|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
LGB*
Guest
|
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 5:20 pm Post subject: 281 |
|
|
| You mean you think th Christian Right in the USA are moderate? or the rise is moderate |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
groza528
No Place Like Home
|
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 6:46 pm Post subject: 282 |
|
|
| I think the Christian right are moderate, particularly in comparison to the Muslim protesters. Sorry, that was very ambiguous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Ragin' South Asian
Head Poncho
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Samadhi
+1
|
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:31 pm Post subject: 284 |
|
|
On a side note, one might notice that the source for that is Aljazeera. I think that most Westerners have a negative opinion about Al. I don't agree with that, and I think it's a symptom of 'shooting the messenger' _________________ And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
LGB*
Guest
|
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 2:13 pm Post subject: 285 |
|
|
| For a long time I was a big follower of AlJazeerau. But after the big commercial success of 'Moonlighting' it all seemed to go to his head. The subsequent fall back in to smi-oscurity has left him ver bitter. I wouldn't believe anything he said now |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
wordcross

|
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 2:26 pm Post subject: 286 |
|
|
him? _________________ Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
LGB*
Guest
|
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 2:45 pm Post subject: 287 |
|
|
| I assumed it was a him, Was she a her?? Possible, the voice was very high. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
wordcross

|
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:42 pm Post subject: 288 |
|
|
Was he not talking about the news agency? I didn't think it was an individual. If it is, I've been missing something. _________________ Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ogm*
Guest
|
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 9:17 pm Post subject: 289 |
|
|
Yes, you are missing a bad joke.
Al Jarreau sang the theme music for the '80s TV show Moonlighting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
wordcross

|
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 9:57 pm Post subject: 290 |
|
|
oh. makes more sense now, thanks  _________________ Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Nsof
Daedalian Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 12:16 am Post subject: 291 |
|
|
I have heard somewhere that
a) The Koran states that Israel (or maybe Canaan) belongs to the Jews
b) Jerusalem is only mentioned in the Koran two times and in neither it is a holly place for Muslims
Is this true? _________________ Will sell this place for beer |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
wordcross

|
Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 3:22 am Post subject: 292 |
|
|
I know the second fact is untrue, even if spun way out of proportion. The first fact i could *maybe* see having some basis, although it is out of context if there is.
Off the top of my head, in negation of the second "fact", Muslims, during the time of Mohammad, originally prayed while facing Jerusalem, specifically Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa, which is a mosque right next to the "Dome of the Rock." This changed later when the Muslims had migrated to Medina (then called Yathrib) and Mohammad asked God if they could change the "Qibla" (direction of prayer) from Jerusalem to Mecca, specifically the Ka'ba.
Also coming to mind is the story of Isra' and Miraj, which is the journey of Mohammad from Mecca to Jerusalem, then his ascension to the Heavens, and return in one night. He was sped to Jerusalem from Mecca, where he visited Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa, the ascended from a stone (now inside the "Dome of the Rock" hence the name) into a journey through Heaven where he met several past prophets and talked to God himself.
So yes, Jerusalem is indeed mentioned in the Qur'an more than twice, these two examples are only two of the most significant. There are three mosques in the world that are commonly labeled as the 3 most significant. the first is the Ka'ba in Mecca, where the pilgrimage is made each year. The second is the Prophet's Mosque in Medina, where Mohammad started the Islamic State, and the third is Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa, in Jerusalem.
As for the first point, i can't really "negate" it because nowhere does it say "Jerusalem doesn't belong to the Jews" and I'm not positive that it says "Jerusalem belongs to the Muslims" or any such-like thing. I am relatively certain is does not, in fact, say "Jerusalem belongs to the Jews" either. It's not so much a question of ownership as it is availability. (I don't expect the Palestinians would usually agree with me, though.) _________________ Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Nsof
Daedalian Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 2:18 pm Post subject: 293 |
|
|
Thanks,
I heard this on the radio but since its an israely station i thought i'd check it. The radio guy mentioned the specific place (where isarel belongs to the jews) in the Koran but i couldnt remember it .
