Is the Pope right for speaking up about Islam as no one else has...

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
In simple terms, my thoughts to your question would be YES.

It is amazing that in Islam the penalty for leaving Islam is death. I know that the other "3" big religions don't carry this burden.

I think the Pope was right but due to the outcry of not pissing off the world, he will backtrack......sadly.


Which 3 big religions are you talking about?
Christianity, Islam and Athiests?
Christianity Islam and Hindu?

I know that Christianity says that if you don't believe in Christ you shall burn for all eternity. And that because you are already a lost soul, your life is valueless.

Christianity has a more screwed up history than Islam, but maybe that's because it's been around longer.

Basically, anyone who calls for any anger, violece, or action against anyone else based on what their religion tells them, or what the other religion is, is just as bad as the Nazis.

(I know, it's a no-no to bring Nazis into any debate, but I think it's very appropriate here)




posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Hell in the Bible is not the same justice system as an athiest see it.

It has room for the Righteous man who may never have believed in the Bible or witnessed Jesus name. So its a bit more leaniant than you realise, yes Jesus warned us as its a big issue and the best way to avoid it is through him. This is where the Bible is seen in man's lack of understanding of Hell. The Bibe will always have Jesus as your witness he will plead for you what ever happens. Some people may still be saved even if they did not know of the Bible, Jesus is not that niave nor are we. Hell is not a fine line for GOOD AND EVIL its a complex prosedure but faith is VIP for the believers. I read the Koran says its not everlasting hell when one goes there only to purify you untill one is purified. Not sure if that is Justice I guess I will stick to Christianty my good deeds will eventually get me out of trouble without the Korans earthy constraits.

This is from page 1 below as i just updated I guess incase its missed have to show it again.

Well its not hard to see why comments like this was made Mohammad was no Biblical Jesus in comparison and if mankind has to better one self in a disciplined manner I see the West prospering a lot more than their faith.

I hope people know how Mohammad led his life and back track Biblical or democratic values when doing so, there is not much difference in Allah's personality compared to Mohammad when speaking of one self as God is built around his extension of his own personality. You would probably declare war right back at him if he was here today, I guess we are in a way by his legacy. I have done enough reading my self to conclude this.

The Koran more chaotically put together and is also made up of bits of information on bones and leafs that has been comprised together which the Bible has been accused of some editing. There is no order in how it should flow the larger paragraphs are at the front the smaller ones going to the back in that order. We also have to ask if God can be this disorganised if he had to put a message across. But apart from the Bible also being accused of being comprised of letters and books at least each part flows and cross-references it self thousands of years apart too to keep consistent. People accuse the Bible as made up or corrupted as the Koran also states but I wonder who has the most historical references and copies that suggest it has always been original and the least corrupted of the two major Holy Books. The Koran even says to read the Bible.

Apart from the above it may seem like the Pope is causing trouble but we should also see that many Westerns who at least know something about Islam and its history and its net round its people in their countries that maybe its not the answer for man kind. On the other hand Iran's president wants Islam to solve world problems. One of the two civilisations will have to reach an agreement if not go to war.

At the end of the day there will be a time where you have to say which do I chose? Will you embrace In Islamic empire coming your way or would you embrace your democratic values where both Christianity and democracy that holds no prisoners.

There will be world changes and this is only a minor integration of it all. It will be a full-scale war between the two civilisations it seems there is no middle ground. I am not making this up look at the Middle East now would you like to give them Nuclear power? Some one has to lose or adapt and these comments are fractals of the bigger picture.
Text

[edit on 15-9-2006 by The time lord]



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 01:03 PM
link   
If it was not for religion we would be like the Romans, Communists, dicators, monachy rule, slave traders, Facists, cult based societies that are so fragmented each person will declair their own God called Babylonian society.

Outside religions are not that much nicer well I think outside Christianity in its understood form. I still think a Democratic Chistianity society is best as both can work together.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by The time lord
If it was not for religion we would be like the Romans, Communists, dicators, monachy rule, slave traders, Facists, cult based societies that are so fragmented each person will declair their own God called Babylonian society.


Ummm do you live in the USA? Have you ever read a history book? Have you ever read the Quran? So far, Time Lord, you've made a lot of bold, unsubstanciated statements. Please, show me your sources for the evil that is the Quran.

