The Pope on Islam

[MikeK]

It seems that most rely on the messages in the quran that arent so nice.

There are 1.65 billion Muslims in the world, almost a quarter of the Earth's population.

I stand with our wise, Holy and honest Popes against bigotry and irrational fears and caricatures.

 

[AMDG]

Snipped to portion addressed longer post above.

So did the British and French. Since they are Christians, by your reasoning we have been at war with Christianity since our founding.

Why would you say that? Britain and France are countries. And they have not decided to wage war against us just for being Christian. I'm talking about the Barbary Pirates expecting us to pay them while they continued to attack us. Finally we asked "why?". And the answer--well that's what Muslims do--attack infidals.

And it seems that the answer was correct, because in 1997, the Muslims again declared war on us. Then in 2001 the terrorists (who just happened to be on Muslim Jihad against us) murdered 3000 innocent people in the World Trade Center and Pentagon Attack. And so the present war just seems to be a continuation from where the Barbary Pirates left off so many years ago.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Even the Popes fear the wrath of Muslims.
They participate with kindness in hopes they live out the Gospel as a witness - that doesnt change what Islam is.

 

[ebia]

There are 1.65 billion Muslims in the world, almost a quarter of the Earth's population. I stand with our wise, Holy and honest Popes against bigotry and irrational fears and caricatures.

The Church has also a high regard for the Muslims.... Over the centuries many quarrels and dissensions have arisen between Christians and Muslims. The sacred Council now pleads with all to forget the past, and urges that a sincere effort be made to achieve mutual understanding; for the benefit of all men, let them together preserve and promote peace, liberty, social justice and moral values.


Seems you're one of the few willing to be obedient to the last ecumenical council.

 

[WarriorAngel]

This is because... Christians will continue to be murdered if peace isnt made.
Doesnt change what Islam stands for.

 

[WarriorAngel]

This is because... Christians will continue to be murdered if peace isnt made.
Doesnt change what Islam stands for.

 

[ebia]

[QUOTE="WarriorAngel]Doesnt change what Islam stands for.[/QUOTE]
"The Church has high regard for..."

You can't write that off as appeasement without denying what the council said.

 

[MikeK]

Seems you're one of the few willing to be obedient to the last ecumenical council.

Thanks. I do my best to conform myself to the Church, it seems so many want by Church to conform to them I favor stronger gun control laws, the abolition of legal abortion, and end to the death penalty in modern society, a guaranteed living wage for all full time workers, nuclear disarmament, acces for all to healthcare, etc. The number of cafeteria Catholics around these parts is disheartening

 

[AMDG]

"The Church has high regard for..."

You can't write that off as appeasement without denying what the council said.

And you can't "write off history"--that of the Church, her history, ALL of the documents from ALL of the Ecumenical Councils--not just the one liked--and ALL of the other documents, and ALL of the Popes, from Peter thru Francis. And you can't "write off" the obvious history that all Europe was almost taken over by the Muslim hoards and only a miracle stopped it). And surely you can't ignore that the Muslims DID conquer much of our holy lands and made Byzantine churches into mosques. Nor can you ignore what Islam says about itself--that the Koran commands Muslims go on Jihad and to KILL infidals and those who refuse to convert. And surely you must know the FACT that Islam was founded in the 7th century as a heresy.


As to what the Church having "high regard" for the Muslims, you tell us what because the way I read AE it's that the Church has the high regard because they SAY that they worship the same God, yet that is questionable since they say that their God is insulted by being called a God of Love, as Christians do. (They say that their God is NOT of love.) So what would we hold in "high regard"? Is it because they deny that Jesus is God (thereby making Him out to be a liar since Jesus said that he was "I AM" which is admitting His divinity.) Is it that Muslims insist that infidals must be killed if they do not convert to Islam? Is it because our Christian brothers and sisters are being slaughtered and Christian churches as well as Jewish synagogues are being burned to the ground? Is it because terrorists that scream "Allah Ackbar" are Muslim? Is it the actual violence of the Muslims? Heck, there was a great uproar when Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI even quoted one of the previous Popes about what Muslims are really.

Our Popes are men of peace and WOULD want to be diplomatic in order to save some Christian lives. Surely you can't blame them for that.