So anyway the Bible and Koran cant solve the current conflict. I guess in this context it would have been better had averyone been agnostic. _________________ Will sell this place for beer |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cherob*
Guest
|
Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 3:54 pm Post subject: 294 |
|
|
Hi,
My fiance and I are planning on eloping as our family does not approve of our union, because my fiance is not of the same race as I. What are the requirements for a legitimate muslim wedding, given that i wont have any relatives attending and that i only have one muslim friend who wont be able to make the wedding either as she will be out of the country. What is the marriage procedure? Please, I need some help!
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
wordcross

|
Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:29 pm Post subject: 295 |
|
|
why do you need to know the Muslim wedding procedure? I would assume it is because one of you is Muslim, and if so, would that person not have other sources besides a stranger on a bulletin board?
Otherwise, I'm not sure why you'd bother. _________________ Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Aga*
Guest
|
Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:06 am Post subject: 296 |
|
|
What are your views on the Pope's views concerning the Muslims in the past?
Do you agree that he should publicly apologise?
Were YOU offended? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
wordcross

|
Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:55 am Post subject: 297 |
|
|
What are your views on the Pope's views concerning the Muslims in the past?
I'm not entirely sure what the Pope's views *are* on the matter. In regards to his speech, he certainly seemed to imply that the only differences between Islam and Christianity were that Islam brought more violence and that it was spread by the sword.
I don't think he was completely doing it maliciously (the english translation, at least, seemed to emphasize different points, using these "assumptions" as bases for those points.) I don't think much of his opinion of Islam, though. Using the assumptions shows a lack of regard, i think.
Do you agree that he should publicly apologise?
I don't think he should be forced to. If he doesn't mean it, why make him? If he does mean it, he would apologise anyway, yes?
Were YOU offended?
No. I find it unfortunate that the leader of the Catholic faith would be so casual in his lack of regard, but i wasn't offended. Then again, as i think i've mentioned before, it takes quite a bit to offend me personally.
And someone irl asked me this question, so i'll answer it too:
What do you think about all of the violence (specifically the bombing of a Church) in response to the Pope's statements?
The same thing i think about all violence in response to words and pictures: it's unnecessary and completely unjustified. It is even more unfortunate that there are such extremists who feel that doing harm to uninvolved persons is some sort of duty upon them. But it happens every time, and to be surprised by it by now is somewhat odd. Dismayed, angry, confused, sure, but not surprised. _________________ Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax
|
Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:31 am Post subject: 298 |
|
|
| wordcross wrote: |
...
In regards to his speech, he certainly seemed to imply that the only differences between Islam and Christianity were that Islam brought more violence and that it was spread by the sword.
...
I don't think he was completely doing it maliciously (the english translation, at least, seemed to emphasize different points, using these "assumptions" as bases for those points.) I don't think much of his opinion of Islam, though. Using the assumptions shows a lack of regard, i think.
...
No. I find it unfortunate that the leader of the Catholic faith would be so casual in his lack of regard, but i wasn't offended. |
Mentioning the translation seems to imply that you have read the speech. Assuming that is the case, I find your language quite inappropriate.
He certainly did not imply that the only differences between Islam and Christianity were the violence.
He certainly was not "doing it" maliciously.
He didn't make "assumptions" of any kind.
He demonstrated no lack of regard.
The quotation that has everyone upset was completely incidental to the topic of the speech. It was basically the first line of a conversation whose conclusion the Pope was using as an example to make a point about Reason in Theology. It is flat-out ludicrous that anyone should be offended. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
worm
unregistered
|
Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:42 pm Post subject: 299 |
|
|
| anyone have a link to the entire speech rather than snippets? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
wordcross

|
Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:15 pm Post subject: 300 |
|
|
| casinopete wrote: |
Mentioning the translation seems to imply that you have read the speech. Assuming that is the case, I find your language quite inappropriate. |
Not the speech, just the "snippets" i found here.
(Worm, The entire speech is linked to as a pdf file from that page.)
| Quote: |
| He certainly did not imply that the only differences between Islam and Christianity were the violence. |
The "part in questoin" is translated thus:
| Quote: |
I was reminded of all this recently, when I read... 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.
