Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » No offense, Catholic people, but your Pope is a moron (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: No offense, Catholic people, but your Pope is a moron
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, I take that back. The guy's a focking moron.

Let's see if anyone can immediately see why this would be offensive to many:

"Anything new Jesus introduced was evil".

Hmmmmm?

Now, obviously I deplore and have nothing but contempt for any threat of violence in response to such words, but can anyone honestly say they could possibly miss the insult potential of such a remark?

Way to go, moron - you've just proved to Muslims that it (your side's problem with them) is not just about the extreme behavior of some (even many) of their brethren - it's about the core of their religion. You've basically told them that to believe in their religion was to believe in evil.

Then again, we do need a reminder every now and then of how bad religion can be for the general welfare, so, um... Way to go, Joey baby!

Hey, everybody, a big hand for my paisan Joey Ratz. He and I go way back, to the waste management union days...

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Lassek
Member
Member # 1514

 - posted      Profile for Adam Lassek   Email Adam Lassek   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Can you post a link to where that quote comes from? I'd like to see the context.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mariner
Member
Member # 1618

 - posted      Profile for Mariner   Email Mariner       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Adam, the context is that the Pope was giving an introduction to a speech that has nothing to do with Islam. In said introduction, he quoted a Byzantine emperor during the siege of Constantinople who was having a debate with a Persian. He then continued on with that discussion, the main point the Pope was getting at was that the two (the Christian Byzantine and the Muslim Persian) were talking past each other due to their different conceptions of how God would act. Here's the intro of his speech in its entirety:

quote:
I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) 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.

It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - 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 edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this 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 Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "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, after having expressed himself so forcefully, 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", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably 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..."

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.

At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, the first verse of the whole Bible, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: "In the beginning was the logos". This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts, with logos. Logos means both reason and word - a reason which is creative and capable of selfcommunication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist. The encounter between the Biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance. The vision of Saint Paul, who saw the roads to Asia barred and in a dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him: "Come over to Macedonia and help us!" (cf. Acts 16:6-10) - this vision can be interpreted as a "distillation" of the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek inquiry.

Unlike what the media would like you to believe, the rest of the speech (which went on for quite a while) never even mentioned Islam.

By Ricky's example, his post above should be deeply offensive to me. After all, he put the words "Anything new Jesus introduced was evil" together. Not meaning it, but merely using it as an example is offensive enough. Heck, my post is now deeply offensive to me because I quoted him. Aahh!

Ricky, where did you get your news on this? Did you read the entire intro, or just the Reader's Digest version the media put out in an attempt to inflame controversy?

[ September 16, 2006, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: Mariner ]

Posts: 538 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
msquared
Member
Member # 113

 - posted      Profile for msquared   Email msquared   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow I can see how that would upset someone. [Roll Eyes]

How do we get this guys election repealed? Or maybe we can impeach him. [Roll Eyes]

It's not like some of the followers of Islam have a hard time finding things to get upset about.

msquared

[ September 16, 2006, 10:20 PM: Message edited by: msquared ]

Posts: 4002 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Naldiin
Member
Member # 1840

 - posted      Profile for Naldiin     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Isn't it the Pope's job to beleive that his religion is right and all others are false? Isn't that more or less what he does for a living?

From that standpoint, of course everything Muhammed changed in the leap from previous Abrahammic religions is going to be evil (according to the Pope). Muhammed, from the Pope's only logical point of view, is leading the faithful away from Jesus.

Why would anyone expect him to think differently? If he thought differently, he wouldn't be fulfilling the roal of the Pope.

Posts: 239 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It's not like some of the followers of Islam have a hard time finding things to get upset about.
One of the most disturbing things I've observed about the "followers of Islam" is their propensity to become hysterical and even violent every time someone makes some perceived insult to their religion. It's frightening, because this reaction, unlike, say, terrorism, isn't confined to a few extremists, but seems to be endemic to Muslims everywhere. The reaction to the Danish cartoons seemed to either entail some desire to "ban" the blasphemy, or amount to outright violence. These people just can't tolerate even the idea of someone somewhere insulting their religion. Freedom of speech is clearly something anathema to the nature of Islam.

