence as the Israelites declare war upon and destroy peoples who have done absolutely nothing to them but stand in the way of their land grabs.

 

[Richardols]

All of this furor and these postings remind me ~truncated~their land grabs.

Right on the mark.

 

[stbruno]

Regarding the statement about joining either faith is easy. There’s much more to that. Conversion from Muslim to Christianity is only done under the penalty of severe persecution, maybe even death.

However, becoming a Christian in all respects, means picking up our Cross. We must believe as much in the Crucifixion as we do in the Resurrection…And we must not only have faith but have works!

We must truly believe and live our faith in thought, deed and in action. Not an easy task when you are in the minority as some of us are in certain communities…or when the media is blasting you or your peers. Not an easy task when securalism that denies the presence of the Sacraments or the Commandments is gaining popularity because it’s easier than picking up our Cross is. But the reward of our faith…is Heaven. Life eternally with our Lord and Savior…within the community of Saints. Let us pray that all of us may one day come to appreciate the awesome power of this great gift of Faith!

And may all of us be one!

 

[estesbob]

All of this furor and these postings remind me that the centuries old tensions between true believers in Christianity and Islam have never gone away. While both have developed complex theologies, the fundamentals of both Christianity and Islam are simple: anyone can join, each claims to be the repository of ultimate truth, and each has a mandate to proselytize (“go into all the world etc.”). These fundamentals have lead to the conclusion that anyone who disagrees with whichever side is going to Hell.

Both Christian and Islamic factions have been guilty of acts of extreme violence over the centuries done in the name of religion. The Crusades and the Thirty Years War are a couple of examples. The Old Testament abounds with violence as the Israelites declare war upon and destroy peoples who have done absolutely nothing to them but stand in the way of their land grabs.

Ah-the old moral equivalence game. Of course most of what you say above is nonsense. The 30 years War was not about spreading religion by the sword and the Crusades were a defensive action against the Muslims trying to spread, by viloence, their religion into the middle east and Europe. I am suprised you didnt trot out the old canarad about the Chruch and the Inquistion.

There is nothing in Scripture nor in the theology of Christianity that remotely calls for spreading the faith by violence. The Koran and Mohamed, OTH, make it crystal clear that Islam is to be spread by the sword and unbelievers(with the exception of “men of the book” ) either convert or be killed.

There is no comparison-other than in the minds of those who want to make excuses for any and all enemies of the United States.

 

[Richardols]

The 30 years War was not about spreading religion by the sword and the Crusades were a defensive action against the Muslims trying to spread, by viloence, their religion into the middle east and Europe.

You’d better learn to read posts before responding to them. The original reference was to a “religion of peace,” NOT to conversion by force. Based on history, neither Islam nor Christianity can claim to be so. The suppression of heretics in France was done by the sword; when the Western crusaders went east, they attacked first Christian Constantinople, murdered, raped and robbed, and then headed to Jerusalem where they killed every Jew and Moslem they could lay their hands on. Soldiers of the Religion of Peace? A defensive action? Hah! And there were numerous protestant-catholic wars and protestant-protestant wars after the Reformation. A religion of peace???

I am suprised you didnt trot out the old canard about the Chruch and the Inquisition

A canard??? Are you serious? Do you think that the Inquisition was an unfounded or false story?.

There is no comparison-other than in the minds of those who want to make excuses for any and all enemies of the United States.

Like John Paul II and the Vatican who describe Islam in the Catechism and in Nostra Aetate?

 

[bones_IV]

All of this furor and these postings remind me that the centuries old tensions between true believers in Christianity and Islam have never gone away. While both have developed complex theologies, the fundamentals of both Christianity and Islam are simple: anyone can join, each claims to be the repository of ultimate truth, and each has a mandate to proselytize (“go into all the world etc.”). These fundamentals have lead to the conclusion that anyone who disagrees with whichever side is going to Hell.

Both Christian and Islamic factions have been guilty of acts of extreme violence over the centuries done in the name of religion. The Crusades and the Thirty Years War are a couple of examples. The Old Testament abounds with violence as the Israelites declare war upon and destroy peoples who have done absolutely nothing to them but stand in the way of their land grabs.

This statement of yours is just a bunch of dribble. That does the Thirty years war have to do w/ spreading religion or the crusades? Answer? Absolutely nothing. Secondly, there’s nothing in Catholic theology nor in scripture that says spread the faith by the sword. The Koran and Mohammed taught spreading the faith by violence!

 

[bones_IV]

You’d better learn to read posts before responding to them. The original reference was to a “religion of peace,” NOT to conversion by force. Based on history, neither Islam nor Christianity can claim to be so. The suppression of heretics in France was done by the sword; when the Western crusaders went east, they attacked first Christian Constantinople, murdered, raped and robbed, and then headed to Jerusalem where they killed every Jew and Moslem they could lay their hands on. Soldiers of the Religion of Peace? A defensive action? Hah! And there were numerous protestant-catholic wars and protestant-protestant wars after the Reformation. A religion of peace???

A canard??? Are you serious? Do you think that the Inquisition was an unfounded or false story?.

Like John Paul II and the Vatican who describe Islam in the Catechism and in Nostra Aetate?

Your ignorance is showing. There’s nothing in Catholic teaching that says spread the faith by violence. I challenge you to historical documentation.

 

[Richardols]

Your ignorance is showing. There’s nothing in Catholic teaching that says spread the faith by violence. I challenge you to historical documentation.

Oy! Another man who has to learn to read posts before responding to them.

In which post did I claim that Catholic teaching says to spread the faith by violence?

 

[Richardols]

This statement of yours is just a bunch of dribble!

Now there’s an intelligent reply.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Right on the mark.

Nope. Right off the mark. Catholicism converts by faith and reason; Islam by domination. One is heaven sent; the other, diabolic.

Do men hold true to these fundamentals always. no, so lets not trot out unusual anecdotal evidence. The theologies specify these beliefs. The difference is clear.

The Church may hold muslims in “esteem” but not their diabolical tenets of bullying and domination.

 

[elijahson]

To me, Pope Benedict XVI is the right man for this time as Pope John Paul II was for his time. God used both of them to adress pressing issues of the day. Not the least of those issues for JPII was the dismantling of communism. Has anyone ever read Pope Benedict’s “Truth and Tolerance”? FANTASTIC. Believe me, this Pope, though not as charismatic (little “c”) as the previous, has been sent to us by God to address the rise of Islam in the destruction of the Christian west. Europe has lost the faith that founded it according to Hillaire Belloc who stated in the beginning of the last century that if Europe did not return to the faith it was doomed…prophetic…Pope Benedict has been sent by God. He can stand against this onslaught as only a holy, humble, man can…