Political Crossfire Forums

[lovebush]

superskippy wrote: I never said they did follow with the teachings of Christ. But there are Christian terrorists.

If they dont follow the teachings of Christ why do you consider them Christians?

[superskippy]

Then how can you describe any religous terrorist as Muslim, Sikh, or anything? Since in engaging in these actions they automatically violate the core tenents of their beleifs. Along that vein of argument there are no Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Sikh etc, terrorists. Only ex-Christian, ex-Jewish, ex-Islamic, etc terrorists. Which while may be philosphically true remains a silly dispute of semantics.

[Snake]

Meh, it's what they call themselves. It's the pick and choose syndrome. But really, I haven't seen as many organized acts of violence from any other group. When the pope quotes a previous quote, there are riots, effegies burned, a nun killed. Look at the recent conflict between hezbolah and Isreal, wtf? They blow up trucks, kidnap two soldiers, after killing the rest, and start launching rockets into civilian populations. What the hell are they thinking? That this kind of sh*t is going to somehow better their lives?

[jeechoscopy]

el_hombre_de_Dios wrote: jeechoscopy wrote: Whatever his speech was, intellectual or fractous, desolated the chance of healthy conversation between the two religions.

The more the responsible personalites would behaving the way, the less a chance of a successful dialogue would be there.


Show me a responsible person of Muslim world of the day who hit a religion the way Pope did.

He didn't do it in the first place. His speech was about how violence is incompatible with the nature of God. He was using the quote as a reference, not as a statement to support his views.

Islam needs to get a life instead of living as if it were in a perpetual chump complex. It seems that any word or statement given cross wise that confronts its duplicity sets off another jihad. :lol:


So you know how jihad works.... :lol:

Let's hope and see what Pope does for preparing a better invironment.

[lovebush]

superskippy wrote: Then how can you describe any religous terrorist as Muslim, Sikh, or anything? Since in engaging in these actions they automatically violate the core tenents of their beleifs. Along that vein of argument there are no Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Sikh etc, terrorists. Only ex-Christian, ex-Jewish, ex-Islamic, etc terrorists. Which while may be philosphically true remains a silly dispute of semantics.

I wish that were true, but its not. the Qur'an has over 100 references to Jihad and the modern jihadist has many references about the history of their prophet to justify their actions by comparing them to his. So many religions including Christianity have had times when followers strayed from the teaching and became violent. but islam is actually returning to the fundamentals. this is not to say that there are not peaceful muslims, but they are less vocal and less effective at making their case for peace than the jihadist.

[CountryGuy]

jeechoscopy wrote: Whatever his speech was, intellectual or fractous, desolated the chance of healthy conversation between the two religions.

The more the responsible personalite are behaving the way, the less a chance of a successful dialogue would be there.


Show me a responsible person of Muslim world of the day who hit a religion the way Pope did.

So... Everyone needs to censor their speech in order to salvage Islam's delicate sensibilities? Even when the point being made is a peaceful one, and not against Islam (you do know that as part of that speech, the Pope rejected the comments, right -- Using it as a point to the contrary?)

And define "responsible". Would the Ayatollah of Iran count, given he is the spiritual leader of MILLIONS of muslims?

[jeechoscopy]

CountryGuy wrote: jeechoscopy wrote: Whatever his speech was, intellectual or fractous, desolated the chance of healthy conversation between the two religions.

The more the responsible personalite are behaving the way, the less a chance of a successful dialogue would be there.


Show me a responsible person of Muslim world of the day who hit a religion the way Pope did.

So... Everyone needs to censor their speech in order to salvage Islam's delicate sensibilities? Even when the point being made is a peaceful one, and not against Islam (you do know that as part of that speech, the Pope rejected the comments, right -- Using it as a point to the contrary?)

And define "responsible". Would the Ayatollah of Iran count, given he is the spiritual leader of MILLIONS of muslims?

It would be better if you quote Ayatollah Khamini for the stroke to a religion.

This article explains some better with questions like why the Pope used the quote...
Sailing to Byzantium wrote: BERLIN The pope has apologized. That's truly remarkable: Pious popes may go to confession, but they don't generally make public apologies.

True, Benedict hasn't actually admitted he did anything wrong, but he has said he's sorry that his remarks on violence and Islam in a lecture at Regensburg University were "misconstrued" and that they hurt Muslims. The press seems to have decided that this is an "apology". And most Muslim leaders have accepted it as such.

The apology was necessitated by the violent reaction in the Muslim world to the pope's quoting the 14th-century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus on the subject of Christianity and Islam: "Show me just what Muhammad 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 question remains: Why did he do it in the first place? Why did Benedict begin a lecture on faith and reason by quoting an obscure emperor?

Manuel II Paleologus (1350-1425) was one of the last Christian rulers of Byzantium. He was the father of the last Byzantine emperor, Constantine XI, who is revered by Greek Orthodox Christians as a saint. During Manuel II's reign, the Turks had conquered most of the Byzantine provinces, devastated and pillaged Greek cities, and enslaved thousands of Christian women and children. In 1394, the sultan laid siege to Constantinople, inflicting hunger and suffering on the Christian residents of the city for eight years. Naturally, the emperor had a rather jaundiced view of Islam. So why did the pope quote Manuel II as an authority on jihad?