In the seventh conversation...the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "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 emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, 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," he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats." |
and he continues:
| Quote: |
| 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. |
(bolding mine)
So yes, it's obvious at the end of the first quotation that he's quoting someone else. The second quotation, however, seems to run with the theme of Muslim conversion being by the sword, however irrational this is to Westerners, because God said so. This one is *not* a quotation from someone else. He is building off of his previous quote, yes, but is that really an assumption (Muhammad brought only violence and inhumanity/Islam was spread by violence, not words) that you want to support your arguments with?
| Quote: |
| He certainly was not "doing it" maliciously. |
I never said he was.
| Quote: |
| He didn't make "assumptions" of any kind. |
Perhaps. but at the very least he used the assumptions of others as support for his own arguments.
| Quote: |
| He demonstrated no lack of regard. |
I disagree.
| casinopete wrote: |
| The quotation that has everyone upset was completely incidental to the topic of the speech. It was basically the first line of a conversation whose conclusion the Pope was using as an example to make a point about Reason in Theology. It is flat-out ludicrous that anyone should be offended. |
Not just one line, and while it wasn't the point of his speech to say that Muslims are violent, he never bothered to correct or qualify the assumption of the source he used. _________________ Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:57 pm Post subject: 301 |
|
|
| wordcross wrote: |
nd he continues:
| Quote: |
| 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. |
(bolding mine)
So yes, it's obvious at the end of the first quotation that he's quoting someone else. The second quotation, however, seems to run with the theme of Muslim conversion being by the sword, however irrational this is to Westerners, because God said so. This one is *not* a quotation from someone else. |
Actually, you forgot some inverted commas in your quote.
The sentence you highlighted should have been written
| The Vatican wrote: |
| 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 Muslim R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry." |
So he is, in fact, still quoting someone else at that point.
(In fact he's quoting someone else quoting someone else)
Not that I'm defending the guy. The Rottweiler has a history of making intellectually correct, yet disturbingly naïve and insensitive comments. Such comments are typical of him and of many of his celibate brethren. I mention celibacy, because I believe that many priests learn to deal with their sexual urges by trying to avoid emotion and empathy and retreating to a more clinical austere intellectual part of their psyches. This self-inflicted autism is also, I believe, responsible for forgiving pedophile priests who say they are sorry and returning them to work closely with children. They leave the rest of us screaming, "What! Are you mad!? What were you thinking!?"
So, if he did offend any Muslims, they'll have to join the end of a long line of Christians. Or are Muslims morally allowed to jump the queue?
Anyway, as usual, wikipedia has a good entry on the subject, including links to official (provisional) translations of the lecture.
Incidently, I agree with wikipedia, having read the portions of the German text concerned, regarding inadequacies in the English version and support the modifications they suggest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
wordcross

|
Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:19 pm Post subject: 302 |
|
|
My apologies for missing the attribution for the second quote. It softens my dislike of the way the Pope approached his speech, but I still think he would have been better off making some qualifying statements regarding those quotes. _________________ Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax
|
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:02 am Post subject: 303 |
|
|
Alright. I thought it was only fair to assume that you'd read the speech before criticizing it. Apparently that was not the case. Yes, this is a bit snarky, but criticizing something you hadn't read deserves pretty much exactly that response.
The speech was not about Holy War. The speech was not about Islam. The quotation people are getting upset about is taken parsecs out of context.
The speech was about Reason and Theology, specifically on movements that attempt to dehellanize Christianity. As part of this speech, understandably, he wanted to give an example of the "hellenist" God and purely transcendent (uncategorizable) God.
To this end, he quoted Manuel II Paleologus view: "Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God." (yes, there were plenty of quotations that somehow go unmentioned because they don't fuel the outrage).
Your own "second quotation" is firmly on this topic, too. The Muslim view of God expressed by Ibn Hazn, via Theodore Khoury, is that God is not limited by reason. This would be the example of the transcendent-God view.
