Pope Francis views on Islam, has Catholic Answers talked about it?

[otjm]

Saying “Islam” is like saying “Christian”. There is not one definition of either that fits all within the gamete of the word/title.

The Pope, as the head of the Church, needs to take a nuanced approach as he is the figurehead of what Islam in its many permutations see, and he is either approachable for dialogue or not. The fact that he chooses to be approachable does not mean that he is ignorant or naive. Presuming to take something he says publicly and spin it out is a fools errand if one is not cognizant of the implications of his public statements and the why of them. Nor does he owe us a detailed explanation.

It was not all that many years ago that there was no instant commentary on each and every word uttered by people in positions of authority. for those who were born more recently, there is an expectation that all will be reported, and all will be commented on. all too much of it amounts to blather.

 

[Niblo]

Sure, except all of the Amalekites are wicked, women and children included. There is no salvation for them for it is God who knows this. We don’t have the omniscience to know if a tribe of people have no chance of being good.

When confronted with 1 Samuel 15 you wrote: ‘Oh that’s simple to respond to. We still practice that today. It’s called Just War in the Catechism.’

This amounts to a declaration that the Church supports total, unbridled, warfare; in short, behaviour such as this:

'Now go, attack…and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” (1 Samuel 15).

She does not.

 

[Niblo]

Then I guess Muhammad is a bad muslim since he definitely overstepped his bounds over Medina.

Please explain, with evidence.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Mohammed was a deeply unethical and immoral person

Only God can make that judgement. How can any of us possibly make a judgement on someone who died over a thousand years ago? Next Sunday’s Gospel is Luke’s; about how we should not judge others and how we should love even our enemies.

 

[Emedan]

Ones morality shines through in ones actions. I can call Mohammed immoral because he acted as such. Is murder and adultery not immoral? I can only follow my own moral compass and I say that it is I would hope all christians would think the same. Jesus was a moral person to go by the gospels, Muhammed was not going by their own texts at least not in the sense that morality is interpreted by christian doctrine. I didn’t call Mohammed my enemy, just questioned his morality.

It’s what I believe at least.

 

[Daniels123]

"From what I’ve seen, Pope Francis is encouraging the idea that Islam is a religion of peace, and that there are violent fundamentalists in any religion, but my current view is that Islam is a religion born out of violence from a false prophet that used his new found religion to gain power in the Arab nations. " I’m a Photographer in an online company that offers cat supplies (toys, litter pans, beds, posts and many more) I agree on this statement.

 

[rightness]

When confronted with 1 Samuel 15 you wrote: ‘Oh that’s simple to respond to. We still practice that today. It’s called Just War in the Catechism.’

This amounts to a declaration that the Church supports total, unbridled, warfare; in short, behaviour such as this:

'Now go, attack…and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” (1 Samuel 15).

She does not.

You’re taking what I said out of context. The Church supports and mandates the defense of oneself as it did in WW2, as it did in WW1, as it did in the Battle of Vienna in 1683 where the Islamic Ottoman empire were about to slaughter and force convert Europe, but was soundly defeated by Poland.

Do you equate German’s complete defeat to 1 Samuel 15? I certainly distinguished 1 Samuel 15 from any wars now because we do not have God’s foresight to know the complete wickedness of certain peoples like Nazi Germany.

Please explain, with evidence.

No, the burden of proof is on your side. I brought up the Battle of Medina where the Jewish tribe, Banu Qurayza, had surrendered to Muhammad, yet they were slaughtered and the women and children made slaves. Explain “la ta tadu” in this case.

 

[Vico]

… I’m going to assume two parts of it: the Canaanite Genocide and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. …

Large scale deaths:

• The Flood – Genesis 6-8
• The cities of the plain (Sodom and Gomorrah included) – Genesis 18-19
• The firstborn Egyptian sons plague, Passover – Exodus 11-12
• The Canaanites, per Moses and Joshua – Numbers 21:2-3, Deuteronomy 20:17, Joshua 6:17, 21
• The Amalekites destroyed by Saul – 1 Samuel 15

 

[YourNameHere]

I am not concerned with Islam and other religious. I focus on Catholicism.

 

[rightness]

rightness:

… I’m going to assume two parts of it: the Canaanite Genocide and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. …

Large scale deaths:

• The Flood – Genesis 6-8
• The cities of the plain (Sodom and Gomorrah included) – Genesis 18-19
• The firstborn Egyptian sons plague, Passover – Exodus 11-12
• The Canaanites, per Moses and Joshua – Numbers 21:2-3, Deuteronomy 20:17, Joshua 6:17, 21
• The Amalekites destroyed by Saul – 1 Samuel 15

All justified. Are you going to show why they aren’t?

 

[Niblo]

No, the burden of proof is on your side. I brought up the Battle of Medina where the Jewish tribe, Banu Qurayza, had surrendered to Muhammad, yet they were slaughtered and the women and children made slaves. Explain “la ta tadu” in this case.

Er…no. The burden of proof is always on the one making the accusation. What proof do you have that the events you describe took place just as you describe them. Present the evidence.