 

[ebia]

And you can't "write off history"--that of the Church, her history, ALL of the documents from ALL of the Ecumenical Councils--not just the one liked--and ALL of the other documents, and ALL of the Popes, from Peter thru Francis. And you can't "write off" the obvious history that all Europe was almost taken over by the Muslim hoards and only a miracle stopped it). And surely you can't ignore that the Muslims DID conquer much of our holy lands and made Byzantine churches into mosques. Nor can you ignore what Islam says about itself--that the Koran commands Muslims go on Jihad and to KILL infidals and those who refuse to convert. And surely you must know the FACT that Islam was founded in the 7th century as a heresy. As to what the Church having "high regard" for the Muslims, you tell us what because the way I read AE it's that the Church has the high regard because they SAY that they worship the same God, yet that is questionable since they say that their God is insulted by being called a God of Love, as Christians do. (They say that their God is NOT of love.) So what would we hold in "high regard"? Is it because they deny that Jesus is God (thereby making Him out to be a liar since Jesus said that he was "I AM" which is admitting His divinity.) Is it that Muslims insist that infidals must be killed if they do not convert to Islam? Is it because our Christian brothers and sisters are being slaughtered and Christian churches as well as Jewish synagogues are being burned to the ground? Is it because terrorists that scream "Allah Ackbar" are Muslim? Is it the actual violence of the Muslims? Heck, there was a great uproar when Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI even quoted one of the previous Popes about what Muslims are really. Our Popes are men of peace and WOULD want to be diplomatic in order to save some Christian lives. Surely you can't blame them for that.

So you insist that the last three Popes, the last Ecumenical Council, the Catechism, Cardinal Arinze, ... all lie?

And that you therefore shouldn't be obedient to that last Council?

 

[ebia]

As to what the Church having "high regard" for the Muslims, you tell us what because the way I read AE it's that the Church has the high regard because they SAY that they worship the same God, yet that is questionable ...

So you are saying the church has a high regard for Muslims because they lie?

Or are you saying that an ecumenical council was wrong?

 

[AMDG]

So you insist that the last three Popes, the last Ecumenical Council, the Catechism, Cardinal Arinze, ... all lie?

Nope. That is what YOU claim that I say. Have noted that AE only seems to agree with what the Muslims CLAIM they believe and it says NOTHING about the actual ACTIONS of the Muslims. (Surely you aren't claiming that the Church thinks those ACTIONS--I've listed them several times from the beginning heresy, to insisting that their God is NOT loving, to the calling Our Lord a liar, to insisting on violence and bloodshed and conquering, to slaughtering Christians and Jews, to burning churches and synagogues--are perfectly okay.) And I have repeatedly said that our Popes (and that goes for Cardinal Arinze) are men of peace and diplomats.

And that you therefore shouldn't be obedient to that last Council?

There are 21 Ecumenical Councils, and I don't know how many documents--bulls, encyclicals, etc. I have repeatedly said that ALL should be obeyed--not just a cherry-picked one--ALL in history.

 

[ebia]

Nope. That is what YOU claim that I say. Have noted that AE only seems to agree with what the Muslims CLAIM they believe and it says NOTHING about the actual ACTIONS of the Muslims.

It says they are esteemed. Not that "they would be esteemed if... but they don't so they aren't esteemed".

And I have repeatedly said that our Popes (and that goes for Cardinal Arinze) are men of peace and diplomats.

Their statements on Islam go beyond being polite - statements like "Islam is a religion of peace", and symbolic actions like kissing the Quran. Those are statements that are either true or lies.

There are 21 Ecumenical Councils, and I don't know how many documents--bulls, encyclicals, etc. I have repeatedly said that ALL should be obeyed--not just a cherry-picked one--ALL in history.

All. Yet you disregard the most recent. The one that is speaking most directly to your context on the question at hand.
One that says Muslims are highly esteemed by the church and gives explicit instructions.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Surely you're not implying the EXTREMELY liberal American media is trying to promote an anti-Islamic agenda, right? Because that would be a nutty position to be sure! I've seen the violence of those two Asian countries you reference on the news. But surely, being a somewhat reasonable man, do you really equate the violence going on in those small Asian countries to be ANYWHERE NEAR the carnage and raw violence that has occurred in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, etc.? That would be a really unreasonable stance to take.

When was the last time popular western television bothered with the Buddhist perpetrated attrocities in Sri Lanka and Myanmar, for instance.



There are plenty - they just aren't the ones with the power.
And where did I say the word, "Arabs," ebia? I don't recall using that word. Anyone who has the basics of geography knows that people who live outside of Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, etc. are NOT Arabs. Surely you're not trying to tell me that Pakistanis, Afghanis, Iraqis, Iranians, Egyptians, Palestinians, Syrians, and other Middle Easterners are "Arabs," right? You are aware that Egyptians are Africans, Iranians are Persians, and Pakistanis and Afghanis are also completely different cultures. You don't think "Middle East" means "Arab," do you, ebs? And just as an aside, you are aware of the fact that Muslims are not just violent in the Middle East? They're violent in Africa constantly. They are exceptionally violent in the Southern Philippines. My wife is Filipino and Muslims in that country are not exactly holding hands with Christians around the camp fire. Beheadings and murders and guerrilla warfare take place with Abu Sayaff and other Muslim terror groups in that country all the time!

