Communism was merely an eighty year blip in the centuries old struggle between western civilization and Islam. Things are getting back to normal now.
I suspect that the abject apology will be forthcoming (if it hasn't been issued already), but I wish that Benedict would instead publicly pray for the consecration of Mecca.
Now THERE'S an interfaith effort I could get behind.
NO: publicly pray for the consecration of Mecca.
YES: publicly consecrate Mecca.
From one of my favorite commentators on the general subject:
Excerpts:
Jihad injures reason, for it honors a god who suffers no constraints on his caprice, unlike the Judeo-Christian god, who is limited by love. That is the nub of Pope Benedict XVI's September 12 address in Regensburg, Germany.
When a German-language volume appeared in 2003 quoting the same analysis by a long-dead Jewish theologian, I wrote of "oil on the flames of civilizational war". [1] Now the same ban has been preached from St Peter's chair, and it is a defining moment comparable to Winston Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech at Fulton, Missouri, in 1946.
The Islamic world now views the pontiff as an existential threat, and with reason. Jihad is not merely the whim of a despotic divinity, as the pope implied. It is much more: jihad is the fundamental sacrament of Islam, the Muslim cognate of the Lord's Supper in Christianity, that is, the unique form of sacrifice by which the individual believer communes with the Transcendent. To denounce jihad on theological grounds is a blow at the foundations of Islam, in effect a papal call for the conversion of the Muslims.
Just before then-cardinal Ratzinger's election as pope last year, I wrote, "Now that everyone is talking about Europe's demographic death, it is time to point out that there exists a way out: convert European Muslims to Christianity. The reported front-runner at the Vatican conclave ... Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, is one of the few Church leaders unafraid to raise the subject." [3] The Regensburg address oversteps the bounds of dialogue and verges upon the missionary. A great deal has changed since John Paul II kissed the Koran before news cameras in 1999.
In that respect [I wrote during the conclave] John Paul II recalled the sad position of Pius XII, afraid to denounce publicly the murder of Polish priests by Nazi occupiers - let alone the murder of Polish Jews - for fear that the Nazis would react by killing even more. It is hard to second-guess the actions of Pius XII given his terrible predicament, but at some point one must ask when the Gates of Hell can be said to have prevailed over St Peter.
(ctd)
(ctd)
Specifically, Benedict stated that jihad, the propagation of Islam by force, is irrational, because it is against the Reason of God. Citing a 14th-century Byzantine emperor to the effect that Mohammed's "decree that the faith he preached should be spread with the sword" as "evil and inhumane" provoked headlines. But of greater weight is the pope's observation that Allah is a god whose "absolute transcendence" allows no constraint, to the point that Allah is free if he chooses to promote evil. The great German-Jewish theologian Franz Rosenzweig explained the matter more colorfully than did the pope, as I reported three years ago in the cited review:
"The god of Mohammed is a creator who well might not have bothered to create. He displays his power like an Oriental potentate who rules by violence, not by acting according to necessity, not by authorizing the enactment of the law, but rather in his freedom to act arbitrarily ... Providence thus is shattered into infinitely many individual acts of creation, with no connection to each other, each of which has the importance of the entire creation. That has been the doctrine of the ruling orthodox philosophy in Islam. Every individual thing is created from scratch at every moment. Islam cannot be salvaged from this frightful providence of Allah ... despite its vehement, haughty insistence upon the idea of the god's unity, Islam slips back into a kind of monistic paganism, if you will permit the expression. God competes with God at every moment, as if it were the colorfully contending heavenful of gods of polytheism."
It is amusing to see liberal Jewish commentators in the United States, eg, the editorial page of the September 16 New York Times, deplore the pope's remarks, considering that Rosenzweig said it all the more sharply in 1920.
Jihad means the battle of daily virtue, and in a secondary meaning it means a battle in DEFENCE of believers under attack.
As cardinal, the pope enraged many people, such as Buddhists, when he said Buddism was "a kind of spiritual auto-eroticism" or women or Latin American liberation theology advocates etc etc. He sometimes issued statements that toned down the enraging remark but these were not given much publicity. He said his remark on Buddhism applied only to European Buddhists, for example. His apology is in the same vein.
Still totally obscure what prompted him to cite the offensive remark of Manuel II, which had little connection with the lecture he was giving.
Rosenzweig probably misses the rational scholastic branch of Islam. In Christianity there is a rational scholasticism that tones down the extreme arbitrariness of Predestination. There is not much difference between the two religions in their efforts to conciliate absolute divine freedom with rationality.
One nun dead in Mogadishu.
Perhaps her assassins were not rational scholastics.
"Jihad means the battle of daily virtue" -- hmm, sort of like avoiding nasty thoughts, or counting calories -- how completely commendable!
Seriously, what is more virtuous to the believer than spreading the gospel of Islam? By any and all means?
The contemporary jihad cult is of course disgusting. But it is not the teaching of the Koran.
There are lots of good pieces in The Guardian on this -- see the letters column, the intervention of the Archbishop of Canterbury and Karen Armstrong. http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/
s...1874785,00.html
One point Armstrong makes is that the Islam was not spread by violence and that Christianity was especially respected as a divinely ordained religion along with Judaism. Of course she may be gilding the lily.
This is also interesting: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
art...2360087,00.html
Hans Kung: Yes, well, Ratzinger was simply reflecting his limitations as a scholar. The unfortunate fellow didn't know what he was talking about.
Karen Armstrong: Islam was not spread by violence. It was spread by smiling pink cherubs with gossamer wings. These unconscionable acts of papist bullying must stop!
Thanks, Dan, that clears it up.
But Kung and Armstrong are leading scholars of Islam -- though to be sure with a liberal, anti-fundamentalistic ax to grind.
I do not know anything much about the history of Islam, but surely their words and those of many similar experts must carry some weight?
As noted previously, Islam needs to be "Crossanized". A historical review would eliminate the prophet's prophet status, his ride to Heaven and back, and those virgins responsible for all those jihad "crazies".
I have to give it to the Blossers - this is the second time that they seem to be pretty much be in sink with the leading edge of church hirachy.