 

[Niblo]

You’re taking what I said out of context. The Church supports and mandates the defense of oneself as it did in WW2, as it did in WW1, as it did in the Battle of Vienna in 1683 where the Islamic Ottoman empire were about to slaughter and force convert Europe, but was soundly defeated by Poland.

Do you equate German’s complete defeat to 1 Samuel 15? I certainly distinguished 1 Samuel 15 from any wars now because we do not have God’s foresight to know the complete wickedness of certain peoples like Nazi Germany.

Of course the Church supports and mandates the concept of self-defence - action in the face of aggression. I did not say otherwise. However, she does not support unbridled slaughter, as in 1 Samuel 15. If you agree with me on this, there is no more to be said. If you don’t, then you are at odds with the Church.

 

[rightness]

Er…no. The burden of proof is always on the one making the accusation. What proof do you have that the events you describe took place just as you describe them. Present the evidence.

Wiki it. It’s obvious fact. It’s like saying Nazis were genocidal against Jews requires evidence.

Here’s the link: Banu Qurayza - Wikipedia

Of course the Church supports and mandates the concept of self-defence - action in the face of aggression. I did not say otherwise. However, she does not support unbridled slaughter, as in 1 Samuel 15. If you agree with me on this, there is no more to be said. If you don’t, then you are at odds with the Church.

Again, 1 Samuel 15 is not “unbridled slaughter” unless you are declaring the Bible and God to be incorrect.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

The Church supports and mandates the defense of oneself as it did in WW2, as it did in WW1

Pope John Paul II and top Vatican officials are unleashing a barrage of condemnations of a possible U.S. military strike on Iraq, calling it immoral, risky and a “crime against peace.”

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger said, “There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destruction that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a ‘just war.’” Just a month ago, now as Pope Benedict XVI, he called upon the nations of the world to end these “useless slaughters.”

 

[rightness]

rightness:

The Church supports and mandates the defense of oneself as it did in WW2, as it did in WW1

Pope John Paul II and top Vatican officials are unleashing a barrage of condemnations of a possible U.S. military strike on Iraq, calling it immoral, risky and a “crime against peace.”

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger said, “There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destruction that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a ‘just war.’” Just a month ago, now as Pope Benedict XVI, he called upon the nations of the world to end these “useless slaughters.”

Many measures in the Iraq War weren’t justified. It’s not a blanket statement given to a war saying it’s completely justified. Like the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing were not justified because it was excessive, though some will say it is justified to prevent further loss of life through conventional warfare, but that doesn’t mean the European theatre wasn’t justified in stopping the Nazi’s genocide of the Jews.

Also, parts of the Crusades were justified, where the first Crusades successfully liberated the Holy Lands, but individual armies and actions that had pillaged and ransacked, particularly Constantinople, were unjustified.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

rightness:

… I’m going to assume two parts of it: the Canaanite Genocide and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. …

Large scale deaths:

• The Flood – Genesis 6-8
• The cities of the plain (Sodom and Gomorrah included) – Genesis 18-19
• The firstborn Egyptian sons plague, Passover – Exodus 11-12
• The Canaanites, per Moses and Joshua – Numbers 21:2-3, Deuteronomy 20:17, Joshua 6:17, 21
• The Amalekites destroyed by Saul – 1 Samuel 15

All justified. Are you going to show why they aren’t?

Just listing that there were more than two.

 

[meltzerboy2]

And so do Catholics according to some Protestants, and likewise Jews according to some Christians, and Christians according to some Jews and Muslims, and so on and so forth. If you haven’t studied the religion in depth and with an open mind, neither you nor I nor anyone else is really qualified to speak against it.

 

[Niblo]

Wiki it. It’s obvious fact. It’s like saying Nazis were genocidal against Jews requires evidence.

It’s not ‘fact’ until proven to be true. You have yet to do this; or even to make an attempt. As for the holocaust…we know that to be true because of the verifiable…overwhelming…evidence available to us. When we teach the holocaust to our children, we don’t just say ‘the Nazis did this’, and leave it at that. We show, and discuss, the evidence. This is how the criminal justice system works, at least in the UK. Guilt has to be established beyond reasonable doubt.

I don’t need to’ Wiki’ this story; I know it well from the books I have. Again, what evidence do you have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the story is true?

 

[MAS79]

The bottom line is this…

“Islam is inseparable from Muhammad. If Muhammad was a false prophet who presented a false picture of Jesus, then Islam, despite whatever truths it contains, is a false religion.”

I noticed that basic quote on a website I read not long ago but apparently I can’t post links so ill just leave it at that for now.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

The bottom line is this…

“Islam is inseparable from Muhammad. If Muhammad was a false prophet who presented a false picture of Jesus, then Islam, despite whatever truths it contains, is a false religion.”

I believe the bottom line is this…
Only God can say who will achieve salvation, none of us can make a blanket judgement on 1.5 billion Muslims. They are our neighbours and we are commanded to love them as we love ourselves.