Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Now you must give any speech to Everyone? (the pope)

Religion Catholicism Pope Benedict 2006 Speech

  • Please log in to reply
99 replies to this topic

#41 Hibblette

Hibblette
  • Islander
  • 4,228 posts

Posted 17 September 2006 - 08:27 AM

View PostScottEVill, on Sep 17 2006, 12:23 AM, said:

View PostLORD of the SWORD, on Sep 17 2006, 12:39 AM, said:

View PostRhea, on Sep 16 2006, 10:29 PM, said:

He is supposed to be a uniter, not a divider.

Kind of hard to be a uniter with a religion that would have it's followers slit your throat as soon as look at you.

I'm sure that somewhere in the vast Islamic world there is a man not unlike yourself thinking the exact same thing about Catholicism.  And he has evidence to back him up, too.  So let's not pretend that there's something inherently wrong with Islam that isn't wrong with Catholicism, Judaism or, for that matter, scientology.  Every religion on the face of the planet is misused more often than not.  Which is why I'm not such a big fan of religion.  (Also 'cause they're not true.)

Pardon me - I could give you a list of all the things I find wrong with all the organized religions in this world.  It would have nothing to do with faith and the goodness of heart that a lot of these parasitical religions are suppose to have been based on.

The Moslems come out and openly have said there is Jihad against the Western World.  One of their leaders has actually put the idea out there that we should just convert...
Thank you but I know for a fact that I can handle the Catholics they don't brandish hot irons anymore but when Moslims are in control all bets are off.

If the good Moslems don't want the Western World to think bad of them then why don't they stand up for their true beliefs and put an end to it?  I'm tired of all these excuses and the violence that keeps going on and on and on and on and on.
"There are many ways of going forward, but there is only one way of standing still."  FDR explaining why Liberals are so often divided and Conservatives are so often united.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers

#42 Hibblette

Hibblette
  • Islander
  • 4,228 posts

Posted 17 September 2006 - 08:33 AM

View PostRhea, on Sep 17 2006, 02:56 AM, said:

View PostLORD of the SWORD, on Sep 16 2006, 09:39 PM, said:

View PostRhea, on Sep 16 2006, 10:29 PM, said:

He is supposed to be a uniter, not a divider.

Kind of hard to be a uniter with a religion that would have it's followers slit your throat as soon as look at you. And as Hibblette pointed out, it's attitudes towards women definately make it hard to deal with.

And since Hitler was brought into this...it would be like worrying whether or not a speech would offend Hitler himself. Who really cares if it offends hitler; same for radical muslims, IMO.

Once again mischaracterizing an entire religion based on the actions of  some fanatics. How would YOU like it if all Christians were tarred with that inbred no-neck Phelps family's brand of fanaticism? Or if people confused all Mormons with the numbnut who just got arrested for plural marriage and child molestation?

SOME Muslims are fanatics. It does not follow that ALL Muslims are fanatics, any more than it follows that all Southern Baptists are pinheads because the Phelps creep claims to be a Southern Baptist.

Should Christianity be judged on the 5,000,000 women who were burned at the stake over a century in the name of God during the Inquisition? Should all Christians be judged by the Crusades (which were SO not about religion as much they were about money and power)?

Should every Catholic be judged by an idiot who bombs an abortion clinic and murders people?

You would not want to be judged by the same sweeping generalizations you are using to characterize Muslims. There is an enormous Muslim population in this country and by and large they are law-abiding citizens.

Hell, people who think the same way you do keep killing Sikhs in this area, and Sikhs aren't even friggin' Muslims. The boneheads don't even know the difference - they see a guy in a turban and shoot or stab the guy thinking he's a Muslim.

But Rhea we are Judged in sweeping ways-all the time.

I go to the Church of Christ (when I go-which has been a while) and believe me growing up I always got the attitude "Oh you're the only ones going to heaven"  No I don't think like that.  I live with it and I don't start chopping peoples heads off because of it.

In regards to Phelps-we, Christians, are standing up against this individual.  We have even brought Legislation against him.  We are openly, vehemently striking out against him in a civilized manner.

And if we are judged by other religions due to this-that is how life is.  Sometimes life is all about rumor control.
"There are many ways of going forward, but there is only one way of standing still."  FDR explaining why Liberals are so often divided and Conservatives are so often united.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers

#43 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 17 September 2006 - 11:12 AM

View PostHibblette, on Sep 17 2006, 06:33 AM, said:

View PostRhea, on Sep 17 2006, 02:56 AM, said:

View PostLORD of the SWORD, on Sep 16 2006, 09:39 PM, said:

View PostRhea, on Sep 16 2006, 10:29 PM, said:

He is supposed to be a uniter, not a divider.

Kind of hard to be a uniter with a religion that would have it's followers slit your throat as soon as look at you. And as Hibblette pointed out, it's attitudes towards women definately make it hard to deal with.

And since Hitler was brought into this...it would be like worrying whether or not a speech would offend Hitler himself. Who really cares if it offends hitler; same for radical muslims, IMO.

Once again mischaracterizing an entire religion based on the actions of  some fanatics. How would YOU like it if all Christians were tarred with that inbred no-neck Phelps family's brand of fanaticism? Or if people confused all Mormons with the numbnut who just got arrested for plural marriage and child molestation?

SOME Muslims are fanatics. It does not follow that ALL Muslims are fanatics, any more than it follows that all Southern Baptists are pinheads because the Phelps creep claims to be a Southern Baptist.