Here we have a post and associated discussion regarding interfaith dialogue as well as the desires of some for firmer guidance - next thing you know along comes Pope Benedict and acts on both counts.
Feel better now?
Well Mr. Roister -Doister should notice how the Pope was forced to personally appologize by todays media environment - it seems to happen to all decent leaders these days by the way - one can perhaps project the Popes true limitations regarding the kind of forceful church reform you and likeminded folks favor. Do not expect 'clear' dictatorial 19 th century type encyclicals anytime soon.
Jihad is the fundamental sacrament of Islam ...
Sacrament ... Wow! That will take some time to digest. Ponder that one for a while, folks!
The likes of Crossan and Armstrong are intellectuals after a fashion. But that anyone should reference the likes of these as authorities in the fundamental conflict of Christianity and Islam is testament to the collective impoverishment of the moderately well-educated classes today -- those mass consumer markets, which is the same thing, to which marketers and distributers of such authors' books are typically aimed.
Read the Koran itself. Sura 9:5 -- "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them."
The O.T. contains a great deal of violence, however, there is not a single verse in the entire Bible that contains an open-ended, universal command to kill unbelievers.
It is true that one finds verses that seem to counter-balance those such as the above in the Koran, which are more popularly quoted by Muslims in conversations with Christians, such as Sura 2:256 -- "There shall be no compulsion in religion." Sounds nice enough to be congenial to a Vatican II Catholic, does it not? (Cf. also Suras 3:20; 6:107; and 16:125.)
However, the very same Sura that proclaims that there is "no compulsion in religion" also contains the following injunction: "Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme..." (Sura 2:193; cf. Sura 8:39).
It is popular today to focus on a revisionist interpretation of the Prophet's teaching, at least among interpreters of Islam in and for the West, which focuses on Islam as pacifistic religion, interpreting jihad exclusively as an inner, spiritual struggle, and the like. Unfortunately, this interpretation is belied by the later reality of the Prophet's own career, in which he turned furiously against the Jews and Christians who rejected him, preaching conquest by force. The historical details, once you begin delving into them, will curl the hair of those accustomed to excoreating Christianity for the mere Spanish Inquisition or Crusades.
"Jihad means the battle of daily virtue, and in a secondary meaning it means a battle in DEFENCE of believers under attack."
Yeah, so it is said. Some Muslims claim that, and seem to believe it. A lot of other Muslims say otherwise. Who should we believe? The Muslims who reject violence or the Muslims who indulge in violence on a regular basis.
When a Muslim puts a gun to your temple and tells you to confess belief in Allah and Muhammad as Allah's prophet, should you just remind him, "But don't you know that jihad means the battle of daily virtue, and in a secondary meaning it means a battle in DEFENCE of believers under attack???" You think that will establish your credentials as an authority on true Islam with him?
"Still totally obscure what prompted him to cite the offensive remark of Manuel II, which had little connection with the lecture he was giving."
Why don't you actually read the entire university lecture first before you wonder how Manuel's remark could have ended up in his lecture? On the other hand, if you have read the entire lecture but still don't understand, perhaps you ought to just admit that you're out of your element. The text of the lecture is its own explanation for how the Manuel quote ended up in the lecture and what it had to do with the ideas that the Pope was exploring.
Lastly, if you think poor, muddle-headed Karen Armstrong is an authority on Islam, I'm afraid you're sorely misinformed. She does, however, entertain beliefs that seem quite in line with Muslim theological conceptions of truth, though.
Dear Dan,
Please read Bet Ye'or's "The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam", then return and review your comments.
Christians would do themselves a great service if they, with underliner in hand, would study her books - yes study, not simply read.
Well, I did read the lecture, and it still seems an unnecessary quote.
Jews are always complaining about their treatment at Christian hands back in those days but I do not hear them complaining about their treatment at Muslim hands. But I would like to hear more about Muslim violence against Christians and Jews. The "infidels" they talk about in the Koran might just be local idol-worshippers in Arabia, like the Canaanite idol-worshippers in the Bible, maybe.
The president of Malaysia made a point about selective memory and claimed that Christianity was imposed by force in Europe at the start. Pagan temples disappeared just as Christian temples disappeared in places like Egypt.
I will look up Bet Yeor -- sounds interesting. I suppose the disappearance of Eastern Christianity cannot have been such a pretty story as Armstrong claims.
But Armstrong surely has credentials for her life of Mahommed -- or is it regarded as poor?
I googled for Bet Ye'or and she seems to be a Zionist ideologist.
She says things like this:
"Generations grew up within this political framework; they were educated and conditioned to support it and go along with it."
"This is the source of the strong anti-American feeling in Europe and of the paranoiac obsession with Israel, two elements that form the cornerstone of Eurabia."
But surely it is not true that De Gaulle's and the Catholic Church's openness to muslim immigrants etc. is the reason for anti-American feeling in Europe, which is mostly of more recent vintage.
Also Europeans do not have a paranoiac obsession with Israel.
Dhimmitude -- it sounds like the conditions Jews lived under in medieval Christian times -- but I think Jews sometimes say that they flourished better under muslim than Christian rulers.
Is there really much difference between the integrist policies of medieval catholics and medieval muslims?
Is there much difference between terrorist suicide bombers and American or Israeli bombers who bomb civilians from the skies? The pope says such violence is always wrong no matter what race or religion is doing it.
Sharp comments here http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/
s...1875791,00.html
But I would like to hear more about Muslim violence against Christians and Jews. The "infidels" they talk about in the Koran might just be local idol-worshippers in Arabia, like the Canaanite idol-worshippers in the Bible, maybe.
Dan, read W.N. Arafat, "New Light on the Story of Banu Qurayaza and the Jews of Medina," Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland (1976), pp. 100-107. Here's a quote: "As soon as these [local] tribes realized that Islam was being firmly established and gaining power, they adopted an actively hostile attitude, and the final result of the struggle was the disappearance of these Jewish communities from Arabia proper." If you read on, it's clear that this "disappearance" doesn't mean that they just packed up and left spontaneously, but was the result of what we would call ethnic cleansing and genocide. Another more accessible source I've already recommended on several occasions is Serge Trifkovic's The Sword of the Prophet (here, in particular, I would recommend ch. 1 for historical detail during the lifetime of Mohammed).
