VATICAN - Pope: "Never before" has dialogue with Islam been so necessary, for mutual knowledge and acceptance of differences, to counter violence [AN]

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Press
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
oldcatholicguy said:
I placed no argument. I gave a response so as to clarify the differences of the call to war which transpired between Christian (Catholic) Kings protecting pilgrims on the roads to and from Jerusalem and Muslims call to war in the name of Allah.

Pope Urban called on the faithful Catholic Kings to protect the pilgrims on the roads to and from Jerusalem , under the banner “It is God’s Will”. What transpires from the Crusaders protecting the pilgrims path’s to and from Jerusalem leads to an awful war between Muslims and the Crusaders.
The Crusade was actually in response to a request from the ERE for against the Turks (the ones who didn’t control the Holy Land). It morphed from this into a “protecting the pilgrims” and then a “retake the Holy Land” after the Turks started causing problems with the Muslim state that held the Holy Land. This “it was all about protecting the pilgrims” argument is also challenged for validity given that after the Holy Land was retaken it was divided up into several Crusading states ruled by western nobles and not actually handed back to the ERE.

Why could not the Muslims “dialogued” and joined the Crusaders in protecting the innocent pilgrims and the free roads to and from Jerusalem? Instead a policed protection led to an outright war.
One because they were dealing with the Turks trying to expand their territory into the Holy Land; and two maybe because prior to calling forth a massive military campaign to conquer (in the eyes of the Muslim state that controlled it, I personally think retaking or reconquering) the Holy Land the Church didn’t actually bother to make any real attempt at dialogue for this protection of pilgrims to take place?

Does this history repeat itself and sound the same in today’s times of governments policing, protecting borders and victims from terrorist who are kidnapping for ransoms as they did back in the crusades, while killing, chopping heads off of innocent victims in the name of Allah?

Are the Muslims going to repeat it’s history as in the beginning of the crusades? or are the Muslims going to dialogue and prevent another war, when Islam’s whole premise of it’s gospel is to conquer.
Are you claiming that a) Islamic extremists are the true face of Islam and/or that all Muslims are responsible for/engage in these acts, b) that these extremists organizations are somehow the legitimate government of the Muslim societies that they are in, c) that the “it’s all about protecting pilgrims” Crusaders didn’t also engage in similar or worse activity?

Islam would have to change it’s Quran’s ultimate goal from conquering and killing the infidels, for a dialogue to really pursue a true peace. Currently secular politics is what is holding and preventing Islam from breaking out into an all out war. Mainly because they have no nuclear weapon yet? to place fear on those in order to submit or obey Islam’s rulers.
So for clarification are you actually claiming that a) Muslims would use force to conquer to world, b) that Islam calls for the usage of force to conquer the world, and c) the only reason Muslims aren’t using force to conquer to world is due to the threat of a military response by the now apparently good secular governments in the West (which frankly is odd in itself given the popular narrative on this site of secular governments ignoring the threat of Islam and your previous statements to this effect)?

Thus we need secular political powers to keep the political aspirations of Islam at bay and from conquering the weaker. And religious dialogue with Muslims to teach and instruct them in the way’s of true Christian Catholicism that predates Islam’s Quran false teaching of Christianity.

Are Muslims willing to listen and dialogue with the True Christianity of Catholicism with the Pope? When the Pope offers an olive branch to Muslims…
Click to expand...
None of this rambling makes any sense, especially the over-work of the question mark.
 
oldcatholicguy said:
Yes, and what passes for common “knowledge” on the other side of the coin would be that the Christians were the stereotypical “heroes in white hats” straight out of a 1930s-40s era Western movie who did no wrong and were only motivated by pious and pure thoughts.
Click to expand...
Could you explain to me how Islam got from Medina in 632 AD to Vienna in 1683 AD?
 