Should Christianity be judged on the 5,000,000 women who were burned at the stake over a century in the name of God during the Inquisition? Should all Christians be judged by the Crusades (which were SO not about religion as much they were about money and power)?

Should every Catholic be judged by an idiot who bombs an abortion clinic and murders people?

You would not want to be judged by the same sweeping generalizations you are using to characterize Muslims. There is an enormous Muslim population in this country and by and large they are law-abiding citizens.

Hell, people who think the same way you do keep killing Sikhs in this area, and Sikhs aren't even friggin' Muslims. The boneheads don't even know the difference - they see a guy in a turban and shoot or stab the guy thinking he's a Muslim.

But Rhea we are Judged in sweeping ways-all the time.

I go to the Church of Christ (when I go-which has been a while) and believe me growing up I always got the attitude "Oh you're the only ones going to heaven"  No I don't think like that.  I live with it and I don't start chopping peoples heads off because of it.

In regards to Phelps-we, Christians, are standing up against this individual.  We have even brought Legislation against him.  We are openly, vehemently striking out against him in a civilized manner.

And if we are judged by other religions due to this-that is how life is.  Sometimes life is all about rumor control.

Sometimes it is about my original point, which is a man who is Pope should be intelligent enough not to be inflammatory. Now he's saying the quote wasn't reflective of his own personal beliefs. Um, d'oh, if it had no meaning for you, why did you quote it?

Of course, this guy isn't the brightest bulb in the universe anyway. It wasn't that long ago that he blamed the Holocaust on "pagans," as though no Catholic/Christian took part. Riiiiiiiiiiight. It's much more comforting to think that the only ones who helped man the furnaces were some sort of weirdos, not good Christian folk who went to church on Sunday and still swallowed their government's craziness whole.

My report card for Ratzinger to date? C-.

Edited by Rhea, 17 September 2006 - 11:22 AM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#44 Hibblette

Hibblette
  • Islander
  • 4,228 posts

Posted 17 September 2006 - 11:32 AM

And my point is why can't he be inflammatory?

Things are already at their most inflamous.  Why not?

Of course he didn't mean for it to be taken this way.  He meant it on a theological level not a political level.  

My point is-I do think the ones who are running the great Moslim show are violent.  They love it.  That's why they take advantage of these opportunity's and get people all riled up.

They are showing that this is the problem.  Violence and hatred.
"There are many ways of going forward, but there is only one way of standing still."  FDR explaining why Liberals are so often divided and Conservatives are so often united.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers

#45 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 17 September 2006 - 11:40 AM

View PostRhea, on Sep 17 2006, 03:56 AM, said:

Once again mischaracterizing an entire religion based on the actions of  some fanatics. How would YOU like it if all Christians were tarred with that inbred no-neck Phelps family's brand of fanaticism? Or if people confused all Mormons with the numbnut who just got arrested for plural marriage and child molestation?

And was Phelp's endorsed by the Pope, or the vatican? No. Also there are many different versions of christanity, as you pointed out. Catholics, baptists, southern baptists, ect...As far as I am aware there is only one version of Islam...and almost every muslim leader I've heard seems to not mind the suicide bombs that kill Americans...they only seem to have a problem when other muslims are targeted...like what happened at the Wedding party in Jordan....

Quote

SOME Muslims are fanatics. It does not follow that ALL Muslims are fanatics, any more than it follows that all Southern Baptists are pinheads because the Phelps creep claims to be a Southern Baptist.

And I never, not once, said that they all are. Although I do find it ironic that the protest cries from the muslim community is in the form of "Apologize or else". You can knuckle your forehead to them if you want, not me.

Quote

Should Christianity be judged on the 5,000,000 women who were burned at the stake over a century in the name of God during the Inquisition? Should all Christians be judged by the Crusades (which were SO not about religion as much they were about money and power)?

I knew that someone would try this argument. You're talking about something that occured years, and years, and years, and years, and years...I did mention years right...ago. We're judging the radical muslims by what they are doing right now...today, not years, and years ago.

Quote

Should every Catholic be judged by an idiot who bombs an abortion clinic and murders people?

Again, show me where those people are sponsered by the church.

Quote

You would not want to be judged by the same sweeping generalizations you are using to characterize Muslims. There is an enormous Muslim population in this country and by and large they are law-abiding citizens.

Hell, people who think the same way you do keep killing Sikhs in this area, and Sikhs aren't even friggin' Muslims. The boneheads don't even know the difference - they see a guy in a turban and shoot or stab the guy thinking he's a Muslim.

Well if this makes me a racists, so be it. But if I see a person in a turban, I'm going to figure he is a muslim. If that makes me racists, so be it. I'm not going to bow down to them, knuckle my forehead, or any of that. And I'll say it again, since it seems to not have sunk in: "THEY HAVE NO RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED!!!!" What part of that is so hard to understand?
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#46 ilexx

ilexx
  • Islander
  • 2,791 posts

Posted 17 September 2006 - 12:14 PM

View PostRhea, on Sep 17 2006, 06:12 PM, said:

Sometimes it is about my original point, which is a man who is Pope should be intelligent enough not to be inflammatory. Now he's saying the quote wasn't reflective of his own personal beliefs. Um, d'oh, if it had no meaning for you, why did you quote it?

Of course, this guy isn't the brightest bulb in the universe anyway. It wasn't that long ago that he blamed the Holocaust on "pagans," as though no Catholic/Christian took part. Riiiiiiiiiiight. It's much more comforting to think that the only ones who helped man the furnaces were some sort of weirdos, not good Christian folk who went to church on Sunday and still swallowed their government's craziness whole.