It does not "run with the theme of Muslim conversion being by the sword." I can't imagine the mental gymnastics required to go from "the Muslim God is beyond rationality" to "the Muslims only convert by the sword." You are stretching.
| wordcross wrote: |
| Quote: |
| He certainly was not "doing it" maliciously. |
I never said he was. |
| wordcross wrote: |
| I don't think he was completely doing it maliciously |
You imply strongly that you thought there was some malice.
| wordcross wrote: |
| Not just one line, and while it wasn't the point of his speech to say that Muslims are violent, he never bothered to correct or qualify the assumption of the source he used. |
It was just one line, and he did qualify the quotation. And your continuing reference to "assumptions" isn't making sense. Assumptions have nothing to do with anything here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
wordcross

|
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 5:03 am Post subject: 304 |
|
|
Alright, just to be sure i wasn't missing anything really important, i read the entire text (a translation, posted by the BBC here.)
I don't think i was missing much. The parts left out of the article really had little bearing on the question of his quotes about Islam. Furthermore, the full reading has done nothing to change my opinion on the matter.
| Casinopete wrote: |
The speech was not about Holy War. The speech was not about Islam. The quotation people are getting upset about is taken parsecs out of context.
The speech was about Reason and Theology, specifically on movements that attempt to dehellanize Christianity. As part of this speech, understandably, he wanted to give an example of the "hellenist" God and purely transcendent (uncategorizable) God. |
You're right, the speech was not about Holy War or about Islam. No one here has claimed that it was.
| Quote: |
Your own "second quotation" is firmly on this topic, too. The Muslim view of God expressed by Ibn Hazn, via Theodore Khoury, is that God is not limited by reason. This would be the example of the transcendent-God view.
It does not "run with the theme of Muslim conversion being by the sword." I can't imagine the mental gymnastics required to go from "the Muslim God is beyond rationality" to "the Muslims only convert by the sword." You are stretching. |
I disagree. He mentioned the quote which said that Islam was spread by the sword, not the word. He ties this in to the question of reason in religion. The implication is that if Islam were like Christianity, and applied reason to God's teachings, then it would not have been so literal or so violent.
| Quote: |
| You imply strongly that you thought there was some malice. |
Poor choice of words on my part. strike the word "completely" if you will. I do not think he was being malicious.
| Quote: |
| It was just one line, and he did qualify the quotation. |
I don't recall seeing any qualifications. perhaps you could enlighten me?
| Quote: |
| And your continuing reference to "assumptions" isn't making sense. Assumptions have nothing to do with anything here. |
| dicitonary.com wrote: |
| assume: 10. to take something for granted; presume. |
In not qualifying the quotations, he took for granted their veracity. Thus, he was assuming that they were true in order to make his point. _________________ Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax
|
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 5:59 am Post subject: 305 |
|
|
| wordcross wrote: |
| I don't think i was missing much. The parts left out of the article really had little bearing on the question of his quotes about Islam. Furthermore, the full reading has done nothing to change my opinion on the matter. |
The "parts" (majority) left out of the article bear on the question of his quotations simply by having nothing to do with Islam whatsoever. The speech was not about Islam, and to point at a particular quotation used as an example and claim that the Pope was insulting Islam by using it is just plain stupid.
| wordcross wrote: |
| You're right, the speech was not about Holy War or about Islam. No one here has claimed that it was. |
| wordcross wrote: |
| he certainly seemed to imply that the only differences between Islam and Christianity were that Islam brought more violence and that it was spread by the sword. |
Since you agree that the speech wasn't about Islam, how can you interpret his quotation as being an attack on Islam?
| wordcross wrote: |
I disagree. He mentioned the quote which said that Islam was spread by the sword, not the word. He ties this in to the question of reason in religion. The implication is that if Islam were like Christianity, and applied reason to God's teachings, then it would not have been so literal or so violent.
|
No. He mentions a series of quotations from a conversation whose conclusion reads: "God is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and 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 Pope makes it very clear what part of this quotation he is using in the sentence immediately following: "The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature."