The irony is, after reading that quote in its proper context, it's clear to me that it isn't even about Islam at all. It merely cites a 14th century Byzantine emperor making a comment about Islam for the purposes of raising a totally unrelated argument concerning the nature of reason and faith. The second-hand reference to Islam is actually incidental to the point.

It's rather like me quoting an anti-semitic speech made by Adolf Hitler for the purpose of discussing some unrelated issue, like public speaking, and then everyone cherry picking that Hitler quote and attributing it to me, like I was approving of its content, even though I was merely citing it as an example.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Ricky said:
Let's see if anyone can immediately see why this would be offensive to many:

"Anything new Jesus introduced was evil".

I've had lots of conversations with Jewish people who have said exactly that. That everything good that Jesus said he got from the Pharisees like Gamliel, and that everything he didn't get from them was evil.

I don't call them focking morons. I call them committed to their own beliefs, and closed-minded.

I consider what you said about the Pope far more offensive, since it's not part of your religious belief. And I'm not even Catholic.

Some of the hadiths that have been attributed to Mohammed are plainly evil. They say his dying breath was to say "Get rid of all the Jews and Christians in Arabia." Now that's hearsay, and my guess is that he never said it, but that's attributed to Mohammed.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And Ricky, that's almost as bad of a cheap bait and switch as everard's "Bush defends torture" glurp.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I like the sound of 'focking moron'. It has more pizazz than 'closeminded and commited to their beliefs'. Especially the way Ricky B uses it.

Disclaimer: no opinion on the Pope's comments. The saddest commentary on upset Muslims is, in my opnion, that they give a rat's ass what the Pope says.

Lord knows I don't, any more than I care what the reigning big daddy imams say.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, of course there are Jews who believe that. the point is that it's stupid for a world religious leader to say it.

Mariner - it was stupid of Joey to bring up that quote without making it abso-focking-lutely clear that he didn't agree with it. If not, he should have simply not mentioned it.

By bringing it up, not refuting it and agreeing with the general point of the quote (that forced conversion [as, for example, practiced by Muslims, because of course good Christians never did that kind of thing] is bad) - he totally made it sound as though he was agreeing with the quote, and that's just stupid.

Naiidin - Yes, it's his job to think his faith is superior. It's not his job to go out of his way to make it sound like he's a agreeing with a hateful medieval quote. See the difference?

Jason - you're absolutely right. Muslims tend tp have this annoying habit of throwing tantrums and of hugely over-reacting to "insults" (like with the Muhammad cartoons). It's a defect in their culture that they need to get over, just like western culture has largely gotten over many of the defects of Christianity.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mariner
Member
Member # 1618

 - posted      Profile for Mariner   Email Mariner       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gee Ricky, I notice you didn't make it "abso-focking-lutely clear" that you didn't agree with the hypothetical quote in your first post Does that make you a "focking moron." Not to mention calling a culture defective. How can you be so insensitive?

Yeah, I kid about that stuff, but for someone who appears to be a straight talker without the need for mincong words (calling people focking morons and all that), you sure seem to demand other people watch what they say.

Do we have to be so hypersensitive that we must spend 5 minutes apologizing and explaining that we didn't mean anything bad every time we quote a moldy Byzantine emperor for unrelated reasons? Jason's example is perfect here. Should a professor, trying to make a point on oration or something, go out of his way to explain that he's not an anti-Semite before using a quote from Hitler as an example? Do history teachers need to stress that they don't condone slavery when presenting the South's rationale for the Civil War? Because that's exactly what's happening here.

If he gave his speech in Mecca, then certainly more tact would be nice. If his speech was specifically about Islam, it would have made sense to be more clear. But it wasn't. It had nothing to do with any of this mess. It was simply a lecture on Christianity and reason. Why should he spend forever focusing on a sidebar during the introduction rather than actually giving his speech?