As to Bet Ye'or, she was, of course, an Egyptian who was stripped of her citizenship and had to seek refuge as a stateless refugee in England, before moving to Switzerland, after Cairo discovered she had Jewish ancestory.
"But I would like to hear more about Muslim violence against Christians and Jews. The 'infidels' they talk about in the Koran might just be local idol-worshippers in Arabia, like the Canaanite idol-worshippers in the Bible, maybe."
That's how it started, with Muhammad's use of military force to bring pagan Arabia under his political and religious sway (for with Muhammad and his follower, the political sphere and the religious sphere are one and the same thing -- there is no distinction between church and state is Islam the way there is in Christianity). The Muslim armies then took advantage of the vulnerable Persian and Roman Empires to bring jihad to Persia and the eastern territories of the Roman Empire. A combination of cultural, religious, and economic factors resulted in the loss of Syria, the Holy Land, and Egypt to the Caliph's armies, after which the Muslims reduced the non-Muslims to servitude and began the process of enticing and/or intimidating their inhabitants to accept Muhammad's invented religion.
"The president of Malaysia made a point about selective memory and claimed that Christianity was imposed by force in Europe at the start."
The President of Malaysia either is misinformed or else is knowingly misrepresenting Christian history. The Church existed in Europe for nearly 400 years before anything like force was ever used. Islam, however, was violent from the beginning and has remained so ever since. Jesus was the leader of 12 missionaries. Muhammad was the leader of an army. Jesus went to death without resisting. According to legend (which is almost all we have on the life and teachings of Muhammad), Muhammad began the "conversion" of Arabia by warning his fellow chiefs, "Submit/adopt Islam and you will have have peace." Violence in Christianity arose later and never had universal acceptance in the Church. Violence in Islam arose at the start and has had to be moderated somewhat by later adherent to Islam.
"Dhimmitude -- it sounds like the conditions Jews lived under in medieval Christian times -- but I think Jews sometimes say that they flourished better under muslim than Christian rulers."
Yes, Jews commonly say that, and in some times and places it was probably true. Reputedly it was Muslim Spain that was the place where Jews could flourish in medieval times, at least for a while -- though I think I've heard some Jews are questioning that traditional picture of Muslim Spain in regards to toleration for Judaism. But there's no doubt that medieval Europe ghettoised non-Christians and took harsh and sometimes bloody measures against heretical Christians.
"Is there much difference between terrorist suicide bombers and American or Israeli bombers who bomb civilians from the skies?"
Yes. Terrorist suicide bombers lack legitimate authority, and deliberately seek to murder non-combatants while murdering themselves. American and Israeli bombers have legitimate authority and do no
"Well, I did read the lecture, and it still seems an unnecessary quote."
It doesn't seem so to me. It reads like a perfectly natural part of the lecture and a legitimate point of departure for his exploration of the relationship of faith and reason. The quote in contention comes eight paragraphs into the lecture, and the flow and logical progression of the lecture is integrated and smooth:
Faith, Reason and the University
Memories and Reflections
Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is a moving experience for me to stand and give a lecture at this university podium once again. I think back to those years when, after a pleasant period at the Freisinger Hochschule, I began teaching at the University of Bonn. This was in 1959, in the days of the old university made up of ordinary professors. The various chairs had neither assistants nor secretaries, but in recompense there was much direct contact with students and in particular among the professors themselves. We would meet before and after lessons in the rooms of the teaching staff. There was a lively exchange with historians, philosophers, philologists and, naturally, between the two theological faculties.
Once a semester there was a "dies academicus," when professors from every faculty appeared before the students of the entire university, making possible a genuine experience of "universitas": The reality that despite our specializations which at times make it difficult to communicate with each other, we made up a whole, working in everything on the basis of a single rationality with its various aspects and sharing responsibility for the right use of reason -- this reality became a lived experience.
The university was also very proud of its two theological faculties. It was clear that, by inquiring about the reasonableness of faith, they too carried out a work which is necessarily part of the "whole" of the "universitas scientiarum," even if not everyone could share the faith which theologians seek to correlate with reason as a whole. This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: It had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God. That even in the face of such radical skepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: This, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.
I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by professor Theodore Khoury (Muenster) of part of the dialogue carried on -- perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara -- by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.
It was probably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, durin
It was probably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than the responses of the learned Persian. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Koran, 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 Koran.
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 ("diálesis" -- controversy) edited by professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that sura 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 Koran, 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 ("syn logo") is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats.... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...."
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 practi
Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry.
As far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we find ourselves faced with a dilemma which nowadays challenges us directly. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?
I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: "In the beginning was the 'logos.'"
This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts with logos. Logos means both reason and word -- a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist. The encounter between the biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance.
"Iraq Al Qaeda vows holy war
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/
cs...ol=968350060724
`You, West' face defeat, Pope told
Effigy of Benedict burned in Basra"
-
""We shall break the cross and spill the wine," said the posting Sunday on a site militants use."
==
"Jihad means the battle of daily virtue, and in a secondary meaning it means a battle in DEFENCE of believers under attack"
Thats not how a lot of muslims see it.
Dont you just love it when non-muslims (tony blair etc) like to tell muslims what they believe. Why dont you actually listen to what muslims themselves say and take that as the Islam they believe?
Crossan, Armstrong et al based on exhaustive research and reasoning, have updated the NT with respect to the historic actions, examples and sayings of Jesus and Paul. This is why Crossan and et al's books have been so successful. i.e. the "pew peasants" can now see the reality of the happenings in first century Palestine. The Vatican's silence about these authors and their conclusions adds significant credence to the reality.
This also allows the "pew peasants" to now see the true foundations of their Christianity. i.e. the historic Jesus, the whims of Pilate, the embellishments of the NT and Paul's epistles, the financial support of the Gentiles, and the swords of Constantine. Take away any of these pillars and there would be no Christianity. Was this all inspired by God? IMHO, no especially since God does not inspire men i.e. Pilate and Constantine's crosses and swords to use violence to achieve His goals.