It is very clear what the Pope is saying, and it is not about Islam at all.
| wordcross wrote: |
| I don't recall seeing any qualifications. perhaps you could enlighten me? |
| da freakin' Pope wrote: |
| he [Manuel II] addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "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, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain... |
Additionally... it is unclear why you think the Pope needed qualifications. He wasn't proclaiming Manuel II's words as truth. He was using him as an example. Nothing he said implied agreement with Manuel II's conclusions about Islam (which, just as a tiny little sidenote, were written during a siege of Constantinople by the Ottomans).
| wordcross wrote: |
| In not qualifying the quotations, he took for granted their veracity. Thus, he was assuming that they were true in order to make his point. |
No. Manuel II assumed that God and Theology should be rational, and therefore conversion by the sword is a bad thing. The Pope quoted Manuel II as an example of belief that God was rational. That's all. The Pope makes no assumptions of any kind about the truth of what Manuel II said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
wordcross

|
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 8:18 am Post subject: 306 |
|
|
You seem to be under the impression that I believe that the Pope's sole purpose in this speech was attacking Islam. I don't believe that, nor do i think he was attacking Islam at all. I recognize and have stated the fact that the vast majority of his speech had nothing at all to do with the minute portion that is causing such controversy. All I've said is that I think he made some poor decisions in his manner of speaking, which seemed to me to indicate a rather low opinion if Islam overall.
| casinopete wrote: |
| wordcross wrote: |
I disagree. He mentioned the quote which said that Islam was spread by the sword, not the word. He ties this in to the question of reason in religion. The implication is that if Islam were like Christianity, and applied reason to God's teachings, then it would not have been so literal or so violent.
|
No. He mentions a series of quotations from a conversation whose conclusion reads: "God is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and 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 Pope makes it very clear what part of this quotation he is using in the sentence immediately following: "The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature."
It is very clear what the Pope is saying, and it is not about Islam at all. |
Well then:
| The Pope wrote: |
| In the seventh conversation (*4V8,>4H - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "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, after having expressed himself so forcefully, 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", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (F×< 8`(T) 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...". |
(Bolding mine)
So tell me, if this has nothing at all to do with Islam, and his only point is that "The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature," then why even include Manuel II's quote: "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"? What has that to do with acting according to reason in obedience to God?
| casinopete wrote: |
| wordcross wrote: |
| I don't recall seeing any qualifications. perhaps you could enlighten me? |
| da freakin' Pope wrote: |
| he [Manuel II] addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "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, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain... |
Additionally... it is unclear why you think the Pope needed qualifications. He wasn't proclaiming Manuel II's words as truth. He was using him as an example. Nothing he said implied agreement with Manuel II's conclusions about Islam (which, just as a tiny little sidenote, were written during a siege of Constantinople by the Ottomans). |
If the Pope is going to include quotes that are controversial or flat-out wrong about anyone or anything, he should mention that they are controversial or flat-out wrong, or say that he doesn't agree with them. Perhaps it's just the translation, but the words "Brusqueness" and "forcefully" don't really seem to alleviate much of the central idea of the quotation from Manuel II.
| casinopete wrote: |
| wordcross wrote: |
| In not qualifying the quotations, he took for granted their veracity. Thus, he was assuming that they were true in order to make his point. |
No. Manuel II assumed that God and Theology should be rational, and therefore conversion by the sword is a bad thing. |
And again, this has what to do with "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"?
| Quote: |
| The Pope quoted Manuel II as an example of belief that God was rational. That's all. The Pope makes no assumptions of any kind about the truth of what Manuel II said. |
Well, he's at least making the assumptions that Manuel II was correct about God being rational. That is, after all, what the Pope was talking about for much of his speech. _________________ Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax
|
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 10:10 am Post subject: 307 |
|
|
| wordcross wrote: |
| You seem to be under the impression that I believe that the Pope's sole purpose in this speech was attacking Islam. |
The Pope and I should join forces and fight crime! We could be the I've-been-badly-misinterpreted-by-wordcross duo!