This is such a non event. Pope Benedict was giving a speech on Christianity and reason at an academic institution. If it deserved to be in the news at all, the actual subject of the speech should have been the headline. Not grabbing one quote out of context and manufacturing a controversy out of it. Not running headlines like "Pope Enjoys Private Time after Slamming Islam." What a "focking" joke.

Whatever. I gave the transcript above, people can decide for themselves. If people want to call him a "focking moron" for something as trivial and banal as this, so be it. Go ahead and be hypersensitive.

But does this mean I'm allowed to call all the atheists who claim religion is terrible for society or that you have to be delusional to be a Christian "focking morons"? Or do we only get to call them that if they're wearing pointy hats at the time?

Posts: 538 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
No, I take that back. The guy's a focking moron.

Let's see if anyone can immediately see why this would be offensive to many:

"Anything new Jesus introduced was evil".

Hmmmmm?

I think it's important to analyze the results of the remark. What would Christians do if Islamic leaders made such comments? Take a guess, what would the Pope do? Your local minister? How about the guy next door who goes to church everyday, what would his response be?

Now, let's review the muslim response:Pope's remarks may lead to war. Looks like it already started; Italian Nun Shot Dead
quote:
The nun, who was not immediately identified, was shot in the back at S.O.S. Hospital in northern Mogadishu by two gunmen ...
You seem comfortable calling the Pope "a focking moron" here is a predominantly Christian country. Try calling Mohammed "a focking moron" in an Islamic country. What do you think will happen? Go ahead, venture a guess.
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
Way to go, moron - you've just proved to Muslims that it (your side's problem with them) is not just about the extreme behavior of some (even many) of their brethren - it's about the core of their religion. You've basically told them that to believe in their religion was to believe in evil.

Now that you've made your guess, what do you think about the so called religion of peace? Do you still want to defend them over the Pope's comments? Perhaps the Pope is on to something here after all ...
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dude, ricky, what's up? You seem super pissed lately.
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well there's the pot calling the kettle black, G2!

Considering his 15th-century reign, I really don't think that Manuel II Paleologus had a penis to stand on -- or what were the crusades, ending in 1291 and not much more than a century before his decadent reign, all about but violence? If Benedict XVI is attempting to close ranks with Orthodoxy by agreeing with Manuel II, ecumenicism has a long way to go.

As far as criticizing Islam, I think the West should ignore the fact that almost anything offends fundamentalists -- and let's offend them thoroughly before they get the bomb. At some point, the world has to comprehend that Jesus wasn't perfect and Mohammed wasn't perfect and Mao wasn't perfect -- not even perfectly stupid.

Benedict XVI's error is only in suggesting that Christian 'soldiers' are somehow less militant than jihadists. Just meddling, like missionaries, is another reason relligion is dangerous.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2 - undoubtedly, the Christians get the edge there. The Christians of the world, on whole, are far more developed than their Muslim counterparts in terms of being able to not care if someone else badmouths their beliefs.

However, that doesn't change the fact that it was incredibly poor judgement (aka stupidity) for the Pope to say what he did if he didn't mean to insult the Muslims.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Pope does say that Manuel II Paleologus "addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness" in saying "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman..." That suggests he disagrees, although he does not plainly say so, probably because he did not expect an Orthodox Christian emperor fighting Muslims about 1400 to be entirely fair to Muslim points of view.

Pete at Home provides the Jewish parallel,
quote:
I've had lots of conversations with Jewish people who have said exactly that. That everything good that Jesus said he got from the Pharisees like Gamaliel, and that everything he didn't get from them was evil.
Both criticisms are unreasonable because neither man is celebrated for being original. Mohammed converted Mecca and surrounding areas from paganism to Islam, which the Pope and other Christians probably regard as an improvement. Jesus preached to Jewish reprobates most of whom had never heard the teachings of Gamaliel, so they did not care whether the remarks had been made before.