Arabs make up what, 20%, of Muslims?
And your posts are reliably liberal and take the position of the minority every time, Ebia. So what's your point? I never claimed to be running against anything, Ebia. And I think your arguing for the sake of arguing rather than listening is what is causing the problem here. Between your geographically inadequate statements and your refusal to rebut what I said on the post with the video impeded that PROVES the media in many if not most of those countries is extremist and anti-American, you have zero credibility in your argument. I made a statement about Tehran and the extremism there and yet you somehow have divined that most of the non-powerful folks in Iran like Christians. I wish I had your powers to be able to make such confident assertions. All I know is that the television is hateful, the kids recite "Marg Bark Amrika (Death to America!) at school assemblies on a daily basis, there are awesome, huge paintings of Uncle Sam and Americans and our flag being stabbed, desecrated with knives and blood on the walls, the country itself is loaded with terrorism, and you can't have a 1979 revolution without getting the people behind you. If you read the barrage of anti-Christian cartoons in Iranian newspapers and magazines, well, consider something....magazines publish items that will respond well with their reader base. If the vast majority of peace-loving, sweet, rosy Muslim Iranians just adored Christians as you claim they do, one wouldn't expect to see all the publications in Iran rife with disgusting images of Christ mutilated and depicted as a pathetic idiot, would one? And let me ask you this, Ebia, if indeed Muslims are so peaceful, loving, and pro-Christian, well, check into the statistics and tell me if Christianity is GROWING and FLOURISHING in the Middle East and heavily-Islamic Asian places like Indonesia and Malaysia, or is it dying on the vine? Show me some stats that demonstrate the cozy warmth you seem to perceive? Why are Christians dwindling all over the M.E.? Because surely if Christians were viewed as you perceive, then there would be more evangelism, growth of the Christian religion, more church-building, and there would be peace, right? We've seen people put to death or come darn close to execution in Afghanistan for wanting or trying to convert to Christianity. In Saudi Arabia, it is forbidden, period, and non-Muslims can't even enter the city of Mecca! Is that the inclusive warmth of those ecumenically-minded Muslims you speak of? Finally, would you, Ebia, be comfortable leaving Australia and moving your wife and kids to Iraq, Syria, or Egypt right now? Just tell everyone in the neighborhood you're Christian and see how that works for ya....For all the false perceptions you create about Muslims in the M.E. and elsewhere, ask those women who are Coptic Christians in Egypt who have been nabbed from walking down the street or back alleys, raped, and beaten or even killed, ask them or their families how it is to be a Christian in those places
You claim that you aren't just running with popular perceptions, yet your posts are full of exactly that.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

AMDG, there's nothing like an Anglican poster coming into your forum and telling you what Catholicism teaches and trying to correct your "false" notions of the catechism, eh? Someone thinks you need to be schooled!

Nope. That is what YOU claim that I say. Have noted that AE only seems to agree with what the Muslims CLAIM they believe and it says NOTHING about the actual ACTIONS of the Muslims. (Surely you aren't claiming that the Church thinks those ACTIONS--I've listed them several times from the beginning heresy, to insisting that their God is NOT loving, to the calling Our Lord a liar, to insisting on violence and bloodshed and conquering, to slaughtering Christians and Jews, to burning churches and synagogues--are perfectly okay.) And I have repeatedly said that our Popes (and that goes for Cardinal Arinze) are men of peace and diplomats.



There are 21 Ecumenical Councils, and I don't know how many documents--bulls, encyclicals, etc. I have repeatedly said that ALL should be obeyed--not just a cherry-picked one--ALL in history.

 

[snowfam]

Reaaaaly! Will pray for you.

I'll return the favor, but I'll pray to God.

 

[Tigg]

I'll return the favor, but I'll pray to God.

BWHahaha!

 

[snowfam]

You seem a little lost there, pilgrim. Do you realize where you're posting?

I do.

 

[ebia]

Surely you're not implying the EXTREMELY liberal American media is trying to promote an anti-Islamic agenda, right? Because that would be a nutty position to be sure! I've seen the violence of those two Asian countries you reference on the news. But surely, being a somewhat reasonable man, do you really equate the violence going on in those small Asian countries to be ANYWHERE NEAR the carnage and raw violence that has occurred in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, etc.? That would be a really unreasonable stance to take.

Population Sri Lanka about the same as Syria
Population Myanmar about the same as Egypt.
Estimated deaths in the last four months of the war in Sri Lanka, approximately 40,000.

Iraq is somewhat of a different case, given that destablisation came directly out of western involvement).

Just two countries off the top of my head.

(If you want response to the rest of your post you'll need to fix the quoting.

 

[Gnarwhal]

I do.

Then perhaps you should read up on the forum rules, because by saying what you said earlier in this area of the forum - you are in complete violation of them.