| wordcross wrote: |
| I don't believe that, nor do i think he was attacking Islam at all. I recognize and have stated the fact that the vast majority of his speech had nothing at all to do with the minute portion that is causing such controversy. All I've said is that I think he made some poor decisions in his manner of speaking, which seemed to me to indicate a rather low opinion if Islam overall. |
| wordcross wrote: |
| In regards to his speech, he certainly seemed to imply that the only differences between Islam and Christianity were that Islam brought more violence and that it was spread by the sword. |
This is exactly a statement that you think he was attacking Islam... unless you view "more violence and that it was spread by the sword" to be a positive thing?
| wordcross wrote: |
| So tell me, if this has nothing at all to do with Islam, and his only point is that "The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature," then why even include Manuel II's quote: "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"? What has that to do with acting according to reason in obedience to God? |
It is context, it is setting, for the quotation. It is part of Manuel II's train of thought.
You have now said you've read the speech. Did you miss the lead-in to the set of quotations? I'll repeat it:
| the Pope wrote: |
| here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - 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. |
I really cannot see what more would need to be said. He disclaimed, he clarified, he made it ridiculously clear he was quoting, and exactly how he was using Manuel II as an example. What more do you want?
| wordcross wrote: |
| If the Pope is going to include quotes that are controversial or flat-out wrong about anyone or anything, he should mention that they are controversial or flat-out wrong, or say that he doesn't agree with them. |
No. He shouldn't. Demanding such behaviour is moronic. He made it clear that he wasn't himself talking about Islam at all, which is more than sufficient.
| wordcross wrote: |
| Perhaps it's just the translation, but the words "Brusqueness" and "forcefully" don't really seem to alleviate much of the central idea of the quotation from Manuel II. |
The central idea? The central idea is exactly that Manuel II considers God to be logical.
| wordcross wrote: |
| Well, he's at least making the assumptions that Manuel II was correct about God being rational. That is, after all, what the Pope was talking about for much of his speech. |
Yet again, no. At no point in the speech does he state anything of the sort. Describing a view of God does not indicate that you "assume" that view is true. It just doesn't. It's not even close to doing it. Really. It isn't.
BUT, IMPORTANTLY:
This is not the kind of "assumption" you were talking about anyway. I don't understand the purpose of deflecting off to a semantics point like this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
wordcross

|
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 11:09 am Post subject: 308 |
|
|
| casinopete wrote: |
| wordcross wrote: |
| You seem to be under the impression that I believe that the Pope's sole purpose in this speech was attacking Islam. |
The Pope and I should join forces and fight crime! We could be the I've-been-badly-misinterpreted-by-wordcross duo! |
mmhmm.
| casinopete wrote: |
| wordcross wrote: |
| I don't believe that, nor do i think he was attacking Islam at all. I recognize and have stated the fact that the vast majority of his speech had nothing at all to do with the minute portion that is causing such controversy. All I've said is that I think he made some poor decisions in his manner of speaking, which seemed to me to indicate a rather low opinion if Islam overall. |
| wordcross wrote: |
| In regards to his speech, he certainly seemed to imply that the only differences between Islam and Christianity were that Islam brought more violence and that it was spread by the sword. |
This is exactly a statement that you think he was attacking Islam... unless you view "more violence and that it was spread by the sword" to be a positive thing? |
I never said i thought it was an attack. Nowhere have i said anything about the Pope attacking Islam. I certainly don't see it as positive, but since i've said i don't think it malicious, it's not an attack. I still think it shows a lack of regard, but not an attack.
| casinopete wrote: |
| wordcross wrote: |
| So tell me, if this has nothing at all to do with Islam, and his only point is that "The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature," then why even include Manuel II's quote: "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"? What has that to do with acting according to reason in obedience to God? |
It is context, it is setting, for the quotation. It is part of Manuel II's train of thought. |
Part of his train of thought, sure, but on the whole adds nothing to the speech of any significance. He could very easily have left it out. I see no reason for it to have been there to begin with.