Obviously people can argue over whether Mohammed should have permitted forcible conversions, just as people can argue over whether Jesus should have demanded stricter adherence to Jewish law. But Christians of the time of Mohammed also converted pagans by force, and Jews from Galilee seem to have typically regarded Pharisees from Jerusualem as overly strict. The recorded teachings of Jesus resemble Salvation Army sermons today, which do not aim at great subtlety in addressing their intended audience, even if the preachers know better themselves. Gamaliel by comparison spoke to future teachers, who needed a different approach. Ignoring this context can lead to misinterpreting the remarks themselves, as Jesus sometimes condemned his critics more for being inappropriate than wrong. In speaking to a thief, it made more sense to concentrate on that than to inquire how he followed the dietary laws; and Jesus would have been foolish to expect either his disciples or his listeners to be anything approaching models of piety.

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Pope could have said:

quote:
Without descending to details, 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", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably 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..."
It would have made his point without an offensive swipe at Islam, so I have to agree with Ricky, it was stupid of him to include the quote. (It was also hypocritical in view of the absence of Arians in the Byzantine Empire at the time. (I wonder, were they all persuaded by sweet reason?)
Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LOL, Tom. Not to mention the iconists (or iconoclasts, depending on which murderous nut held the throne at the time...)

hobsen - startling brusqueness only means impolite, not wrong, so I fail to see the inference of disagreement. Makes him more stupid, actually, since he repeats the mistake he's supposedly acknowledging.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That is a good point, RickyB. But the Pope actually described the Manuel II Paleologus quote as "astoundingly" and "surprisingly harsh" (translation from the German in erstaunlich schroffer, uns überraschend schroffer Form). So "startling brusqueness" is only a translator's version of what the Pope said, and my German is far too poor to tell whether what he said means more than impolite. Maybe someone who knows German better can enlighten us.
Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Irony, thy name is Islam.


(with apologies to DonaldD, and...to a lesser extent...Steve Irwin)

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
THankfully, al-qaida is bent on becoming its own worst PR enemy via such ludicrous pronouncements as this:

al-qaeda vows war because of pope's comments

In the war of stupodities waged between the Bush administration and al-qaeda, even Bush can't compete with the Sons of Osama for sheer brass-lobed idiocy.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What is stupid, is that in an educational academic fourm where complex ideas were intended to be discussed, the nature of the comments has been entirely misrepresented, and it seems that more than a few people, including members here, are essentialy calling for a PC version of intellectual discussion which seeks to silence the history which is offensive to Islam. In their calls for repudiation and apology, it seems most have neither read the Pope's text, nor have even a fraction of the intellect needed to comprehend what he said and what his argument truly is.

Then again it seems intellectual discourse has come under fire of late, even on Ornery.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 1070

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

...nor have even a fraction of the intellect needed to comprehend what he said and what his argument truly is.

You say this about once a week on this forum about people who disagree with something you think is true.
Posts: 2936 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
SS

His argument was tangent to the quote, but the quote was needed to express the basis of the idea he was representing to his audience for discussion. His idea was not that all Islam has brought is death and sword play. But as a basis of European thought on the matter he referenced a European who was experiencing such acts by Islam.

If you cannot grasp that fact, you will likely be among those who are rioting in the Islamic world, or someone who is so prejudicial against any act the Pope makes, that you ignore what he said and substitute what you expected him to say.

Like the current threads on misrepresenting another person's argument, what we have here is a case where what is said has been neither heard nor understood.

So the comment that those calling for apology based upon the supposition that the Pope holds the same viewpoint as his Byzantine predecessor, indicates that they are intellectually unable to comprehend even a simple argument presented to them.

He fault lies in this case with the perceptions of those who neither read nor understood the Pope. In terms of advancing Catholic accommodations of all religions, even in the European Christian heartland, it would seem the Pope by his argument was calling for more accommodation, not less.

To construe it otherwise, simply reveals the limitations of those who did not understand his speech.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
msquared
Member
Member # 113

 - posted      Profile for msquared   Email msquared   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What is even worse is that the actions of some Muslims seems to support this false viewpoint. Rioting and killing and firebombing over something as minor as this leads others to wonder if the Byzantine guy was right?