unstoppable_II said:
None of this rambling makes any sense, especially the over-work of the question mark.
Click to expand...
Yes, shame on me for mistakenly ending one statement with a question mark. Now, you mind actually answering my questions (these would be the last two usages of the question mark, but I’m sure your mastery of punctuation marks has already led you to this conclusion)?
 
unstoppable_II said:
Could you explain to me how Islam got from Medina in 632 AD to Vienna in 1683 AD?
Click to expand...
Through the force of arms just like pretty much every other expansionist culture and society that I can think of. Now how exactly does this impact my comment? (I can use a question mark here right?)
 
oldcatholicguy said:
Mind citing where I actually “heaped all the blame on the Christian Crusaders”?
Click to expand...
oldcatholicguy said:
…
Pope Urban called on the faithful Catholic Kings to protect the pilgrims on the roads to and from Jerusalem , under the banner “It is God’s Will”. What transpires from the Crusaders protecting the pilgrims path’s to and from Jerusalem leads to an awful war between Muslims and the Crusaders.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
unstoppable_II:
I’m pretty sure you meant to quote my comment here- “The Crusade was actually in response to a request from the ERE for against the Turks (the ones who didn’t control the Holy Land). It morphed from this into a “protecting the pilgrims” and then a “retake the Holy Land” after the Turks started causing problems with the Muslim state that held the Holy Land. This “it was all about protecting the pilgrims” argument is also challenged for validity given that after the Holy Land was retaken it was divided up into several Crusading states ruled by western nobles and not actually handed back to the ERE.”

Even so, hardly me heaping all the blame on the Christians. Or are working under a reality in which one is heaping all the blame on the Christians if one doesn’t buy into the revisionist view that the Christians weren’t also motivated by personal and worldly advancement? Also, are we working under the impression that the Turks weren’t also Muslim? You know the people who caused the ERE (who also happen to be Christian) to request help from the West?
 
Gabriel_of_12 said:
The crusaders were sent to protect Christians and all innocent travelers on the roads to and from pilgrimages and Jerusalem. Which ultimately led to a religious War by Muslims calling Muslims to War to kill infidels in the name of Allah, while the Catholic Kings fought to protect their subjects, and keeping Jerusalem free.

The barbaric results history lays blame to both sides of this war.
The Muslims call to war in the name of Islam and the Catholic Kings crusaders to protect innocent people from being massacred is a content that you have misplaced out of context.

During this history most nations have a political and religious mix. Islam kills to conquer people in the name of Allah, while Christian secular powers killed to protect their people and the innocence from being conquered and massacred in the will of God.

But you bring up a very good point to the dialogue. Does Islam call to war to conquer and convert infidels have a just cause to kill?
Compared to the Christians call to war to protect the innocence? Can you give an answer to this question in the dialogue?
Click to expand...
 
oldcatholicguy;12707396]The Crusade was actually in response to a request from the ERE for against the Turks (the ones who didn’t control the Holy Land). It morphed from this into a “protecting the pilgrims” and then a “retake the Holy Land” after the Turks started causing problems with the Muslim state that held the Holy Land. This “it was all about protecting the pilgrims” argument is also challenged for validity given that after the Holy Land was retaken it was divided up into several Crusading states ruled by western nobles and not actually handed back to the ERE.
Click to expand...
What you introduced here is another aspect of what causes the war of the Crusades to intensify which transpired into an all out war. You introduced the political aspects of Islam. (I am sorry you misread my post that “it was ALL about protecting the pilgrims” which I never said)., When the Turks conquered the Eastern Orthodox Church’s.
You placed my post out of their context with a false assumption.

Your information is valuable to the discussion, when it is placed in it’s own context, but it does not follow or refute my commentary to the discussion.
 
Gabriel_of_12 said:
What you introduced here is another aspect of what causes the war of the Crusades to intensify which transpired into an all out war. You introduced the political aspects of Islam. (I am sorry you misread my post that “it was ALL about protecting the pilgrims” which I never said)., When the Turks conquered the Eastern Orthodox Church’s.
You placed my post out of their context with a false assumption.