My report card for Ratzinger to date? C-.

I don't have any idea if Ratzinger is intelligent enough to be Pope. He was, however, intelligent enough not to be inflammatory. You can read in the posts above what he said - exactly, in which context he said it - exactly, and you can also hear in the news that he met the Muslim demands over and over again: he expressed his regrets twice yesterday and today he even said the required 'I'm sorry'. In answer to that a Muslim leader said that he doubted his sincerity and that Muslims all over the world should continue their 'determined protests'. A couple of hours later a nun  working in a hospital run by the Catholic Church in Somalia was shot to death by Muslims, together with her bodyguard and her driver.

So, forgive me for being so blunt, but do you really want to add your voice to the Muslim 'determined protests'?

And just out of curiosity: when and where did he say that 'pagans' were  responsible for the Holocaust?

#47 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 17 September 2006 - 12:32 PM

View PostMark, on Sep 17 2006, 02:15 AM, said:

View PostScottEVill, on Sep 17 2006, 12:23 AM, said:

View PostLORD of the SWORD, on Sep 17 2006, 12:39 AM, said:

View PostRhea, on Sep 16 2006, 10:29 PM, said:

He is supposed to be a uniter, not a divider.

Kind of hard to be a uniter with a religion that would have it's followers slit your throat as soon as look at you.

I'm sure that somewhere in the vast Islamic world there is a man not unlike yourself thinking the exact same thing about Catholicism.  And he has evidence to back him up, too.  So let's not pretend that there's something inherently wrong with Islam that isn't wrong with Catholicism, Judaism or, for that matter, scientology.  Every religion on the face of the planet is misused more often than not.  Which is why I'm not such a big fan of religion.  (Also 'cause they're not true.)

Mark: But there are differences...big differences. At this point in time, the only religion I see killing people indiscriminately in the name of itself is, Islam.

How quickly they forget Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, The World Church of the Creator, the Christian Identity movement, garden variety neo-nazis, et al ad nauseum.  

I find it interesting that there's this tendency to conclude that Christian terrorists, and the groups to which they belong, are blips on the radar--exceptions to the rule--but when it's a Muslim terrorist or group, they MUST be representative of the whole, and indicative of a particular defect of that religion which permits extremism to flourish.

Can't we all just admit that ANY religion can be hijacked by people who are looking to do violence?  

View PostHibblette, on Sep 17 2006, 09:27 AM, said:

View PostScottEVill, on Sep 17 2006, 12:23 AM, said:

View PostLORD of the SWORD, on Sep 17 2006, 12:39 AM, said:

View PostRhea, on Sep 16 2006, 10:29 PM, said:

He is supposed to be a uniter, not a divider.

Kind of hard to be a uniter with a religion that would have it's followers slit your throat as soon as look at you.

I'm sure that somewhere in the vast Islamic world there is a man not unlike yourself thinking the exact same thing about Catholicism.  And he has evidence to back him up, too.  So let's not pretend that there's something inherently wrong with Islam that isn't wrong with Catholicism, Judaism or, for that matter, scientology.  Every religion on the face of the planet is misused more often than not.  Which is why I'm not such a big fan of religion.  (Also 'cause they're not true.)

Pardon me - I could give you a list of all the things I find wrong with all the organized religions in this world.  It would have nothing to do with faith and the goodness of heart that a lot of these parasitical religions are suppose to have been based on.

The Moslems come out and openly have said there is Jihad against the Western World.

On September 17, 2001, President Bush called for a "crusade" against "the evil-doers."  How do you think THAT sounded to a billion muslims?  (Especially considering that he then followed-up by announcing that our response to 9/11 would be to invade a country that had nothing to do with it.)

Quote

One of their leaders has actually put the idea out there that we should just convert...

You mean Adam Gadahn?  He's hardly one of their leaders.  

In any case, that's not unusual, and it's certainly not one-sided.  Ann Coulter said we should "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."  A congressman from California recently was forced to apologize after calling the Prophet Mohammed "treacherous."  

Ever notice how, though they may hate "Crusaders," they never, *ever* dis Jesus?  Interesting.  

Quote

Thank you but I know for a fact that I can handle the Catholics they don't brandish hot irons anymore but when Moslims are in control all bets are off.

The operative words in that sentence are "any more."  So I believe my point--that there's nothing wrong with Islam as a religion that isn't also wrong with Catholicism--stands.  Both have been used to perpetrate evil on a genocidal scale.  

BTW, did you know that Catholic priests have been running around the third world, Africa in particular, spreading the word that condoms don't prevent transmission of HIV?  Yep.  How many thousands of people do you suppose are dead because they believed their saintly parish priest on that?  

Quote

If the good Moslems don't want the Western World to think bad of them then why don't they stand up for their true beliefs and put an end to it?

I feel the same way about the good Chrstians, but whenever I say they have a responsibility to clean up their own house, someone steps up to tell me "nuh-uh."  

Quote

I'm tired of all these excuses and the violence that keeps going on and on and on and on and on.

Agreed, but if you think that branding Islam--and its one billion plus adherents--as somehow endemically bad is pointing the way toward a solution, you're quite mistaken.  That way lies the next world war.

View PostLORD of the SWORD, on Sep 17 2006, 12:40 PM, said:

View PostRhea, on Sep 17 2006, 03:56 AM, said:


Once again mischaracterizing an entire religion based on the actions of  some fanatics. How would YOU like it if all Christians were tarred with that inbred no-neck Phelps family's brand of fanaticism? Or if people confused all Mormons with the numbnut who just got arrested for plural marriage and child molestation?