| casinopete wrote: |
You have now said you've read the speech. Did you miss the lead-in to the set of quotations? I'll repeat it:
| the Pope wrote: |
| here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - 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. |
I really cannot see what more would need to be said. He disclaimed, he clarified, he made it ridiculously clear he was quoting, and exactly how he was using Manuel II as an example. What more do you want? |
aside from reiterating that I'm well aware that this quotation mentioning Mohammad has nothing at all to do with the rest of the speech (indeed, it could have been left out entirely), I feel i'd be restating my arguments by responding to the rest of this.
| casinopete wrote: |
| wordcross wrote: |
| If the Pope is going to include quotes that are controversial or flat-out wrong about anyone or anything, he should mention that they are controversial or flat-out wrong, or say that he doesn't agree with them. |
No. He shouldn't. Demanding such behaviour is moronic. He made it clear that he wasn't himself talking about Islam at all, which is more than sufficient. |
I disagree. Public figures all should watch their speech, especially in regards to "hot" topics. If George W. Bush had done something similar, he would have been lambasted up one side and down the other, and few would have questioned whether or not he deserved it. I'm not saying that quotations like the one he used are taboo, simply that extra care needs to be taken to avoid sounding insensitive.
Note: I don't think that this is how it *should* be in the world, but it is a reality that small indiscretions that may be made innocently enough can still have major ramifications.
| casinopete wrote: |
| wordcross wrote: |
| Perhaps it's just the translation, but the words "Brusqueness" and "forcefully" don't really seem to alleviate much of the central idea of the quotation from Manuel II. |
The central idea? The central idea is exactly that Manuel II considers God to be logical. |
I'm speaking more narrowly about the controversial part of the quotation, which should be obvious given that it's the part that falls between "brusqueness" and "forcefully."
| casinopete wrote: |
| wordcross wrote: |
| Well, he's at least making the assumptions that Manuel II was correct about God being rational. That is, after all, what the Pope was talking about for much of his speech. |
Yet again, no. At no point in the speech does he state anything of the sort. Describing a view of God does not indicate that you "assume" that view is true. It just doesn't. It's not even close to doing it. Really. It isn't. |
The Pope's speech was about using reason in faith in accordance with God's will. To this end, he made the quotation by Manuel II as an example of this viewpoint. If the Pope saying "use reason in faith" and he quotes Manuel II who is saying "use reason in faith," it would be ludicrous to believe that he didn't agree with what Manuel II was saying about reason. He was assuming that this viewpoint is truth, he was assuming that Manuel II, by saying truth, was being truthful (about reason). By including the former part of the quotation (the "train of thought" part, as you say), people could assume it is given credence by his support of Manuel II's views on reason. Yes, he says it is brusque and forceful, but he doesn't say it is wrong. He does not at any point make any counterstatements.
| casinopete wrote: |
BUT, IMPORTANTLY:
This is not the kind of "assumption" you were talking about anyway. I don't understand the purpose of deflecting off to a semantics point like this. |
I'm glad you can read my mind. That means we can stop posting here and I can just argue with you in my head.  _________________ Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 2:57 pm Post subject: 309 |
|
|
In the Pope's favour, "with a startling brusqueness" is not a very good translation of "uns überraschend schroffer Form". Rather it means something more like, "which to us now seems surprisingly harsh".
The Pope is an intellectual, with a God complex, living in an ivory tower.
He was addressing German intellectuals in Germany where there is a large Turkish Islamic contingent.
I believe he chose to shine the spotlight deliberately on Islam in order to point out what he sees as its failings. The same failings which were once part of Christian doctrine before they saw the error of their ways (resulting in them doing things such as giving the Inquisition a makeover, by renaming it to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and sweeping Conversion by Torture under the rug).
Anyway, he was just plain wrong. He would have done better to shine a light on Christianity's murky past and then perhaps draw parallels with Islamic radicals (along with abortion clinic bombers) and done us all a favour.
Believing that his is the one true church and that all others are wrong is understandable. After all he is the Pope. What to me is "unforgivable" is that he turns a blind eye to the failings of his own church while arrogantly lofting stones from on high at the failings of Islam, gays, contraception, women, etc.
"Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but don't consider the beam that is in your own eye?"
"Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone"
He would do well to read his Bible.
BTW For anyone looking for a complete apology, I wouldn't hold your breath.
October 31, 1992: The Catholic Church begs pardon for placing Galileo Galilei under life-long house arrest in 1633. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Aarondalf
the original GL stud
|
Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 11:22 am Post subject: 310 |
|
|
| Heh, I firmly believe there is nobody who would "do well to read the bible". Christians make me cry. Catholics make me weep. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Antrax
ESL Student
|
Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 11:49 am Post subject: 311 |
|
|
One day, I'll understand where your arrogance comes from. It has to be based on SOMETHING, but what?  _________________ After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
extro...*
Guest
|
Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 12:51 pm Post subject: 312 |
|
|
| Come on, haven't you seen the Bible's cover? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
GH
Daedalian Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:57 pm Post subject: 313 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| One day, I'll understand where your arrogance comes from. |
What an arrogant assumption. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Courk
Daedalian Member
|
Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 12:47 am Post subject: 314 |
|
|
I read today that each Islamic month starts when the new moon is seen. The article went on to say that, at least in the local area, Ramadan started on Friday. I have a few questions related to this:
1. This one might be a bit silly, but does someone actually have to see that it's a new moon, or do you just go by the phases that are printed on calendars? I would have assumed the latter, but the way the article was worded made the new moon seem variable.
2. If the new moon is at least slightly variable, how do you know when Ramadan begins or ends? How do you know it begins on Friday and not Saturday or Thursday?
Also, I hope you have a happy Ramadan! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
wordcross

|
Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 1:34 am Post subject: 315 |
|
|
well Ramadan technically didn't start on Friday, it started today (Saturday). There is the extended nightly prayers starting Friday night, but it isn't the first day of Ramadan.
and for the New Moon, it actually has to be sighted. There is some difference of opinion about using sighting from other parts of the country/world, but it does have to be sighted. It is pretty clearly demonstrated in the teachings of Muhammad that only a visual sighting of the moon the day after the new moon starts the new month. There are usually only two days that it could start, since the beginning of the previous month is known. Lunar months are either 29 or 30 days. This is why Ramadan comes 10-11 days earlier each solar year. Here in Raleigh and for much of the East Coast, Last night was overcast, so there wasn't an official moon sighting. They originally said we would start on Sunday. However, shortly thereafter we heard that there was a sighting in Houston, and it was decided that we would indeed start today.
Also, even though they're not supposed to, there are often countries/areas/communities that will start Ramadan based on Lunar calculations, rather than actual sighting, but their justifications are usually pretty flimsy. _________________ Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Nsof
Daedalian Member
|
Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:08 am Post subject: 316 |
|
|
| wordcross wrote: |
| Also, even though they're not supposed to, there are often countries/areas/communities that will start Ramadan based on Lunar calculations, rather than actual sighting, but their justifications are usually pretty flimsy. |
If there was a space colony outside of the solar system where they cant sight the moon, wouldnt they resort to lunar calculations? _________________ Will sell this place for beer |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
wordcross

|
Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:23 am Post subject: 317 |
|
|
That question would work even if it were just Mars. And if such a thing were to happen, then yes i'd imagine that they'd have to either go by calculation or by following someone's sighting on Earth. This is far into the realm of speculation, though. _________________ Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Courk
Daedalian Member
|
Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:58 am Post subject: 318 |
|
|
That's what I got from the article. I would have felt silly had you just used a calendar and I was reading too much into it.
How does word spread about when you start? I mean, how did you, personally, find out there was a moon sighting in Houston? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
wordcross

|
Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 1:14 pm Post subject: 319 |
|
|
The Islamic Center here in Raleigh posted it on their Website ( www.islam1.org ) _________________ Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Courk
Daedalian Member
|
Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 4:23 pm Post subject: 320 |
|
|
| Oh, duh. Internet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
 |
The Grey Labyrinth Forum Index
-> Science, Art, and Culture |
All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
|
| Page 8 of 9 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|