Your information is valuable to the discussion, when it is placed in it’s own context, but it does not follow or refute my commentary to the discussion.
Click to expand...
I reread your comment and your above is correct. Sorry. I retract those portions of my comments based upon my false assumption that you claimed the Crusades were only about protecting the pilgrims and/or defending the faith.
 
Gabriel_of_12 said:
Muslims teach their new Islamic converts and Muslims that the whole New testament of the bible has been corrupted and changed by Christians, and the gospels of Jesus Christ are not credible and not logical to believe.

The Crucifixion of Jesus Christ, according to the Quran did not happen. An imposter was crucified in Jesus place. If the Jesus Crucifixion did not happen as the Quran teaches, then all of Christianity is all wrong?

Muslims discredit St. Paul and his epistles in strongest of negative terms.

Muslims depend on ignorance being led to logic in order to justify Islam’s Quran false teachings of Jesus Christ.

When God calls our humanity to faith and reason not logic grounded on only things visible and seen.
Click to expand...
OK, but none of that stuff is in the Qur’an. It’s all things that some Mullah decided was true, things Muhammad was supposed to have said to someone, or else just bad exegesis of the Qur’an.
 
Matthew_Light said:
OK, but none of that stuff is in the Qur’an. It’s all things that some Mullah decided was true, things Muhammad was supposed to have said to someone, or else just bad exegesis of the Qur’an.
Click to expand...
I am delighted that you bring this subject to light here.🙂

“but none of that stuff is in the Quran…or else just bad exegesis of the Quran”
This is a common response from Muslims, when the true colors of Islam is revealed withinn a dialogue.

Most common responses from Muslims are; You don’t know what your talking about because you don’t understand the Aramaic language or the Muslim culture expressed from the Quran or similar things to the nature of, That is not what the Quran is saying, and you misinterpret the Quran, yet the Muslim never reveals what the Quran does say on the subject being dialogued from an objection.

These apologetic tactics used by Muslims to cause confusion, doubt or change the subject by placing blame on Islam’s partner in the dialogue that insults ones intelligence or ignorance of the Quran without qualifying the Muslims objection with an answer of what the Quran teaches. In defense of the Muslim who uses these tactics in public forums, because the Quran obliges a Muslim to act towards a non-believer of Islam, while a dialogue is taken place.

With these tactics in mind used by Muslims in a dialogue, can prove a religious dialogue difficult if Islam does not give any answers to it’s religion. When the Quran does not obligate a Muslim to.

If the dialogue focuses only on the religious aspects of Islam. The dialogue calls each party to define, explain ones own faith to one another on religious matters to reach understanding, knowledge and differences.

So that the Muslim cannot object to ones learned view by a Muslim of Islam recorded from the Quran during the dialogue.

The Political aspirations of Islam’s dialogue should remain in the context of politics not mixed with religion to reach a true understanding and knowledge of Islam’s politics in practice from each different interpretation of Islam and the Quran by different Muslim political views and goals.
 
Gabriel_of_12 said:
I am delighted that you bring this subject to light here.🙂

“but none of that stuff is in the Quran…or else just bad exegesis of the Quran”
This is a common response from Muslims, when the true colors of Islam is revealed withinn a dialogue.
Click to expand...
  1. I’m not a Muslim
  2. Most Muslims do in fact believe the things I just stated are not in the Qur’an.
I just feel it is very important to distinguish between:

A) What is written in the Qur’an

B) What some / many / most Muslims believe

Because many very prevalent Muslim beliefs are not based on a sound Qur’anic exegesis at all, such as the notion that the Old Testament and New Testament are corrupt.
 