And was Phelp's endorsed by the Pope, or the vatican? No. Also there are many different versions of christanity, as you pointed out. Catholics, baptists, southern baptists, ect...As far as I am aware there is only one version of Islam...

Um... no.  And if you think about it for a moment, I'd wager you ARE aware that there are several different kinds of Islam.  Shiite, Sunni, etc.  We've been talking a lot about them in various OT threads in which you have participated.

Quote

Quote

You would not want to be judged by the same sweeping generalizations you are using to characterize Muslims. There is an enormous Muslim population in this country and by and large they are law-abiding citizens.

Hell, people who think the same way you do keep killing Sikhs in this area, and Sikhs aren't even friggin' Muslims. The boneheads don't even know the difference - they see a guy in a turban and shoot or stab the guy thinking he's a Muslim.


Well if this makes me a racists, so be it. But if I see a person in a turban, I'm going to figure he is a muslim.

Um... Why?  

Quote

And I'll say it again, since it seems to not have sunk in: "THEY HAVE NO RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED!!!!" What part of that is so hard to understand?

Well, you're using a double negative there, so it IS hard to understand.  Are you saying they have a right to be offended?  (Double negatives cancel each other out.)  Or that they have NO right to be offended?

Edited by ScottEVill, 17 September 2006 - 12:38 PM.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#48 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 17 September 2006 - 12:42 PM

View Postilexx, on Sep 17 2006, 10:14 AM, said:

View PostRhea, on Sep 17 2006, 06:12 PM, said:


Sometimes it is about my original point, which is a man who is Pope should be intelligent enough not to be inflammatory. Now he's saying the quote wasn't reflective of his own personal beliefs. Um, d'oh, if it had no meaning for you, why did you quote it?

Of course, this guy isn't the brightest bulb in the universe anyway. It wasn't that long ago that he blamed the Holocaust on "pagans," as though no Catholic/Christian took part. Riiiiiiiiiiight. It's much more comforting to think that the only ones who helped man the furnaces were some sort of weirdos, not good Christian folk who went to church on Sunday and still swallowed their government's craziness whole.

My report card for Ratzinger to date? C-.

I don't have any idea if Ratzinger is intelligent enough to be Pope. He was, however, intelligent enough not to be inflammatory. You can read in the posts above what he said - exactly, in which context he said it - exactly, and you can also hear in the news that he met the Muslim demands over and over again: he expressed his regrets twice yesterday and today he even said the required 'I'm sorry'. In answer to that a Muslim leader said that he doubted his sincerity and that Muslims all over the world should continue their 'determined protests'. A couple of hours later a nun  working in a hospital run by the Catholic Church in Somalia was shot to death by Muslims, together with her bodyguard and her driver.

So, forgive me for being so blunt, but do you really want to add your voice to the Muslim 'determined protests'?

And just out of curiosity: when and where did he say that 'pagans' were  responsible for the Holocaust?


Quote

"In the 20th Century, in the darkest period of German and European history, an insane racist ideology, born of neo-paganism, gave rise to the attempt, planned and systematically carried out by the regime, to exterminate European Jewry," he said. "The result has passed into history as the Shoah," he said, using the Hebrew term for the Holocaust."

He said this almost two seconds after he became Pope. This thus absolves him and every other German of complicity in genocide, because hey, everybody knows it was those crazy neo-pagans. Sounded a lot like self-justification to me.

Was Hitler into astronomy and other esoteric stuff? Sure. Was the Holocaust solely perpetrated by some obscure neo-pagan sect? No, dammit, it was not. It was perpetrated by everyday people who either gladly helped or pretended not to see what was going on.
Righty-o. Because we all know that Germany was a pagan country. Hitler, btw, was  a Catholic who was never excommunicated.

This is the same guy who maintains that nasty old pedophelia scandal is just a plot to make the Catholic Church look bad:

Quote

Ratzinger told the Catholic News Service that he thought that the pedophile priest scandal was being driven by a media set on making the Catholic Church look bad: "I am personally convinced that the constant presence in the press of the sins of Catholic priests, especially in the United States, is a planned campaign ... one comes to the conclusion that it is intentional, manipulated, that there is a desire to discredit the Church. It is a logical and well-founded conclusion."

Because of course THIS pope would never accept responsibility and apologize like the last one did.

Edited by Rhea, 17 September 2006 - 12:47 PM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#49 DWF

DWF

    Dr. Who 1963-89, 1996, 2005-

  • Islander
  • 48,287 posts

Posted 17 September 2006 - 12:44 PM

View PostRhea, on Sep 17 2006, 12:12 PM, said:

Sometimes it is about my original point, which is a man who is Pope should be intelligent enough not to be inflammatory. Now he's saying the quote wasn't reflective of his own personal beliefs. Um, d'oh, if it had no meaning for you, why did you quote it?

Of course, this guy isn't the brightest bulb in the universe anyway. It wasn't that long ago that he blamed the Holocaust on "pagans," as though no Catholic/Christian took part. Riiiiiiiiiiight. It's much more comforting to think that the only ones who helped man the furnaces were some sort of weirdos, not good Christian folk who went to church on Sunday and still swallowed their government's craziness whole.

My report card for Ratzinger to date? C-.

You brought up two important points probably without realizing it, the Pope shouldn't be silent and as proof you bring up the Holocaust the Church was silent about that and not only got blamed for it but was condemned for doing so should this Pope remain silent on an issue that will come back to haunt the church again? :eh:
The longest-running science fiction series: decadent, degenerate and rotten to the core. Power-mad conspirators, Daleks, Sontarans... Cybermen! They're still in the nursery compared to us. Fifty years of absolute fandom. That's what it takes to be really critical.