Judaism is undergoing a similar search for its foundations as witnessed by over 1.5 million Conservative Jews who no longer believe in the historical OT. http://www.simpletoremember.com/
...vativeTorah.htm
Islam needs a similar foundation search. A good start (actually for all three religions) is to reduce Abraham to an embellished figure (or figures) or to the mythical zone.
"The Vatican's silence about these authors and their conclusions adds significant credence to the reality."
No, they dealt with (for example) Fr. Loisy many years back, then Fr. Kung, and Fr. Roger Haight more recently. These were made to stand as public examples. I think they even put Schillebeeckx mildly through the grinder at one point, with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issuing documents. Crossan and Armstrong don't even merit attention. That is the truth of the matter. Small fish.
The list you provided in another combox (09.16.06 - 12:01 pm) is made up of mainly non-Catholics, so no surprise to me that the Vatican is not apparently interested in them, or their individual scholarship.
As far as I know, Crossan is an ex-Catholic priest, and Armstrong is an ex-Catholic nun: but in any case, they say nothing really new; so to the CDF they are not worth the effort I suppose. Meier is a Catholic priest interested in (and doing) historical Jesus scholarship, - no official criticism (yet) that I know of, but I may be wrong. He does not seem to deny the Chalcedonian formula and other Christian doctrines, and from what little I know of him and his work (I know almost nothing about him, sorry), he does not apparently endorse the Jesus Seminar-type aspects or manifestations of the so-called ‘third quest’ scholarship. Perhaps he sees problems, and the limits. That said however, his provocative ‘Marginal Jew’ book title probably made some notice him.
==
Paul,
As not previously noted, the Vatican is still trying to decide on the simple issue of Limbo.
With this in mind, one can hardly expect them to respond to something significantly more complex like the historic Jesus movement that has been afoot for the last 200 years.
Still waiting for Paul's promised second coming but why be realistic when the Gentile money continues to pour in?
"Islam needs a similar foundation search. A good start (actually for all three religions) is to reduce Abraham to an embellished figure (or figures) or to the mythical zone."
I suggest Crossan get busy, and turn his rationalistic fundamentalism towards Islam. Maybe he can help Muslims 'prove' Jesus did not die on the cross. Crossan may not notice yet, but Christians have figured out that he is not much more than an old-fashioned (out-of-date) positivist with media savvy.
==
"With this in mind, one can hardly expect them to respond to something significantly more complex like the historic Jesus movement that has been afoot for the last 200 years."
You must be sleeping. Protestants and Catholics have been responding for the last 200 years. And not everything in the so-called "historic Jesus movement" is wrong from an orthodox Protestant and/or Catholic perspective. You should know that, but you do not seem to.
==
'And not everything in the so-called "historic Jesus movement" is wrong from an orthodox Protestant and/or Catholic perspective.'
Paul, that's an excellent point. N.T. Wright has shown that the "quest for the historical Jesus" can bear much good fruit. (See Wright's little book, The Contemporary Quest for Jesus [Fortress Press, 2002] for a nice survey of the "historic Jesus movement".) Again, it all depends on that a priori decision for or against faith. It is indeed a vain and barren scholarship that begins and ends by denying the faith of the Church, which has held and will always hold that the historical Jesus of Nazareth IS the Christ of faith.
Please note that the preceding comment is not meant to spark a new debate with Realist "my Mass" former Convergent. Been there, done that.
This morning I read two opinion pieces to this topic that got me thinking quite a bit.
http://www.startribune.com/562/s...ory/
685595.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/1...r=1&
oref=slogin
Seems to me Gwynne Dyer's makes a pretty good case that strong opinioned german Pope Benedict deliberatly infuriating the Muslims - which I would find very troubling if indeed true.
Certainly to conveniently not mention that our religion was busy conquering rather violently in the past is intellectually dishonest at best.
In truth, I might need to stay away from these comboxes for a while. It is healthy to take a break, and honestly I cannot stand to even cast so much as a glance any longer at Realist's revolting blasphemies about Gentile money and the "stolen" body of our Lord. It almost makes me miss Fr. Joseph O'Leary. Almost.
Way to pile on the Pope there, Grega.
Another good reason to take a break.
Au revoir, dudes.
Dave:
I think you make to much out of the 'my mass' comment - please read CfR's post again with a bit more charity - I do not think that the remark was meant to be as arrogant as you keep making it sound. And no CfR stands for an opinion within our faith that will not go away anytime soon - just like your own take on issues.
Thus enjoy that he does you guys the favor of going through the trouble and laying out a modern day real opinion/attitude/spiritual direction that is out there in catholic land.
You might not like it and perhaps you have plenty of reasons to disregard it - but it is not nuts - it is not all that extreme - it reflects just one more facet of our community.
Grega,
As far as I can tell from his writings, Realist is an apostate who stays in the Church for his own cynical amusement. Maybe I'm wrong. There is only so much you can tell about a person from his comments on a weblog.
You are more than welcome to defend the man. Go for it and godspeed, Grega.
See you later.
Dave:
"Way to pile on the Pope there, Grega."
Benedict clearly spoke in his capacity as an academic - which is secular as well as religious 'playground' thus he should not be surprised to get secular heat.
Benedict is a smart man - he knows exactly what he is doing. IMHO he clearly aims to end a certain type of interfaith dialogue started under JPII -
in the related combox you and others expressed your disdain for JPII's 'all religion have something good' - and god loves all people 'relativistic' shades of gray approach to this issue.
Here you have it - the start of a new more confrontational black and white approach.
No question this Pope will pick up a good number folks thatwait just very much for a crusader type confrontation with the other major world religion.
He wants to get folks particular in Europe to be more 'excited' about our religion and clearly is willing to offend folks like myself a bit here or there in order to create a new/old rallying cry - we are better than them/ we have the whole truth, we have Logos - let's show these 'irrational' Muslims .
While I am the first to admit that I am irritated very much by the fact that our muslim brothers and sisters seem not be able to clearly abstain from declarations of jihad and public violence- the catholic version of this is not any better.
