Thread: Models of religious tolerance

Originally Posted by Milkman

To me, he doesn't represent anyone. He only represents himself and his cronies at the vatican.

i agree wholeheartedly...but i think 'ol benny would disagree. he will tell you he is god's representative on earth...and therefore i think he should be held (and more importantly, hold himself) to a higher standard.

^ It's a matter of perception about his comments.

Mohamed was not a nice little happy guy.

Muslims should realize that he wasn't a great man.

Here is an excerpt of the speech given by the Pope. The link below contains the entire speech:

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 of the three Laws: the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Qur'an. 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 edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that surah 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 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 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 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 practice idolatry.

Link: Catholic World News (CWN)

Originally Posted by Milkman

Originally Posted by raycarey

the pope should apologize.

simple as that.

I don't think he should.

I've read his statements.

No need to apologize for anything.

I agree, and indeed I don't think he is going to. All he is saying now is that he sorry the fools in the islamic community are upset by what he said.
He has nothing to apologize for, except of course for being catholic!

Originally Posted by raycarey

very typical (and tedious) response earl.

The only thing tedious is perhaps is our waiting for you to make a cogent comment.
Personally I'm not holding my breath.
You agenda is plain, and that could possibly be seen a tedious.

duplicated post

Originally Posted by raycarey

very typical (and tedious) response earl.

the pope represents approx. 1 billion catholics and he claims to be 'god's' representative on earth, right?

don't you think 'jesus' would recommend that he apologize and not simply say he regrets that people were offended?

If everything attributed to Jesus was in fact his teaching, and assuming of course he was who others not even born in his time claimed him to be, then he was one of the earliest apologists for all and everything and everyone, no less than many of today's lib/left/looneys. I say that with respect to and not a slur on Christianity.

Papa should apologise only for chewing on the truth in public, not for repeating what somebody else said.

As to his representation of God, I wouldn't for a moment suggest that Islam has its self-proclaimed equivalents, note the plural.

Btw, why is it, ray, that Islam is the only major religion with sensitivities on permanent simmer, or would you suggest that the non-Islamic world has made Islam the butt of everything, which is why it's followers need to kil the infidel and quite often each other?

I often wonder if certain Islamic elements were prominent in the minds of the American shrinks that discovered or invented IED (Intermittent Explosive Disorder).

Originally Posted by raycarey

Originally Posted by Milkman

I've read his statements. No need to apologize for anything.

we're not talking about posts on an anonymous internet message board, he's the fucking pope and he was speaking in an official capacity----representing 1 billion catholics. shouldn't he be held to a higher standard?

And what about the fecking imams and other shites demanding the end of civilisation, oh yes, also in an official capacity, and yes too to representing a billion plus Muslims...should they apologise?

Long time indeed...they don't actually say that so it was an hyperbole on my part, it's the infidel they want converted or slain, not civilisation...only, without the infidel, I think it's fairly safe to say there would be no civilisation.

Wouldn't you say?

Originally Posted by keda

they don't actually say that so it was an hyperbole on my part

careful you don't trip while you're backtracking.

Mug! But I grant you, a dangerous one.

Originally Posted by keda

Papa should apologise only for....

papa?

and that's not religious intolerance, it's intolerance of prattish nicknames.

Originally Posted by raycarey

Originally Posted by keda

Papa should apologise only for....

papa?

and that's not religious intolerance, it's intolerance of prattish nicknames.

Still waiting for the cogent comment!
Looks like it'll be a long wait!

tell me earl, what does this emoticon mean to you......

?

do you honestly believe that your previous post was some sort of 'knock out' blow? do you think your post was particularly witty, clever, insightful or was in anyway related to the thread?

please clarify.

Originally Posted by raycarey

tell me earl, what does this emoticon mean to you......

?

do you honestly believe that your previous post was some sort of 'knock out' blow? do you think your post was particularly witty, clever, insightful or was in anyway related to the thread?

please clarify.

It means that viewing your post was intellectually painful. As I assume you are suffering deep intellectual pain!

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

It means that viewing your post was intellectually painful.

ummmm......so that's you getting smashed in the face then?



you're too much.

New Magazine

^ Sorry, got to spread it around some more...

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

He has nothing to apologize for, except of course for being catholic!

Spot on ... as usual.

"My friend Lorenzo Vidino, counterterrorism expert and author of al Qaeda in Europe, sent the above photo and this note:

Attached is a picture of the Pope that is circulating in Qaeda-friendly chat rooms and websites. Lovely (and predictable) that they call for his beheading.

The script in red calls for the Pope's beheading. The rest of the translation:

"Swine and servant of the cross, worships a monkey on a cross, hateful evil man, stoned Satan, may Allah curse him, blood-sucking vampire."

Will the dhimmis at the New York Times have anything to say about it?"
Of course not.

Michelle Malkin

Nobody is reporting it ... nobody is complaining about it ... but the Muslim freak show world is already out busy killing Cathlolics over this.

** This is the body of Sister Leonella Sgorbati, the elderly Catholic nun shot in the back after Somalia jihadist Sheik Abubukar Hassan Malin stoked Pope Rage by declaring ...

** New item via AINA: "According to the website Islam Memo, one Christian was killed in Baghdad after the Pope's speech two days ago. The speech created a wave of anger throughout the Islamic world, including Iraq. A poster has been placed in many Baghdad mosques for the previously unknown group, "Kataab Ashbal Al Islam Al Salafi," (Islamic Salafist Boy Scout Battalions). This group threatens to kill all Christians in Iraq if the Pope does not apologize in three days in front of the whole world to Mohammed."