"Don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido

#50 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 17 September 2006 - 12:50 PM

View PostDWF, on Sep 17 2006, 10:44 AM, said:

View PostRhea, on Sep 17 2006, 12:12 PM, said:


Sometimes it is about my original point, which is a man who is Pope should be intelligent enough not to be inflammatory. Now he's saying the quote wasn't reflective of his own personal beliefs. Um, d'oh, if it had no meaning for you, why did you quote it?

Of course, this guy isn't the brightest bulb in the universe anyway. It wasn't that long ago that he blamed the Holocaust on "pagans," as though no Catholic/Christian took part. Riiiiiiiiiiight. It's much more comforting to think that the only ones who helped man the furnaces were some sort of weirdos, not good Christian folk who went to church on Sunday and still swallowed their government's craziness whole.

My report card for Ratzinger to date? C-.

You brought up two important points probably without realizing it, the Pope shouldn't be silent and as proof you bring up the Holocaust the Church was silent about that and not only got blamed for it but was condemned for doing so should this Pope remain silent on an issue that will come back to haunt the church again? :eh:

Oh, please. The previous pope, while a reactionary old poop in a lot of ways, was a good man who, in the spirit of Christ, reached out to a lot of people the Church had never tried to deal with before. This one is more the kick-in-the-teeth type. And if you read carefully, he didn't really aplogize, in fact now, he's trying to say that he didn't really agree with those quotes. He just used them because why again?  :crazy:

Let me get this straight - you're saying that this Pope, by condemning wholesale a religion practiced by billions of people, is taking a stand FOR something? Doesn't sound very Christlike to me. But maybe that's why I'm not a practicing Christian anymore.

Edited by Rhea, 17 September 2006 - 12:52 PM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#51 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 17 September 2006 - 12:52 PM

Quote

How quickly they forget Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, The World Church of the Creator, the Christian Identity movement, garden variety neo-nazis, et al ad nauseum.

I find it interesting that there's this tendency to conclude that Christian terrorists, and the groups to which they belong, are blips on the radar--exceptions to the rule--but when it's a Muslim terrorist or group, they MUST be representative of the whole, and indicative of a particular defect of that religion which permits extremism to flourish.

Can't we all just admit that ANY religion can be hijacked by people who are looking to do violence?

Are their thousands of abortion clinic bombers Scott? Are their millions of Christians celebrating in the streets at the behaviors of people like Timothy McVeigh? Would the average Christian have offered aid to him in murder spree? Do most Christians support the Nazi movement or condemn it? There are HUGE differences between the examples you cite and what has gone on in the Islamic world for far too long.

I'll worry about the "good Muslims" feelings when they start standing up and having a hissy fit about what the "bad Muslims" are doing. Kinda hard to empathise with a religion that will protest by the millions world wide over a quote from a dead emperor or a Danish cartoon but not protest in the streets over the murder, torture, beheadings of  thousands of innocent people. Who find stoning woman a suitable punishment in the 21st Century. Who in some country's (Like Pre war Afghanistan) had woman starving to death because woman couldn't walk the streets without a male relative escorting them but since all the men were dead, the women were left to starve in their homes or be stoned in the streets for venturing outside seeking food.

If they want their religion respected, then do something to earn it. Otherwise I don't care if they get offended. If the shoe fits, wear it. We judged Germans on the basis of their failure to stand up and oppose Hitlers atrocities but when it comes to Islam we're supposed to ignore the "qualified" condemnations and the lack of unified response to cold blooded murder? I've seen to many gleeful Muslims celebrating the slaughters in the streets to muster up an ounce of respect for the religion they represent. I'd feel the same about Christians if they were acting that way now. I feel that way about the Crusades, the witch trials etc...in Christianity's past. Why should I give special consideration for Islam that I'd not give to any other religion embracing by their support or lack of opposition, the slaughter of innocents?
Posted Image
Posted Image

#52 DWF

DWF

    Dr. Who 1963-89, 1996, 2005-

  • Islander
  • 48,287 posts

Posted 17 September 2006 - 01:00 PM

View PostRhea, on Sep 17 2006, 01:50 PM, said:

View PostDWF, on Sep 17 2006, 10:44 AM, said:

View PostRhea, on Sep 17 2006, 12:12 PM, said:


Sometimes it is about my original point, which is a man who is Pope should be intelligent enough not to be inflammatory. Now he's saying the quote wasn't reflective of his own personal beliefs. Um, d'oh, if it had no meaning for you, why did you quote it?

Of course, this guy isn't the brightest bulb in the universe anyway. It wasn't that long ago that he blamed the Holocaust on "pagans," as though no Catholic/Christian took part. Riiiiiiiiiiight. It's much more comforting to think that the only ones who helped man the furnaces were some sort of weirdos, not good Christian folk who went to church on Sunday and still swallowed their government's craziness whole.

My report card for Ratzinger to date? C-.

You brought up two important points probably without realizing it, the Pope shouldn't be silent and as proof you bring up the Holocaust the Church was silent about that and not only got blamed for it but was condemned for doing so should this Pope remain silent on an issue that will come back to haunt the church again? :eh:

Oh, please. The previous pope, while a reactionary old poop in a lot of ways, was a good man who, in the spirit of Christ, reached out to a lot of people the Church had never tried to deal with before. This one is more the kick-in-the-teeth type. And if you read carefully, he didn't really aplogize, in fact now, he's trying to say that he didn't really agree with those quotes. He just used them because why again?  :crazy:

Let me get this straight - you're saying that this Pope, by condemning wholesale a religion practiced by billions of people, is taking a stand FOR something? Doesn't sound very Christlike to me. But maybe that's why I'm not a practicing Christian anymore.