Dave,
I have seen the light of reality. My only wish is that our Catholic Church would see the same light. I take no amusement in pointing out the obvious in the Church's real foundations. The orthodox foundations along with those of Judaism and Islam must be corrected to bring common sense to these three religions with the same God.
And in the words of James Somerville, "Religion can bring us to the verge, to the brink, but like Moses, who led his people to the Promised Land, but could not enter in, there is no place for religion in the world to come. Religion is our vehicle for the journey. Once arrived, it will be left at the door."
With respect to the "stolen body theory", I repeat: Money and the Church go back to the beginning according to Reimarus as referenced by R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue, http://www.amazon.com/.
"Reimarus, 1774-1778, posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."
See the book for added clarification of Reimarus views.
See also the many other thoughts about the Resurrection or lack thereof in the cited book and also Crossan and Borg's new book, (as per www.amazon.com)
The Last Week: A Day-by-Day Account of Jesus's Final Week in Jerusalem by Marcus J. Borg and John Dominic Crossan (Hardcover - Mar 1, 2006)
Buy new: $21.95 $14.93 In Stock
Used & new from $4.00
Other Edition(s): Paperback, Audio CD
Realist former Convergent,
are you having a conversation/discussion with Dave and others, or are you just dumping material into this combox? I for one do not need you to provide me with book prices for Crossan. Perhaps we need to get back on topic. It is partly my fault, sorry Pertinacious Papist.
Sad to report what I just read online: I understand Father John P. Meier is perhaps on very thin ice over the issue of the perpetual virginity of Mary. He denies it, or questions it; but I must confirm that this is in fact his position, by reading his books. Perhaps he has fallen through the ice after all. If the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith gives him a call, and brings him in for questioning, it will probably be over this issue/doctrine.
==
"Paul, that's an excellent point. N.T. Wright has shown that the "quest for the historical Jesus" can bear much good fruit. [...].
Thanks Dave.
"Again, it all depends on that a priori decision for or against faith. It is indeed a vain and barren scholarship that begins and ends by denying the faith of the Church, which has held and will always hold that the historical Jesus of Nazareth IS the Christ of faith."
Yes! Very well said. Thanks!
==
"See you later."
I hear you Dave. I hear you. Peace.
==
"and honestly I cannot stand to even cast so much as a glance any longer at Realist's revolting blasphemies about Gentile money and the "stolen" body of our Lord."
Yes, the Reimarus and Crossan 'stuff', coming from fake (?) or confused (?) 'Catholic' Christians (?) is perhaps too much to take. One needs gloves for this Reimarus 'stuff', and Crossan is a very rich man, from selling his religio-academic porn at top dollar. From my perspective, he has betrayed both his Church, his vocation, and his Lord. Sad.
"And no CfR stands for an opinion within our faith that will not go away anytime soon - just like your own take on issues.
Thus enjoy that he does you guys the favor of going through the trouble and laying out a modern day real opinion/attitude/spiritual direction that is out there in catholic land."
An opinion within the faith?! What a rotten worm-eaten faith that would be. You are not talking about the Catholic faith, no bloody way! NOT "our faith", your faith maybe - not mine. Sad. No wonder poor Dave needs a break from this combox. Dave, ignore them, and run for your life. I wonder, maybe it would be a lesser evil if ... because lukewarm and heretical liberal pseudo-Christianity leads to spiritual emptiness and zombism in modern-day 'catholic land'. It is a slow death.
==
" betrayed both his Church, his vocation, and his Lord"
Both? That would be three things, or one.
==
Dan,
Regarding the life of Mohhamned, read the just released book by Robert Spencer: see his site, Jihad Watch.
Perfect antidote to Armstrong.
Dan,
You're getting a lot of attention here! Hope you are enjoying the friendliness.
PP,
I apology for the giving the Amazon.com prices for some of the current historical Jesus books. My intention was to show how inexpensive they are and thereby affordable by all of us "pew peasants".
The intent was also to emphasize the importance of getting to the truth with respect to the foundations of all religions. These truths will go a long way in converging religions.
"Seems to me Gwynne Dyer's makes a pretty good case that strong opinioned german Pope Benedict deliberatly infuriating the Muslims - which I would find very troubling if indeed true."
Unfortunately the text of the lecture is incapable of supporting such an interpretation. Anyone who thinks Pope Benedict was baiting the Muslims knows nothing about what kind of a man the Pope is.
http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/
def..._clarifies.html
http://www.catholicexchange.com/...=1&
art_id=34473
Mr. Potter - let me clarify my opinion a bit:
Andrew Sullivan has a good take on this issue:
http://time.blogs.com/
daily_dish..._and_reaso.html
"The fact that the Pope has to apologize for intellectual engagement of a vital topic, while the West shrugs off the Muslim violence and murder that has ensued is a terrible portent in this civilizational struggle between fundamentalism and reasoned, humble faith."
What disturbes me is not that Benedict starts asking the right and proper questions to todays muslim leaders regarding the unacceptable way these leaders condemn folks like Salman Rushdi to death and let Jihadist and Holy Warrior reign pretty freely in their countries.
No - what disturbes me is that in an academic lecture he sets up a context that portrays the muslim religion in it's totality as irrational and violent. And yes I have to believe that Benedict indeed believes that Islam is inherantly a violent religion. Certainly Benedicts selective quote of the bat robs many modest elements in the muslim religion of most tools to engage and react to this lecture. And yes I believe Benedict choose this quote with care - he certainly failed to mention that our own church/civilization history is not spotless in the violence department.
What are moderate devout muslims suppose to say after you state that even 600 years ago reasonable people saw no good in your religion?
"No - what disturbes me is that in an academic lecture he sets up a context that portrays the muslim religion in it's totality as irrational and violent."
You're disturbed for no reason, because the text of the lecture shows no such context. He even cited the sura forbidding coercion in matters of religion -- hence, he did not set up a context that portrays Islam "in it's totality" as violent.
He does say (and this is something that can hardly be denied), that Islam does have a problem with violence and irrationality. But that's not to say that Islam is inherently and inescapably violent and irrational.
"And yes I have to believe that Benedict indeed believes that Islam is inherantly a violent religion."
That's perhaps because you haven't read everything that he has written and said about Islam. He's already on record saying that he believes Islam can be repaired and purified.