Do we have to accept a religion that is so touchy that no negative comment can be allowed out of fear of how followers will respond? How do Catholics respond when Muslims call them names?

msquared

Posts: 4002 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
SS

as to your comment that I paint all who disagree with me as lacking intellect and comprehension weekly on this forum, not only is that not true, but is also a gross misrepresentation of my willingness to accommodate disagreement over ideas and issues with other members as well as my willingness to accept people's abilities to reach differing conclusions.

I would appreciate a retraction by you.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 1070

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tell you what, rather than me searching through this forum for every time you've said something to that effect, we'll just say that, looking to the future, we'll see if I'm wrong.

As to a retraction, sorry. We'll let the future be the judge.

Posts: 2936 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The paradoxical intricacies of physics: a retracting future.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think they should have bi-annual cage matches between the Pope and the Ayatollah.

In the Mormon Tabernacle, with tickets sold by the Bnai Brith and a light show put on by the Bahai.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OrneryMod
Administrator
Member # 977

 - posted      Profile for OrneryMod   Email OrneryMod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am sure that everyone who participates in this forum can find ways of expressing their arguments that neither cast aspersions on individuals with differing points of view nor make unsubstantiated claims about other posters.

Please stick to the actual topic under discussion.

Posts: 1260 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Omega M.
Member
Member # 1392

 - posted      Profile for Omega M.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, it doesn't help your side if you say, "We are not an evil religion! We will bomb the Vatican to punish you for saying so!"

But the reactions of the Arab leaders seem to be fair; Turkey simply pulled its ambassador from the Vatican, I believe. I can understand how even bringing up what the Pope brought up could be seen as insinuating something.

Posts: 1966 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
msquared
Member
Member # 113

 - posted      Profile for msquared   Email msquared   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To me that is part of the problem. When the Pope speaks, everone assumes that he is speaking for all Catholics. This would be a mainly correct assumption. What I mean by this, [Smile] , is that he speaks for the Catholic Church as a whole.

When some Ayatollah speaks, do people assume that he speaks for the whole of Islam? No. So any statement by some one in Islam can be pushed to the side since they are not speaking for the whole religion.

What, or better yet who, would it take to make a pronouncement that would change the heart of Islam? Is there a person or a position that would be respected enough with in Islam that their preachings would change how the followers acted?

msquared

Posts: 4002 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
SS

Well history as a judge is so far indicating your viewpoint about me is wrong. Of course I have only been searching for some 20 odd minutes.

I have found lots of people calling me stupid, but as of yet I haven't found a thread where I am calling a person who disagrees with me stupid.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For me, the golden years of Ornery (if there ever were any) were times when Red has posted more often, gotten into deep arguments with others, and the others gave deep arguments back. Guess what? Those very people have been defended by Red in later years.

Red is prone to making strong sweeping statements but he is also well known for backing them up as best he can. Sometimes he's even shifted his position (the thread about whether the twin towers should be rebuilt comes to mind). I tend to make more tentative claims than he does and sometimes I feel he overstates his case but he definitely recognizes that intellectual heavyweights can and do sometimes disagree with him and he's actually been won over by their arguments at least once that I remember (and quite a few other times he's altered his stance to a more middle ground).

Has he ever essentially called those who have a certain stance idiots? Sure, but then he usually explains why he thinks taking a particular stance is idiotic. Does that mean he isn't open to someone giving an alternate reason to believe in that stance that isn't idiotic? No. It make take some convincing but those who are persistent, honest, and smart can turn him around (if there is, indeeed, a nonidiotic reason to believe something [Big Grin] ).

edited to add: When I say he's essentially called those who have a certain stance idiots I don't mean forum posters. I don't remember him ever directly making such a statement. He has just described how it's idiotic for people to do or believe x much the same way I'd say it's idiotic for someone to drive 105 through a school zone.

[ September 18, 2006, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: LoverOfJoy ]

Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I enjoy Red's contributions, even though I've been one of his more vociferous opponents. (Don't you just love those 4-5 syllable words that start with 'v'?)