So by reading what somebody else said the words were put in his mouth? Thank God he wasn't reading off lines from Richard III.  :eek2:
The longest-running science fiction series: decadent, degenerate and rotten to the core. Power-mad conspirators, Daleks, Sontarans... Cybermen! They're still in the nursery compared to us. Fifty years of absolute fandom. That's what it takes to be really critical.

"Don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido

#53 Hibblette

Hibblette
  • Islander
  • 4,228 posts

Posted 17 September 2006 - 01:37 PM

View PostScottEVill, on Sep 17 2006, 12:32 PM, said:

View PostMark, on Sep 17 2006, 02:15 AM, said:

View PostScottEVill, on Sep 17 2006, 12:23 AM, said:

View PostLORD of the SWORD, on Sep 17 2006, 12:39 AM, said:

View PostRhea, on Sep 16 2006, 10:29 PM, said:

He is supposed to be a uniter, not a divider.

Kind of hard to be a uniter with a religion that would have it's followers slit your throat as soon as look at you.

I'm sure that somewhere in the vast Islamic world there is a man not unlike yourself thinking the exact same thing about Catholicism.  And he has evidence to back him up, too.  So let's not pretend that there's something inherently wrong with Islam that isn't wrong with Catholicism, Judaism or, for that matter, scientology.  Every religion on the face of the planet is misused more often than not.  Which is why I'm not such a big fan of religion.  (Also 'cause they're not true.)

Mark: But there are differences...big differences. At this point in time, the only religion I see killing people indiscriminately in the name of itself is, Islam.

How quickly they forget Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, The World Church of the Creator, the Christian Identity movement, garden variety neo-nazis, et al ad nauseum.  

I find it interesting that there's this tendency to conclude that Christian terrorists, and the groups to which they belong, are blips on the radar--exceptions to the rule--but when it's a Muslim terrorist or group, they MUST be representative of the whole, and indicative of a particular defect of that religion which permits extremism to flourish.

Can't we all just admit that ANY religion can be hijacked by people who are looking to do violence?  

View PostHibblette, on Sep 17 2006, 09:27 AM, said:

View PostScottEVill, on Sep 17 2006, 12:23 AM, said:

View PostLORD of the SWORD, on Sep 17 2006, 12:39 AM, said:

View PostRhea, on Sep 16 2006, 10:29 PM, said:

He is supposed to be a uniter, not a divider.

Kind of hard to be a uniter with a religion that would have it's followers slit your throat as soon as look at you.

I'm sure that somewhere in the vast Islamic world there is a man not unlike yourself thinking the exact same thing about Catholicism.  And he has evidence to back him up, too.  So let's not pretend that there's something inherently wrong with Islam that isn't wrong with Catholicism, Judaism or, for that matter, scientology.  Every religion on the face of the planet is misused more often than not.  Which is why I'm not such a big fan of religion.  (Also 'cause they're not true.)

Pardon me - I could give you a list of all the things I find wrong with all the organized religions in this world.  It would have nothing to do with faith and the goodness of heart that a lot of these parasitical religions are suppose to have been based on.

The Moslems come out and openly have said there is Jihad against the Western World.

On September 17, 2001, President Bush called for a "crusade" against "the evil-doers."  How do you think THAT sounded to a billion muslims?  (Especially considering that he then followed-up by announcing that our response to 9/11 would be to invade a country that had nothing to do with it.)

Quote

One of their leaders has actually put the idea out there that we should just convert...

You mean Adam Gadahn?  He's hardly one of their leaders.  

In any case, that's not unusual, and it's certainly not one-sided.  Ann Coulter said we should "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."  A congressman from California recently was forced to apologize after calling the Prophet Mohammed "treacherous."  

Ever notice how, though they may hate "Crusaders," they never, *ever* dis Jesus?  Interesting.  

Quote

Thank you but I know for a fact that I can handle the Catholics they don't brandish hot irons anymore but when Moslims are in control all bets are off.

The operative words in that sentence are "any more."  So I believe my point--that there's nothing wrong with Islam as a religion that isn't also wrong with Catholicism--stands.  Both have been used to perpetrate evil on a genocidal scale.  

BTW, did you know that Catholic priests have been running around the third world, Africa in particular, spreading the word that condoms don't prevent transmission of HIV?  Yep.  How many thousands of people do you suppose are dead because they believed their saintly parish priest on that?  

Quote

If the good Moslems don't want the Western World to think bad of them then why don't they stand up for their true beliefs and put an end to it?

I feel the same way about the good Chrstians, but whenever I say they have a responsibility to clean up their own house, someone steps up to tell me "nuh-uh."  

Quote

I'm tired of all these excuses and the violence that keeps going on and on and on and on and on.

Agreed, but if you think that branding Islam--and its one billion plus adherents--as somehow endemically bad is pointing the way toward a solution, you're quite mistaken.  That way lies the next world war.

View PostLORD of the SWORD, on Sep 17 2006, 12:40 PM, said:

View PostRhea, on Sep 17 2006, 03:56 AM, said:


Once again mischaracterizing an entire religion based on the actions of  some fanatics. How would YOU like it if all Christians were tarred with that inbred no-neck Phelps family's brand of fanaticism? Or if people confused all Mormons with the numbnut who just got arrested for plural marriage and child molestation?