"And yes I believe Benedict choose this quote with care - he certainly failed to mention that our own church/civilization history is not spotless in the violence department."
He probably would have if that had been the topic of Professor Khoury's book. Let's not forget he was giving an academic lecture at the University of Regensburg. He was not preaching a homily or sermon. He was not speaking to a whole nation, or representatives of a religion. He was giving a lecture to fellow academics. It's just silly to demand that an academic lecture be structured like a homily or a popular address.
Really, if the Pope believes what you say or suggest he does, why does he deny it? Is he dissembling?
"What are moderate devout muslims suppose to say after you state that even 600 years ago reasonable people saw no good in your religion?"
They could say, "That's understandable they would think that, because our religion is, after all, erroneous and is plagued by the problem of divorcing reason from faith. We really do need to give up Islam and convert to Catholicism."
No, I'm not serious. But it is what they are supposed to say in response. It's the only proper response possible.
". . . interpreting jihad exclusively as an inner, spiritual struggle"
Well PP, suicide bombing is a totally individual method of inner purification (by spreading one's innards across the landscape), so if the "proper" concept of jihad is that of "inner, spiritual struggle", self-annihilation in the name of Allah seems a totally refined and proper action. Personally, I think the extremists have the better of the argument.
Doister, Pertinacious concedes the logic of your rebuttal: truly, "spreading one's innards across the landscape" raises the refinement of syllogistic inference to rarefied heights.
I talked this evening with the President of Romania, who gave medals to a group of religion scholars. His talk on the necessity of religious dialogue and of holding one's tongue when one might give offence to the religious other was very inspiring, and was based on Romania's long experience of religious pluralism. I could not but reflect, sadly, that my former teacher Pope Benedict may blow the precious legacy of John Paul II who reached out to Muslims with understanding, appreciation and friendship.
Gwynne Dwyer writes: "So now we know that the new pope is a parochial and intolerant man -- but anybody who paid attention to Cardinal Ratzinger's previous career knew that already. Now he is in a position to do much more damage."
Why are the bishops and theologians of the world silent now? Because they know what Gwynne knows.
Anybody want to jump on this?:
His talk on the necessity of religious dialogue and of holding one's tongue when one might give offence to the religious other was very inspiring,
Anybody?
If Jesus had only engaged in religious dialogue with the Jewish authorities, and had held His tongue instead of giving so much offence to the religious other, He wouldn't have been crucified.
Lesson: Don't tell the truth. It may get you or someone else killed.
Even if what Benedict quoted were true, that Mahomet had brought only things "evil and inhuman", which it isn't --- as his clarification admits ---, people in public office must know that there are limits to what one may say when one respects the other -- as the President of Romania admirably put it, speaking from long Romanian experience, last night.
The anti-Jewish rhetoric in Matthew and John does not go back to Jesus himself, and it has had a terrible effect down through history. The anti-Catholic rhetoric of Protestants and the anti-Protestant rhetoric of Catholics, kept alive on this site, has also had murderous effects. True religionists today invoke the past to do penance for the offences of their own tradition. Today it is Catholics who remember the St Bartholomew's day massacre -- to repent, not to gloat; it is Lutherans who brood on Luther's evil comments on the Jews. Remember what Jesus said about being reconciled with your brother.
"I hope that on several occasions during the visit [to Germany] . . . my deep respect for great religions, in particular for Muslims - who worship the one God and with whom we are engaged in defending and promoting together social justice, moral values, peace and freedom for all men - has emerged clearly," Benedict said yesterday.
From a Catholic Christian perspective, by what account is Islam a "great" religion? To convert to Islam is cut oneself off from Jesus Christ; it is to explicity deny Christ as Lord and Savior; it is to deny the Holy Spirit, by whom we are enabled to call Jesus Lord; it is to make a solemn decision to never again worship the Holy Trinity. Can someone please explain how a Christian can properly use the word "great" to describe such a religion?
"The anti-Jewish rhetoric in Matthew and John does not go back to Jesus himself,"
You're welcome to your personal opinion, but the Church believes otherwise (not that there is any 'anti-Jewish rhetoric' in the Bible, of course, since the New Testament was written by Jews).
"and it has had a terrible effect down through history."
No, it's the misintepretation and misapplication of texts wrongly thought to be anti-Jewish that had the terrible effect.
"Can someone please explain how a Christian can properly use the word 'great' to describe such a religion?"
It's great in the sense that it is very old, is the religion of a very large chunk of the human race, and has had major influence on the development of civilisations. It is also great in that it has, despite it's numerous pernicious errors, encouraged virtuous things such as prayer and charitable activities, and has had notable thinkers or writers throughout history.
By the analogy, consider that we commonly refer to "Alexander the Great," even though he was a self-deifying warrior king whose primary achievement was the conquest of the greatest empire on earth at that time. Nevertheless, his achivement and his vision was great, and his influence on the world continues to this day.
In other words, "great" does not mean "true" or "good."
SV2,
This site's "murderous effects" has killed whom?
Murderous effects of anti-Protestant rhetoric as cultivated by this site? See Northern Ireland (most killing done by Catholics), also massacres and intimidation of Protestants (resulting in a mini-ethnic cleansing) in the south of Ireland after independence in 1922. Further back see French wars of religion, executions of Protestants under Mary Tudor, the Inquisition (as far afield as India), St Bartholomew's day massacre, revocation of Edict of Nantes.
"You are of your father the devil" is what Jesus says to "the Jews" in John 8. The Church does NOT believe that these are the ipsissima verba Jesu -- it has long distanced itself from such fundamentalist literalism. See "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church" 1994.http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/
PBCINTER.HTM
Benedict has expressed his deep respect of Islam -- to say that it is not true or good (not participating in a ray of that divine Word that enlightens all humans) is contrary not only to the teaching of Paul VI, Benedict XVI and John Paul II but also that of Vatican II. It is a sententia haeresi proxima!
Nostra Aetate 3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.
Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.
FORGET THE PAST -- if only Benedict XVI had remembered that at Regensburg!