Also, show me how the US didn't trade slaves. And show me the connection that says dictators aren't religious. Then show me how monarchies aren't religious. Then, show me how religions are different than cults.


TG

posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   
The Pope was simply quoting something that was written 600 years ago and as usual the muslims go nuts, well more nuts than they already are anyway.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   
But by not making mention of violent actions taken by the Catholic Church, he made it seem as if the quotes were true, and that the violence was limited to Islam. Whatever the case, This will become another Crusade.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

Originally posted by The time lord
If it was not for religion we would be like the Romans, Communists, dicators, monachy rule, slave traders, Facists, cult based societies that are so fragmented each person will declair their own God called Babylonian society.


Ummm do you live in the USA? Have you ever read a history book? Have you ever read the Quran? So far, Time Lord, you've made a lot of bold, unsubstanciated statements. Please, show me your sources for the evil that is the Quran.

Also, show me how the US didn't trade slaves. And show me the connection that says dictators aren't religious. Then show me how monarchies aren't religious. Then, show me how religions are different than cults.




Yes I have done alot of research too and am also refering to how society will cope without a religion in the future and I believe a Democratic Christianity society as probably the best option. I don't really think other religions out side Christainity are that brilliant historically them selves and would not live anyother current life style.

I know about my subjects I have done alot of reading is down to opinion because its how you experience and see things and how the individual make use of information in the end.

I know enough my self i have enough views in alot of areas and opinions. I have lots of weblinks stories and documentaries to conclude my view of things once its been thought out. What do I have to do to prove it all I maybe have come to these conclutions not because I am niave because of the information calculated? I have written quite a few views on here as in ATS and I guess one has to back track what I have written for people to know where I am coming from.

I would love to explain all but that takes a lot of digging up. I will leave it up to the individual to find out or wait because it will take a while. Some will agree with me if they have chosen similar paths other wise I have to write everything i have every written in here plus all my sources. Also its to find out for your self not just my headlines of sentances.

[edit on 15-9-2006 by The time lord]



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Well i agree with some of the comments made but not all. here is my 2ps worth of thought. First off i have read the Koran and found it to be very interesting but hard going as it is not an easy read. I am surprised by how many simmilarities there are to the Bible ie the Koran has it's flood story as does the Bible. I think in order to understand Islam you've gotta study the religion first! What i quite like about Islamic faith is the requirement to fast and this is strictly observed. The purpose of fasting is to get you thinking about God more often and your own spritual awareness. I also like the idea of giving to charity too. Nowe, having said that i have also studied other relgions such as Buddishm and the Jewish faith too. Again the theme of fasting does come up with these faiths too. Mot much difference really between the world faiths when you study them and comapre the world's faiths.

OK that's the relgious studies out of the way, now onto the reglious politics !! I can tolerate many world faiths and have respect for the mainstream relgions of the world, except for cults like the Moonies etc. However i think it is wrong when one reglious order get perogtive treatment over anyone else and we have to bow to their whims and moaning. In the UK we have made this mistake of giving in to the PC Brigade and in doing so have created tensions between relgious faiths as it's all "We must take into account Muslim feelings on this that and the other" I can happily take into account Muslim feelings, i have no problem with Muslims in general, i want to learn more about the faith, however i do object to their needs being considered more of a priority than everyone else. We must learn to say NO and say let's look at the concerns of other religous faiths too. Perhaps an important thing to remember is this, if i go to an Arabic country which is predminately Muslim, i have no problem with that, but i must obey their rules re not drinking etc. Fine i can live with that, got no problem with that i respect other people's faiths and would quite enjoy participating in other religious festivals. However that respect must work both ways. Someone visiting a Christian country must respect their rules as well. For one thing it is good manners !!
It can't be one rule for them and another rule for us. That is what is messing the world up to a large extent.

But i feel what people forget at the end of the day is that the mainstream religions of the world are all worshipping the same Supreme Being at the end of the day when all is said and done. There surely cannot be more than one God. what we call God, Allah, etc is really a Supreme Being !! It's just that different faiths have sprung up to take into account different cultures, geographical locations etc. We are all Brothers in the eyes of the Supreme Being.