And was Phelp's endorsed by the Pope, or the vatican? No. Also there are many different versions of christanity, as you pointed out. Catholics, baptists, southern baptists, ect...As far as I am aware there is only one version of Islam...

Um... no.  And if you think about it for a moment, I'd wager you ARE aware that there are several different kinds of Islam.  Shiite, Sunni, etc.  We've been talking a lot about them in various OT threads in which you have participated.

Quote

Quote

You would not want to be judged by the same sweeping generalizations you are using to characterize Muslims. There is an enormous Muslim population in this country and by and large they are law-abiding citizens.

Hell, people who think the same way you do keep killing Sikhs in this area, and Sikhs aren't even friggin' Muslims. The boneheads don't even know the difference - they see a guy in a turban and shoot or stab the guy thinking he's a Muslim.


Well if this makes me a racists, so be it. But if I see a person in a turban, I'm going to figure he is a muslim.

Um... Why?  

Quote

And I'll say it again, since it seems to not have sunk in: "THEY HAVE NO RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED!!!!" What part of that is so hard to understand?

Well, you're using a double negative there, so it IS hard to understand.  Are you saying they have a right to be offended?  (Double negatives cancel each other out.)  Or that they have NO right to be offended?

You think we are not in that third world war?

And he's as much a leader as any of the others that have come out and voice their needs and demands of the Western world.  Who the heck do any, and I many any of them, think they are.  

And see one billion Islamics-any of those guys in great numbers (I mean great numbers) coming out and condeming these extremist?  The way that most Christians have about Phelps?  Hmmm.  One billion, eh?
"There are many ways of going forward, but there is only one way of standing still."  FDR explaining why Liberals are so often divided and Conservatives are so often united.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers

#54 Hibblette

Hibblette
  • Islander
  • 4,228 posts

Posted 17 September 2006 - 01:47 PM

Quote

Let me get this straight - you're saying that this Pope, by condemning wholesale a religion practiced by billions of people, is taking a stand FOR something? Doesn't sound very Christlike to me. But maybe that's why I'm not a practicing Christian anymore.

Actually Christ did take a stand.  He was crucified for it-but he did take a stand.

And the pope is not condeming-please.  He's first quoting from something long ago and again billions of these people-you're defending them?  And yet you are condeming this pope for just surviving a country's government gone crazy.
"There are many ways of going forward, but there is only one way of standing still."  FDR explaining why Liberals are so often divided and Conservatives are so often united.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers

#55 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 17 September 2006 - 02:13 PM

View PostScottEVill, on Sep 17 2006, 01:32 PM, said:

Well, you're using a double negative there, so it IS hard to understand.  Are you saying they have a right to be offended?  (Double negatives cancel each other out.)  Or that they have NO right to be offended?

Basically that there is nothing saying that they have a right never to be offended. Nobody, contrary to their beliefs, promised them that they would never be offended by something someone else said. And to act like everyone had better be shocked that they are offended, and do whatever they says to put it so that they aren't offended is absurd.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#56 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 17 September 2006 - 02:15 PM

Quote

On September 17, 2001, President Bush called for a "crusade" against "the evil-doers." How do you think THAT sounded to a billion muslims? (Especially considering that he then followed-up by announcing that our response to 9/11 would be to invade a country that had nothing to do with it.)


Looks like we've got some "crusading" fever right here on this board.  One of the more ghastly things to come out of the crusades was the concept of "malicide." First articulated by St. Bernard of Clairvaux in De novae militiae it held that a righteous ( ie., Christian) warrior was justified in killing a human being in order to exterminate the evil s/he practiced or embodied.  The killing then was no longer "homicide" but "malicide" and need not be confessed nor absolved.  It was a factor in the witch-burnings Rhea has mentioned as well as the Spanish Inquisition's persecution of lapsed conversos and it's obviously still with us in the 20th and 21st centuries in "Kill a gook/hadji for Jesus."

Quote

In any case, that's not unusual, and it's certainly not one-sided. Ann Coulter said we should "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." A congressman from California recently was forced to apologize after calling the Prophet Mohammed "treacherous."

Ever notice how, though they may hate "Crusaders," they never, *ever* dis Jesus? Interesting.


Not to mention Jerry Falwell's "Blow 'em away in the name of the Lord."  And it was Franklin Graham, son of Jews-don't-go-to-heaven Billy, who called Mohammed a "pedophile."  (Hey, Frankie, how about Warren Jeffs?)

No pious Muslim would ever dis Isa ben Maryam, whose revelation was brought to completion by Mohammed.  It's one of the oddities of comparative religion that Mary is held in higher esteem by Muslims than she is by most Protestant Christians.  Go figure.

Edited by waterpanther, 17 September 2006 - 02:42 PM.

Posted Image

#57 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 17 September 2006 - 02:23 PM

View PostScottEVill, on Sep 17 2006, 01:32 PM, said:

I find it interesting that there's this tendency to conclude that Christian terrorists, and the groups to which they belong, are blips on the radar--exceptions to the rule--but when it's a Muslim terrorist or group, they MUST be representative of the whole, and indicative of a particular defect of that religion which permits extremism to flourish.
I find it interesting that anyone could seriously attempt to equate the two when the obvious reason for the dichotomy you describe is simple numbers (and, to some extent, the people's extremeness). The ratios of funadmentalist nuts to regular ordinary people of the same religion are nowhere near the same neighborhood at all between these two religions (and the sparse handful of Christians you name only want specific groups of people gone, not entire civilizations).