Benedict is planning to visit Turkey in November. Now, this is the man who, as chief theologian of the Catholic Church, said Turkey had no place in the European Union and should rather join a league of Muslim states.

It would seem therefore that he is not going to Turkey because he views that country as a bridge between the Middle East and Europe, as Ankara likes to present itself. And it is not even dialogue with Muslims that Benedict will be seeking in Istanbul - though he does see that as an urgent political issue. The main purpose of his trip is to visit the most senior cleric of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I.

The patriarch is the chief spokesman of the Eastern Orthodox communion. And his most important function is to preserve the unity of the eastern church, just as the pope's main function is to preserve the unity of the western church.

Benedict has an ambitious agenda. He wants to reclaim Europe for Christianity. That project may seem unrealistic, but a first step would be to reunite divided Christians. In the pope's view, theological differences between Catholicism and Protestantism are so great that little progress can be expected on that front. But Eastern Orthodoxy, the second largest Christian communion in the world after the Roman Catholic Church, is a different matter.

There are no major theological differences separating the two communions. Some form of reunion is not only feasible; from Benedict's point of view, it is highly desirable.

Benedict has a natural affinity to many aspects of the Eastern Orthodox tradition. He has criticized attempts in his own church during the 20th century to modernize the liturgy; the Eastern Orthodox liturgies have resisted reform. The pope has criticized the historical- critical approach to biblical studies; Eastern Orthodox scholars are equally skeptical of this "scientific" approach to scripture.

So what is keeping them apart? Over the centuries, the disagreement between the two communions has mainly focused on papal claims to authority and precedence. Significantly, Benedict dispensed with the traditional papal title Patriarch of the West at his election - as though to remove that difficulty.

The pope is 79 and in poor health. He knows that he won't live to see his dream of a re-evangelized Europe come true. But the first step in that agenda - unity with the Eastern Orthodox communion - appears within his grasp. His reference to the beleaguered Byzantine emperor Manuel II will have been understood by the world's 240 million Eastern Orthodox Christians as a dramatic gesture of solidarity.

I believe it was a calculated risk. In November the pope will meet Patriarch Bartholomew I, and no doubt he will receive a warm welcome.

Was there NOT another quote that could be used for the Christian Union?

[CountryGuy]

You are quoting an analysis as if its the actual reason. They are two different things. And you haven't answered the question as to if you support censorship to placate Islam?

[jeechoscopy]

CountryGuy wrote: You are quoting an analysis as if its the actual reason. They are two different things. And you haven't answered the question as to if you support censorship to placate Islam?

No, I don't support that banning or censorship. It's been healthier and must only be the healthier... criticism is only on the worst points.

Should criticism be censored to placate Christianity?

Hope you too, disagree!!

[CountryGuy]

jeechoscopy wrote: CountryGuy wrote: You are quoting an analysis as if its the actual reason. They are two different things. And you haven't answered the question as to if you support censorship to placate Islam?

No, I don't support that banning or censorship. It's been healthier and must only be the healthier... criticism is only on the worst points.

Should criticism be censored to placate Christianity?

Hope you too, disagree!!

Criticism is one thing -- destruction and murder is something completely different.

[Snake]

jeechoscopy wrote: Should criticism be censored to placate Christianity?
Hope you too, disagree!! Funny, I don't see christians rioting, burning effegies, screaming "death to [insert foible here]" Everytime some idiot says something inflamatory, like (perfect example) when Rosie O'Donnel said that Christians are murderous and violent (paraphrasing, because I can't remember the exact words) you didn't see rioting in the streets and murdering and christians kidnapping people and cutting their heads off so they could show the tape of the murder all over the internet, no, instead, people said STFU and went about their day.

[jeechoscopy]

CountryGuy wrote: jeechoscopy wrote: CountryGuy wrote: You are quoting an analysis as if its the actual reason. They are two different things. And you haven't answered the question as to if you support censorship to placate Islam?

No, I don't support that banning or censorship. It's been healthier and must only be the healthier... criticism is only on the worst points.

Should criticism be censored to placate Christianity?

Hope you too, disagree!!

Criticism is one thing -- destruction and murder is something completely different.

Criticism on destruction and murder is one thing and ignoring invasions and slaughters in a perceived enemy's countries is another thing.

The Pope did not criticize on his own followers in the name of preaching the reasonable God and faith. This is the criticism exposes the unreasonable use of quote, while his own followers are breaking the records of murders ever made in history. His followers slaughtered 3 million Muslims from Bosnia to Afghanistan, during the last 15 years.

Unfortunately he chose when Muslims are killed in their own streets by the Pope-loving invaders. If God is with the murderers and invaders who is with those are slaughtered, before they hear Pope's comments that God is love?