However if relgion is going to cause more wars, more jhaids, more beheadings, more terrorism, why not ban it being practiced in public all together and allow it only to be practiced in the privacy of people's own homes? It might render our world a little less bloody!!.

Thats my 2p woth of thougths on this, sorry if it does not make sense, i just wrote what came into my mind as i read this thread!



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420


Also, show me how the US didn't trade slaves. And show me the connection that says dictators aren't religious. Then show me how monarchies aren't religious. Then, show me how religions are different than cults.


Abolition of slavery was largely due to the christians wishing it to be abolished. Quakers (extremely religous) did not believe in slavery and that viewpoint spread throughout christendom very quickly.

So to many of you on this board who renounce Christianity as evil and all this BS are full of it. The democratic society that took shape in the US was a direct result of religous thought and a yearning for freedom.

I have noticved many who would like to re-write the history books and claim the founding fathers were at least not influenced by religion and were possibly atheists.


I hate to tell you all this but the United States was founded on christian values and thought.

"God created all men to be equal and endowed them with certain inalienable rights"

do these sound like the words of an atheist?

As for the pope, good for him for telling the truth about Islam even if it was a quotation of an earrlier pontiff.

let me ask you something.....if someone 6 centuries ago said this about islam and it is still oviously true today, what does that say about the nature of islam?

It tells me the doesnt evolve, it does not become more tolerant and is a menance to the world and portrays all religions in a bad light.



[edit on 15-9-2006 by XphilesPhan]

[edit on 15-9-2006 by XphilesPhan]



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by The time lord
Yes I have done done alot of research too and am also refering to how society will cope without a religion in the future and I believe a Democratic Christianity society as probably the best option. I don't really think other religions out side Christainity are that brilliant historically my self and would not live anyother life style.


That's beacuse you're Christian. What about Democratic Hinduism, or Sikhism? Both have a much more peaceful history than CHristianity.


I know about my subjects I have done alot of reading is down to opinion because its how you experience and see things and how the individual make use of information in the end.

I'd like to direct you to a previous quote of your's

Originally posted by The Time LordWhy do Mulslim countries have swords in their flags? Why do they still behead the infidels, why is it illegal to be from another religion in other Muslim countries. Come on its not like Islam is democracy. Its not like it will want to be if they are under a death sentence to be indipendent from it.


It looks to me like you make borad generalizations based on little fact. Not much research.

Please show me your research, or send a link to where you posted your research before so that I can have a look and not rely on your word...no offense.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 02:16 PM
link   
The tolerant Pakistani muslim response?


"Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said....She said Muslims had a long history of tolerance,




In other words - we'll be tolerant as long as you don't say anything that can even remotely be considered against Islam. (get a clue folks .. that isn't tolerance)

Like the tolerance shown towards political cartoons? Let's hope that these 'tolerant' people don't show the pope the same tolerance that they showed those who wrote and published the recent political cartoons.




[edit on 9/15/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   
The transcript of the lecture can be found here:

www.theindiancatholic.com...

Even a casual reading of the text will show that the pope meant no harm by his statement, as he was providing context for this ultimate point.


Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature.

www.theindiancatholic.com...


This is the context in which the supposed insult to Islam was issued:


I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by professor Theodore Khoury (Muenster) of part of the dialogue carried on -- perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara -- by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.

[...]

In this lecture I would like to discuss only one point -- itself rather marginal to the dialogue itself -- which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason," I found interesting and which can serve as the starting point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation ("diálesis" -- controversy) edited by professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that sura 2:256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion." It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under [threat]. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Koran, concerning holy war.

Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels," he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably ("syn logo") is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats.... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...."

www.theindiancatholic.com...


I think that it is clear to any reasonable man that the pope not only did not intend to insult Islam or Mohammed, he actually did neither.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan

Originally posted by Rasobasi420


Also, show me how the US didn't trade slaves. And show me the connection that says dictators aren't religious. Then show me how monarchies aren't religious. Then, show me how religions are different than cults.


Abolition of slavery was largely due to the christians wishing it to be abolished. Quakers (extremely religous) did not believe in slavery and that viewpoint spread throughout christendom very quickly.