"To me that is part of the problem. When the Pope speaks, everone assumes that he is speaking for all Catholics. This would be a mainly correct assumption. What I mean by this, [Smile] , is that he speaks for the Catholic Church as a whole.

When some Ayatollah speaks, do people assume that he speaks for the whole of Islam? No. So any statement by some one in Islam can be pushed to the side since they are not speaking for the whole religion."

This probably has a little something to do with the definition of the word 'catholic'?

cath·o·lic (kăth'ə-lĭk, kăth'lĭk) pronunciation
adj.

1. Of broad or liberal scope; comprehensive: “The 100-odd pages of formulas and constants are surely the most catholic to be found” (Scientific American).
2. Including or concerning all humankind; universal: “what was of catholic rather than national interest” (J.A. Froude).
3. Catholic
1. Of or involving the Roman Catholic Church.
2. Of or relating to the universal Christian church.
3. Of or relating to the ancient undivided Christian church.
4. Of or relating to those churches that have claimed to be representatives of the ancient undivided church.

n. Catholic

A member of a Catholic church, especially a Roman Catholic.

[Middle English catholik, universally accepted, from Old French catholique, from Latin catholicus, universal, from Greek katholikos, from katholou, in general : kat-, kata-, down, along, according to; see cata– + holou (from neuter genitive of holos, whole).]

[ September 18, 2006, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
msquared
Member
Member # 113

 - posted      Profile for msquared   Email msquared   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well KL

Since I capitolized the C in Catholic, I must be using the only definition you gave that followed.

Is there an islam versus Islam?

Besides being distracting from my point, what was your point? That by definition the head of the Catholic church speaks for the Catholics? I said that in my first sentence.

msquared

Posts: 4002 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 1070

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

I have found lots of people calling me stupid, but as of yet I haven't found a thread where I am calling a person who disagrees with me stupid.

It's not that you necessarily call a person stupid, it's that you'll say something like 'people who have such -and-such an opinion don't know anything about history, or have the skills, whatever, to appreciate the real situation'. Basically, where you potray people who don't believe as you do uninformed and ignorant.

Was I perhaps overstating things just a tad when I said once a week? Perhaps. However, as this thread demonstrates, you *do* say it.

I write this post because you seem to want to discuss it despite what the Mod wrote and my more than reasonable reply to you--if I'm wrong, then let the future be the judge.

I'm at work and can't do a search to prove you wrong, and we can't take this to email for various reasons that I don't want to go into.

The bottom line is that I can't retract what seems pretty clear to me in my memory, I can only say,maybe I'm wrong, let's see. (God knows it wouldn't be the first time.) If this is not good enough, then I'm sorry.

Posts: 2936 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What I meant to convey is that the Caholic church is deemed catholic. It's an eponomy, not a distraction from your point.

Islam has been fractious since its early centuries. It went from unity to factional division, whereas early Xtianity went from fractionalism to catholic unity that lasted, more or less, until Luther.

'twould seem that a union of differences is more suitable to freedom than differences of unity?

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Omega M.
Member
Member # 1392

 - posted      Profile for Omega M.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here is a translation of the full speech, if you're interested.

The emperor's comment about everything Mohammed added to Christianity being "evil and inhuman" seems unnecessary, as the main point of the example is how the emperor showed that "spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable." Whatever else Mohammed did is beside the point.

Posts: 1966 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
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...."

I'm wondering if people on this thread feel that the Pope should have edited the quote, so that it said something like:

quote:
[Mohammed's] command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.
I mean, I understand the anger of the Muslim's at someone saying that "everything new in the Muslim religion is evil and inhuman", but directing the anger at the person quoting? Maybe he shouldn't have used a quote at all? Just said that the emperor said that "spreading the faith by the sword is evil and inhumane"?

I don't know. I think, if I were the Pope, I would have assumed that people would actually read the quote in context, and try to understand it - as opposed to painting the picture as if I was somehow agreeing with the quote, in general. If that makes me an idiot in your eyes, so be it - but we'll have to agree to disagree - expecting the best from people might be optimistic, but I don't consider it idiotic.

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1