If Pope doesn’t want the recent wars where is his freedom of speech's right?
Can he call Bush evil or inhuman?

If pope chooses to be hypo critic, should you too, be?

I’m very sorry that you have not perceived that what should be and what should not be in the circumstances where Muslim countries are under attack by the people call themselves Christians.

A fear of civilizational clash is in my Mind.

jeechoscopy wrote: Kamel wrote: Should criticism be censored to placate Christianity?
Hope you too, disagree!!
Funny, I don't see christians rioting, burning effegies, screaming "death to [insert foible here]" Everytime some idiot says something inflamatory, like (perfect example) when Rosie O'Donnel said that Christians are murderous and violent (paraphrasing, because I can't remember the exact words) you didn't see rioting in the streets and murdering and christians kidnapping people and cutting their heads off so they could show the tape of the murder all over the internet, no, instead, people said STFU and went about their day.

Christians don't need to do all that... their political and religious leaders are doing the perfect job to maintain the peace (for themselves) by mass destruction and mass aggression (for others.)

If it is possible, give balance a chance, unfortunately that is not seen in the world we breath together but think different.

I don't want to spew out this way, because I'm afraid that we Muslims and Christians need more favorable environment than ever. And this kind of debate creates hurdles toward healthy dialogues. If I’m a responsible citizen of this global village I must be care other religions, in spite of that whatever I personally think about them.

[lovebush]

[quote="jeechoscopy"][

Quote: use , while his own followers are breaking the records of murders ever made in history. His followers slaughtered 3 million Muslims from Bosnia to Afghanistan, during the last 15 years.

What are you talking about?

Quote: Unfortunately he chose when Muslims are killed in their own streets by the Pope-loving invaders. If God is with the murderers and invaders who is with those are slaughtered, before they hear Pope's comments that God is love?

The pope is not the leader of all Christians and He is against war. Our religious leaders dont call for war. that is a muslim thing.

Quote:
I’m very sorry that you have not perceived that what should be and what should not be in the circumstances where Muslim countries are under attack by the people call themselves Christians.

In Kosovo, it was th US that bombed the Christians, to stop them from killing the muslims. I guess that doesnt get on the news where you live.

Quote: A fear of civilizational clash is in my Mind.

it should be, in all of our minds. When your religious leaders, lead chants of DEATH TO AMERICA! that is ok with you, but you dont like what the Pope said, yet he was against violence.

[Snake]

Quote: Christians don't need to do all that... their political and religious leaders are doing the perfect job to maintain the peace (for themselves) by mass destruction and mass aggression (for others.) As do yours

Quote: If it is possible, give balance a chance, unfortunately that is not seen in the world we breath together but think different. Balance must be acheived by both sides. As long as the Muslim sheiks say things like "the only dialog we will accept is when all religions convert to Islam" and call for death and destruction of the 'infadels', this problem cannot be resolved.

Quote: I don't want to spew out this way, because I'm afraid that we Muslims and Christians need more favorable environment than ever. And this kind of debate creates hurdles toward healthy dialogues. If I’m a responsible citizen of this global village I must be care other religions, in spite of that whatever I personally think about them. It's not only Christians and Muslims, but all religions. The three religions that acknowledge Abraham and Isaac are one and the same. We all believe in the one true God. You, me, us, them, we're no different. The followers of other religions are no different either. We all breathe and bleed. We need food, water, shelter, and the freindship of others. Why can't Islam offer it's hand in freindship to the rest of the world unconditionally?

[lovebush]

Kamel wrote: [ It's not only Christians and Muslims, but all religions. The three religions that acknowledge Abraham and Isaac are one and the same. We all believe in the one true God. You, me, us, them, we're no different. ?

NO NO NO! Islam is NOTHING like Judism or Christianity!

[Snake]

Dude, I'm trying to open a serious conversation.

[Snake]

I'm curious as to why the Muslims call for our death when the Qu'ran states not to persecute or hold a grudge against christians or jews because they are all following the same God, and that only God is allowed to pass judgement upon them.

[no.1]

Less than 12% of American Catholics even believe in what the church teaches let alone try to live by it regularly. By 12% I mean only 12% believe in transubstantiation which is the core belief of the Catholic church. The other 88% are not truly catholic, they just have officially chosen another religion yet.

[Lumina]

no.1 wrote: Less than 12% of American Catholics even believe in what the church teaches let alone try to live by it regularly. By 12% I mean only 12% believe in transubstantiation which is the core belief of the Catholic church. The other 88% are not truly catholic, they just have officially chosen another religion yet.

Produce a legit link please. And define "American Catholic." If you are referring to the "American Catholic" movement, this is a heretical, renegade group.

[mODULAR mAN]

lovebush wrote:
As for "Christian violence", google it. then google "muslim violence" there is no comparisan. and most of the hits...

Fallacy alert! This is a form of "Red Herring" Fallacy. It makes an illogical connection between the number of times one thing is mention to another, asserting that this means something.

It is, specifically, an:
Appeal to Popularity
Argument by Consensus
Argumentum ad Populum
Authority of the Many