View PostScottEVill, on Sep 17 2006, 01:32 PM, said:

Can't we all just admit that ANY religion can be hijacked by people who are looking to do violence?
What reason is there to think it's impossible that a religion's true nature could be violent and it's the peaceful people saying they follow it that are doing the real hijacking?

View PostScottEVill, on Sep 17 2006, 01:32 PM, said:

Ever notice how, though they may hate "Crusaders," they never, *ever* dis Jesus?  Interesting.
Not at all. He's one of their prophets. Why WOULD anybody expect them to say something bad about one of their own prophets? Were you trying to imply that they avoid it out of respect for Christianity? :rofl:

View PostScottEVill, on Sep 17 2006, 01:32 PM, said:

I believe my point--that there's nothing wrong with Islam as a religion that isn't also wrong with Catholicism--stands.  Both have been used to perpetrate evil on a genocidal scale.
What is the point of that point, though? It certainly says nothing about and has no effect on the veracity of anything said about some other religion in some other place and some other time, like modern Islam or fifth-centurty-BCE Euro-paganism...

View PostScottEVill, on Sep 17 2006, 01:32 PM, said:

Quote

And I'll say it again, since it seems to not have sunk in: "THEY HAVE NO RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED!!!!" What part of that is so hard to understand?

Well, you're using a double negative there, so it IS hard to understand.  Are you saying they have a right to be offended?  (Double negatives cancel each other out.)  Or that they have NO right to be offended?
The right not to be offended means the right to live unoffended, the right to be free from offense. The sentence with the second negative in it means that that right does not actually exist.

Edited by Delvo, 17 September 2006 - 02:36 PM.


#58 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 17 September 2006 - 02:49 PM

Quote

But as in the Danish cartoon controversy, some people aren't exactly making a case for themselves by essentially saying "Stop saying our religion is violent or things will get violent."

Quote

I do find it highly amusing that while the muslim world insists, no, DEMANDS, that the rest of the world respect their religious beliefs; they don't seem to have a problem not respecting other religions.

Quote

I'm no fan of Ratzi, but I'm a lot more offended by the petulant response and reflexive demands for apologies or else that have characterized a lot of the response to a speech that, while inartfully worded, contained some sharp observations on the nature of the friction between Western and Islamic Civilizations. And if there's ever to be a real exchange of ideas, then there needs to be a more mature response from the Muslim world than "How dare you?!?" If Ratzinger is wrong about the relationship of Islam and conquest, then tell us why he's wrong instead of just yelling "Hitler! Hitler! Hitler!"

All agreed

Quote

Kind of hard to be a uniter with a religion that would have it's followers slit your throat as soon as look at you. And as Hibblette pointed out, it's attitudes towards women definately make it hard to deal with.

I saw a documentary which interviewed muslims in UK and they said they felt sorry for non-muslim women. All the men they interviewed said that they would never force their wife to wear anything or do anything she didn't want to, but the women said it was non-islamic women who were the ones to be pitied- chained by the sense that they (we) are a sex parade for men. I think that's an interesting point of view. What I find far more disturbing is their view that non-islamic people are as dirt beneath their feet, according to their religion.

The thing is - you can look at an Extreme buddhist going around killing everyone and you can say 'My goodness- buddhism must be sooo bad!!' - but then you look at what he's going by scripture-wise and then you know 'Actually, he's simply NOT buddhist.' The same goes for many religions, including Christianity, Judaism, but NOT including Islam. You can look at their scripture and say 'Wait a second, it actually says that here.'

You will get extreme everything. But here, that is not the point.

Sparky
Able to entertain a thought without taking it home to meet the parents

#59 Hibblette

Hibblette
  • Islander
  • 4,228 posts

Posted 17 September 2006 - 04:48 PM

Quote

but the women said it was non-islamic women who were the ones to be pitied- chained by the sense that they (we) are a sex parade for men. I think that's an interesting point of view.

Interesting indeed.

The problem is though we Western non-Islamic Women usually speak our mind.  We can choose to not have children, we can even choose to go out on the street without a man hanging around us accusing us of flirting with every man we may talk with.

Whereas non-Islamic women are subjugated to men in no uncertain terms there must be a man in her life.  Young brides live in fear that they may not be fertile or that their husbands won't be because they know that no matter what they will be blamed for it.  

Actually they are only sexual objects to their men and we non-Islamic women may parade but we generally do it on our own terms.

Edited by Hibblette, 17 September 2006 - 04:48 PM.

"There are many ways of going forward, but there is only one way of standing still."  FDR explaining why Liberals are so often divided and Conservatives are so often united.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers

#60 Julianus

Julianus
  • Islander
  • 1,660 posts

Posted 17 September 2006 - 06:14 PM

Seems to me there is intellectual dishonesty on the part of moslems condemning the Pope, because they appear to be taking the words, a quote from a Byzantine emperor, out of context and making them the theme of the Pope's speech, which they were not. Rather I see it as an example of religious bigotry on their part.  Religions that have a "my way or the highway (if your lucky) foundation have a tendency for such bigotry.
I do get a chuckle when moslems throw up the Crusaders as examples of violent conquerors and persecutors. I don't think they could touch Tamerlane. Also, how did the moslems originally conquer Jerusalem? According to this site, it seems to have more to do with swords than palm fronds.
http://wonderfulathe....org/moslem.htm



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Religion, Catholicism, Pope Benedict, 2006, Speech

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users