"The Church does NOT believe that these are the ipsissima verba Jesu"
But the Church does believe they are the divinely inspired and inerrant words of God, and therefore are true and accurately hand onto us the things that Jesus really said and taught.
As for the 1994 PBC document, it is not a doctrinal, magisterial statement of the Church, but is the expert opinions and advice of a group of talented exegetes and Bible scholars. If "the Church" were distancing itself from what you prefer to smear as the "fundamentalist literalism" taught by Popes Leo XIII, Benedict XV, and Pius XII, then there need to be some papal encyclicals or apostolic constitutions plainly saying so. Even if that PBC document justified your practical rejection of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, it wouldn't rise to the level of anything binding on a Catholic.
Anyway, you still haven't found any "anti-Jewish" statements in the the Gospels of Saints Matthew and John. Jesus pointing out that a group of Jews (probably among the recognised religious leaders in Judaea) who were temporarily His disciples were, because of their rejection of His doctrine and desire to kill him, of their father the Devil, is not an "anti-Jewish" statement. Jews arguing with other Jews over life-and-death religious matters is not anti-Judaism or anti-Semitism.
Stop reading the Bible like a liberal Protestant and start reading it like Catholic.
"Benedict has expressed his deep respect of Islam -- to say that it is not true or good (not participating in a ray of that divine Word that enlightens all humans) is contrary not only to the teaching of Paul VI, Benedict XVI and John Paul II but also that of Vatican II. It is a sententia haeresi proxima!"
Whether or not it's sententia haeresi proxima to claim that Islam does not participate in a ray of the divine Word (I'd be a lot more confident of that if an orthodox priest said so and explained why), no one in this commentbox said Islam is wholly evil and has not even a shred of good. Someone wondered how it is possible to call it a "great" religion in light of the fact that it deprives one of grace and is a form of spiritual and religious slavery, but that's hardly the same as saying there is no good in Islam at all.
Worship of the God of Abraham, reverence for Jesus and Mary, and all the other blessings of Islam listed by Vatican II certainly do not deny one of grace. Before smearing others, reflect that fundamentalism is a royal road to heterodoxy.
Saints Matthew and John??? These good fellows, I believe, are not the same as the Gospel authors but were two of the original Twelve?
Most of John's Gospel is suspect with respect to historic accuracy.
Ditto for Matthew 27:25.
"Worship of the God of Abraham, reverence for Jesus and Mary, and all the other blessings of Islam listed by Vatican II certainly do not deny one of grace."
But denying the Holy Trinity, denying the Incarnation, denying that Jesus is the seal of the Prophets, denying the Crucifixion, denying the Atonement, and denying that there is no other salvific name under heaven by the holy name of Jesus, those certainly do deprive one of grace.
"Before smearing others, reflect that fundamentalism is a royal road to heterodoxy."
Thanks for the advice. I'll try to remember it if I ever find myself in a situation where the advice is relevant.
"Saints Matthew and John??? These good fellows, I believe, are not the same as the Gospel authors but were two of the original Twelve?"
Whereas I believe, with the Fathers of Vatican II, that the Evangelists are the same as those two of the original twelve apostles, Saints Matthew and John. It's the only tradition of authorship that the Church has ever had, and it was already firmly established and unquestioned by the first half of the second century A.D., at a time when eyewitnesses of the apostles were still alive. There is actually more evidence to support that tradition than there is to support the tradition that Tacitus was the author of the Annals and Histories.
Divine grace is poured into every heart since the beginning of time -- the Word that enlightens all men is at work in the truth and holiness found in all great religions.
From Raymond Brown ( An Introduction to the New Testament, 1997, Church approved via Nihil obstat and Imprimatur, "free of docturnal or moral error", Doubleday, NY. )
Matthew's Gospel, 80-90 AD/CE, Author, Traditional, a tax collector and one of the twelve apostles.
Author detectable from the contents: "A Greek-speaker, who knew Aramaic or Hebrew or both and was not an eye-witness of Jesus' ministery, drew on Mark and collection of sayings fo the Lord (Q) as well as other available traditions oral or written. Probably a Jewish Christian."
John's Gospel: 80-110 AD/CE,
Traditional: Son of Zebedee, one of the twelve apostles.
Detectable from the Contents: One who regards himself in the tradition of the Apostle John. Plausibly, there was school of Johnanne writing disciples.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Aut...Johannine_works for a detailed review of the authorship of John's Gospel.
"Pakistani clerics, scholars want pope removed
POSTED: 1715 GMT (0115 HKT), September 21, 2006
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORL...kistan.pope.ap/
LAHORE, Pakistan (AP) -- About 1,000 clerics and religious scholars at a meeting in eastern Pakistan demanded the removal of the pope for making "insulting remarks" against Islam, and warned the West of severe consequences if it didn't change its stance regarding Islam."
"The "Pope, and all Infidels, should know that no Muslim, under any circumstances, can tolerate an insult to the Prophet (Muhammad).... If the West does not change its stance regarding Islam, it will face severe consequences," it said."
==
The solution is to remove the "prophet's" prophet status by correct historical analyses of Mohammed.
And even easier solution is to have everyone (i.e. all global citizens) agreeing to Schillebeeckx's conclusion that even God does not know the future.
Future is a gift from God. Since God does not know the future, then necessarily there can be no prophets or prophecies.
RfC, if you were in charge of the world, would you make all the global citizens subscribe to this idea? Would you?
Kathy,
I would, if I could but could not because there is always that 10% 
and that other God-gift of free will.
A "prophet-free" world would however solve a lot of problems and make life a lot simpler theologically.
RfC:
'..agreeing to Schillebeeckx's conclusion that even God does not know the future.'
Sounds like a bunch of speculative ballony to me.
The hubris of a 'conclusion' that 'god does not know the future' ... for crying out loud are you serious?
Makes me very much appreciate the soundness and clarity of Benedicts thoughts as expressed in this great speech ( besides the unnecessary needling of the muslims).