So to many of you on this board who renounce Christianity as evil and all this BS are full of it. The democratic society that took shape in the US was a direct result of religous thought and a yearning for freedom.

I have noticved many who would like to re-write the history books and claim the founding fathers were at least not influenced by religion and were possibly atheists.


I hate to tell you all this but the United States was founded on christian values and thought.


I think you may have missed my point. Time lord made a series ofconnections that were invalid, and I was pointing that out. And yes, I do think that Christianity is 'evil', but not for reasons that you may think. Not becasue of actions taken by Christians, but rather the teachings themselves.

The US was founded by men who were Christian, but the values are not strictly Christian. It's the teachings that are specific to Christianity that make it 'evil'. Freedom, equality, life, and the persuit of happiness are not strictly Christian belief. Believing a man deserves to burn for eternity for not following their deity is evil.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I think that it is clear to any reasonable man that the pope not only did not intend to insult Islam or Mohammed, he actually did neither.


It looks like there are a lot of muslims around the world who are not reasonable.
news.yahoo.com...

I think they just want an excuse to be ticked off and violent about this. It certainly isn't reasonable behavior and it certainly isn't 'tolerant' no matter what that woman from Turkey said.

(I'm still laughing at that!
)


[edit on 9/15/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   
To me most of this stuff is common knowledge and feel do I have to go through a court process in showing evidence, some things are common knowledge we know from reading or the news for example Iran's laws.

Some are opinions of how things may change to current patterns and history repeating it self.

I have 4 years of internet reseach plus news and documentary views which I am not sure how to bring fourth all my conclustions without spending a short time on it.
One also has to delve along the same lines maybe one has chose one route or perspective of things.

What do people want to know exactly? internet links because thats the easiest to do for other sources but I can give opinions too.

i don't think Christanity is evil and people usually mix the old testiment with the new which was aimed at strictly the Isrealites not the gentile people or common people.

I have made a statement about hell its not black and white as it seems.

[edit on 15-9-2006 by The time lord]



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Im sorry to say but i agree with the Pope, Islam is not a peaceful religeon. Its like the Old Testament in the Bible full of death and sabre rattling.

The frigtening thing is that i feel that Islam is at the point where Christianity was at the time of the Inquasition. Big difference is that we live in an age of nukes, ak47's and the internet.

Bush was being diplomatic, being a leader he has to. The Pope is right to speak openly, why should he. The muslims wont admit their religeon promotes terrible violence because the world will totally turn against them all, so they claim the opposite and hope people are ignorant enough not to notice. And in this politically correct age people are afraid to come out and express concern about Islam for fear of being branded a rasist. Yet most people are concerned NOT rasist. there is a difference.

Its all politics and rhetoric.

heres an excellent site for more information, WARNING: it is very graphic.

www.news.faithfreedom.org...

Its a site run by ex muslims who tell the truth about islam.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Doesn't the quote mean that the Byzantine Emperor couldn't see what Islam had added to monotheism? My understanding would be that monotheism started with Judaism - Abraham, Moses, etc. and then split decisively over whether or not Jesus was the promised Messiah. The ones that believed he was became Chistianity, the rest carried on in Judaism. For Christians it's all done and dusted, the Messiah has been and will come back at the end of the world. For Jews the Messiah hasn't been yet and they're still waiting (nearly 3,000 years after he was prophesised by Isaiah). Mohammed isn't the Messiah and didn't claim to be. He said he was the last prophet, but what message did he bring that was consistent with the history of monotheism which is Messianic in nature as far as I understand it?

[edit on 15-9-2006 by NettieMoore]



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   
I want irrefutable proof that a Christian Democracy is the only way for a successful future for mankind. I also want irrefutable proof that Islam is bad, and Christianity is good.

Good luck, because it ain't there.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   
We are living in a Christian democracy Germany is one nation thats is.
en.wikipedia.org...

The US is built on a Christian constituation but is democratic. Its can be both a party and a standard of which the modern west is built upon.

www.gospelweb.net...

for exmaple the link above not quite as good as one i have seen before but near to it.


[edit on 15-9-2006 by The time lord]



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   
I don't remember Christ being written into the constitution or declaration of independance. Maybe you have a copy that I don't.





new topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join