Matthew_Light said:
  1. I’m not a Muslim
  2. Most Muslims do in fact believe the things I just stated are not in the Qur’an.
I just feel it is very important to distinguish between:

A) What is written in the Qur’an

B) What some / many / most Muslims believe

Because many very prevalent Muslim beliefs are not based on a sound Qur’anic exegesis at all, such as the notion that the Old Testament and New Testament are corrupt.
Click to expand...
MatthewLight, don’t ALL Muslims say “one who submits to God is a Muslim”, make everyone Muslim?

MJ
 
Gabriel_of_12 said:
I am delighted that you bring this subject to light here.🙂

“but none of that stuff is in the Quran…or else just bad exegesis of the Quran”
This is a common response from Muslims, when the true colors of Islam is revealed withinn a dialogue.

Most common responses from Muslims are; You don’t know what your talking about because you don’t understand the Aramaic language or the Muslim culture expressed from the Quran or similar things to the nature of, That is not what the Quran is saying, and you misinterpret the Quran, yet the Muslim never reveals what the Quran does say on the subject being dialogued from an objection.

These apologetic tactics used by Muslims to cause confusion, doubt or change the subject by placing blame on Islam’s partner in the dialogue that insults ones intelligence or ignorance of the Quran without qualifying the Muslims objection with an answer of what the Quran teaches. In defense of the Muslim who uses these tactics in public forums, because the Quran obliges a Muslim to act towards a non-believer of Islam, while a dialogue is taken place.

With these tactics in mind used by Muslims in a dialogue, can prove a religious dialogue difficult if Islam does not give any answers to it’s religion. When the Quran does not obligate a Muslim to.

If the dialogue focuses only on the religious aspects of Islam. The dialogue calls each party to define, explain ones own faith to one another on religious matters to reach understanding, knowledge and differences.

So that the Muslim cannot object to ones learned view by a Muslim of Islam recorded from the Quran during the dialogue.

The Political aspirations of Islam’s dialogue should remain in the context of politics not mixed with religion to reach a true understanding and knowledge of Islam’s politics in practice from each different interpretation of Islam and the Quran by different Muslim political views and goals.
Click to expand...
The question is, how does Catholicism intend to implement “dialogue” with Islam when such fundamental problems exist between the two religions.

Metaphysical theology is soooooooooooo absolute in both religions.

How do you think the Pope will go about creating a dialogue that will create a progress never before seen between the two religions?

You have encountered some of the problems, it seems, first hand when dialoguing with Muslims, and you seem to have lost hope in any progress being made. How would you change your approach?

.

.
 
Matthew_Light said:
  1. I’m not a Muslim
  2. Most Muslims do in fact believe the things I just stated are not in the Qur’an.
I just feel it is very important to distinguish between:

A) What is written in the Qur’an

B) What some / many / most Muslims believe

Because many very prevalent Muslim beliefs are not based on a sound Qur’anic exegesis at all, such as the notion that the Old Testament and New Testament are corrupt.
Click to expand...
Is your “sound Qur’anic exegesis” on the same level as your sound Biblical exegesis? Sorry, Matthew, but based upon what I have seen of Baha’i interpretation of the Christian Scriptures, I would be very cautious about any Baha’i interpretation of the Quran and the resulting conclusions as to Muslim understanding of their own sacred text.

Peace.

Steve
 
Servant19 said:
The question is, how does Catholicism intend to implement “dialogue” with Islam when such fundamental problems exist between the two religions.

Metaphysical theology is soooooooooooo absolute in both religions.

How do you think the Pope will go about creating a dialogue that will create a progress never before seen between the two religions?

You have encountered some of the problems, it seems, first hand when dialoguing with Muslims, and you seem to have lost hope in any progress being made. How would you change your approach?

.

.
Click to expand...
-Are said problems due to the faiths or their followers?
-Absolutes don’t actually bar dialogue, they merely set the limits on what both faiths can agree to in regards to the truth and God. Living peacefully side by side would be well within those limits.
-As for progress between both faiths living together, there are Catholic religious orders that seem to have been able to do this for hundreds of years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top