Joseph Ratzinger, The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood, pp. 87-88: “there is no appropriate category in Catholic thought for the phenomenon of Protestantism today (one could say the same of the relationship to the separated churches of the East). It is obvious that the old category of ‘heresy’ is no longer of any value. Heresy, for Scripture and the early Church, includes the idea of a personal decision against the unity of the Church, and heresy’s characteristic is pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way. This, however, cannot be regarded as an appropriate description of the spiritual situation of the Protestant Christian. In the course of a now centuries-old history, Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian, whose separation from the Catholic affirmation has nothing to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy. Perhaps we may here invert a saying of St. Augustine’s: that an old schism becomes a heresy. The very passage of time alters the character of a division, so that an old division is something essentially different from a new one. Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature, with which the individual is presented as his church and in which he lives as a believer, not as a heretic. This organization of one group, however, ultimately has an effect on the whole. The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined.”
Grega,
When you get time, review Father Schillebeeckx's thinking/conclusions in his book, "Church: The Human Story of God", Crossroad, p.91,1993 (softcover). He has some interesting conclusions about Hell in the same book. Warning: As with all of Schillebeeckx's writings, the book has a lot of "theospeak".
After reading the book, hopefully you will see that the "God-gifts" of Free Will and Future are necessarily interlinked.
IMHO, "prophecies" have been chosen to embellish religions resulting in false claims for dominance. These false projections need to be deleted to bring us back to the reality that there is no religion in the spirit-state of Heaven.
I agree that biblical prophecy is very rarely concerned with specific predictions of future events, and when it is so concerned the prophecies are after the event (as in the Book of Daniel). The prophecies of Fatima are par for the course as far as magical prediction is concerned: they are either false (premature declaration of the ending of World War I), after the event (Lucia's revelation of an alleged prediction of the Second World War) or totally obscure (the third secret -- does anyone really believe it was a prediction of the attempted assassination of John Paul II?).
I want to retract an earlier statement about the Persian source of early Christian eschatological patterns (protology, Middle of time, eschatology) -- the influence may have been in the opposite direction according to many scholars.
The title of Prophet, applied to Muhammad, does not have anything to do with predicting the future as far as I know. Any info on this?
Spirit,
Googlize your question about Mohammed being a prophet. Interesting commentary from all sides. Using the search term
Prophecies Mohammed Prophet
resulted in over 500,000 Google references.
IMHO, Schillebeeckx's conclusion about God not knowing the future vitiates any of the commentary.
I see that there is indeed a flurry of "fulfilled predictions" lore around Muhammad. But at first glance it does not look terribly impressive. It is hardly the basis of his title as the Prophet, is it?
Spirit,
As with the OT and post-OT prophets, Mohammed was a member of FFPA aka the Fortunes for "Prophets" Association. I believe the name was changed to Fortune Telling for Profit Association sometime during the Age of Enlightenment/Reason.
I saw a good program on CNN, "In God's Name", in which a Saudi princess spoke well of Islam as the religion of compassion. Five times a day they invoke God as al rahmai al rahimi, the Merciful the Compassionate. She deplored that we know so little of one another. In Paris there are great numbers of books that can close this deadly information gap but in no other country can one find a wide range of literature on Islam. Of course Islam is rebarbative on first contact -- as all religions are -- but we have got to make an effort to break the crust and grasp the pith of this "great religion", this "peaceful religion" as G W Bush calls it.
al rahmai SHD BE al rahmani
RfC,
Would you, if you could, force everyone to believe that God does not know the future?
"Why Benedict XVI Did not Want to Fall Silent or Backpedal
If in Regensburg the pope cited the dialogue between the emperor of Byzantium and his Muslim adversary, he did so with deliberation. His thesis is that – then as now – religion must wed itself, not with violence, but with reason. An analysis by Pietro De Marco and a commentary by Lucetta Scaraffia
http://www.chiesa.espressonline....?id=85302&
eng=y
by Sandro Magister"
==
That was me, Ephrem = my pen name. Also the name I sometimes use on hyperactive reactionary blogs where anybody who has a woman's name and doesn't toe the anti-feminist rhetorical line is instantly labelled as as a feminazi womanpriest. And we all know better than that!
Um, okay, Ephrem, I guess it's nice to know that you're Ephrem. Or are you saying that you're Paul Borealis, or Lucetta Scaraffia? Surely you're not Father O'Leary, are you?
Ephrem aka ?,
As noted previously,
I would, if I could but could not because there is always that 10% and that other God-gift of free will.
A "prophet-free" world would however solve a lot of problems and make life a lot simpler theologically.
Sorry. Duh. That was me.
Realist: simpler schflimpler.
Ralph:
No prophet, no warning to unrepentant sinners, no chance for repentance, no forgiveness of sin, hell-fire and brimstone upon all of us a very long time ago.
Surely this is simpler than God trying to get us to repent of our sins?
The title of the Prophet refers to Muhammad's role of speaking to humans on behalf of God -- it has little to do with predictions of the future and everything to do with revealing the nature of God as the merciful, the compassionate etc. In a sense there is nothing new in his reaching; it is the "seal" of what earlier prophets had revealed. Christianity could accept what Muhammad said directly about God, while agreeing to differ about the Trinity and the Incarnation. Muhammad did us the service of recalling the original dynamic of prophetic monotheism at a time when it was in danger of being obscured by ecclesiastical controversy about dogmas.
Why o why are you still lurking around? Certainly you must have better things to do?
Kathy:
" Why o why are you still lurking around? Certainly you must have better things to do?"
You are a gradutae student?
I find your lack of curiosity stunning - what kind of game is this anyway you play with your name.
"That was me, Ephrem = my pen name. Also the name I sometimes use on hyperactive reactionary blogs where anybody who has a woman's name and doesn't toe the anti-feminist rhetorical line is instantly labelled as as a feminazi womanpriest."
Are you telling us that you have to hide behind a male name here?
Give me a break - honestly this is not necessary in Blosser Blog country.
Grega, believe it or not, Haloscan is used by weblogs all over the internet, and if you type in a name at one weblog that uses Haloscan, when you hop right over to another one that uses Haloscan, the name you entered will still be there. Obviously that's what Kathy did. She wasn't talking about this weblog, but other ones where she posts comments.
Thanks, Jordan.
Thanks Jordan
At your service, milady and milord!
Commenting by HaloScan
