Should the Pope apologize??

[Galahad]

is not the last element of the common Jesuitical 4 step ethical analysis to contemplate foreseeble consequences, even in speaking truth?

Well sure, but I don't think Pope Benedict is a Jesuit - he probably doesn't even root for the right football team.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Did he apologize for what? Being a member of Hitler Youth?

 

[Kendra17]

I realized I forgot to address this point. You could read the surahs in chronological order, IF scholars could agree on it.

http://www.netnavigate.com/hasan/studyquran/ch5.html



You really should take this advice, Kendra.

Laura, it can be read in chronological order when it is read along with the sira which provides the historical context of the surahs. The historical context is quite clear and is an interesting history lesson in the history of Islam. Why not actually read the source material and then draw a conclusion instead of blindly supporting something you clearly know very little about?

 

[eclectics]

This is interesting. I understand you are in no way advocating the violence that erupted after these two events. However, why are these things even both issues? I don't buy luvduke's food-chain comment. WHy does Islam get a pass while others-- religious or not-- do not get a pass.

Why can't Sharon go to Jerusalem? This is not a place that is historically for Muslims alone. And, even if it was. . . SO WHAT? Behavior like this from Christians and Jews and others would NEVER be accepted and the attempt to understand it wouldn't be pondered.

Why can't the Pope, as another religious leader, call on Muslims to examine what's going on? There IS violence-- even if not all Muslims perpetrate the violence. Why can't any leader-- religious or secular-- call on the Muslim leaders for change? Why can't any leader anywhere bring up matters for dialogue?

Point taken and duly noted. Right or wrong, different religions take offense to different things with different degrees of enthusiasm (remember Sinead O'Conner ripping up the Pope's photo). Putting aside for the moment the violent reactions, which we we all agree are disgusting and wrong, you are basically asking why we should allow the Muslims to get upset over something we don't find that important. Well, right or wrong, it is important to them and if we choose to ignore that fact, we are basically saying to them "Your religious beliefs are ridiculous to us and we won't cut you any slack for things we feel you are overeacting to". I don't think sometimes that we realize how different they percieve things. Most of us don't have a clue about their lives. They are very fervent people and trying to squash them into submission is just going to incite them more. Again, just mho. I would like to see a summit with serious dialogue with all the world's religious leaders. Forget political differences as being the world's greatest threat. I believe our religious differences are, and if WW III were to start, you can bet religion will play a big part.

 

[sodaseller]

Well sure, but I don't thing Pope Benedict is a Jesuit - he probably doesn't even root for the right football team.

Oh he is most certainly not a Jesuit - he's the White Pope, not the Black one, after al. Despite John Allen's placing him in the Communio school, I still see more of the movement that seeks to supplant the Jesuits among the Spanish Cross & Crown crowd. But the analysis is generalizable

 

[sodaseller]

Laura, it can be read in chronological order when it is read along with the sira which provides the historical context of the surahs. The historical context is quite clear and is an interesting history lesson in the history of Islam. Why not actually read the source material and then draw a conclusion instead of blindly supporting something you clearly know very little about?

Whats is the basis of you claimed expertise on the Koran. I profess to have not read all your posts, but have seen nothing so far except for the same agitprop that infects a political discussion of the Islamic threat and the verses that supposedly justify such action. You are climing to be a true exegete, but I don't believe it. I don't think you know anything more about that faith than those who you speak ex cathedra to (pun intended)

 

[Kendra17]

I've wondered about this; specifically:

• No-one knows what the Prophet looks like on this earth, so how can we depict him?
• If intention is the trigger (intention to depict the Prophet) then what happens if I accidentally paint the spitting image of the Prophet when trying to draw something else?



Rich::

Although I'm loathe to refer to Muhammed as "the Prophet", I do agree that nobody knows what he looks like. Logically, those angry extreme Muslims should have been able to realize this, should have been able to dismiss the cartoons. But, they weren't. And, they wouldn't dismiss it tomorrow if someone posted some new ones.

Actually, Muhammed had a revelation that he looked like Abraham. Muhammad said he had never seen another man who more resembled himself than Abraham. So, there's your answer.

 

[dcentity2000]

Actually, Muhammed had a revelation that he looked like Abraham. Muhammad said he had never seen another man who more resembled himself than Abraham. So, there's your answer.

Now that's an interesting one - are we allowed (presuming that we all conform to these laws of life) to depict Abraham in this case?

Heh, I'm getting pernickety; I'll drop it right there before I make myself

[EDIT] More so



Rich::

 

[Teejay32]

How do you know they're on the mark? What context do you think they were delivered in? But even if we indulge that they are "on te mark" for the context you are referring to (which I submit is wholly different from the context for which they were offered), is not the last element of the common Jesuitical 4 step ethical analysis to contemplate foreseeble consequences, even in speaking truth?

He probably did contemplate them. Is he compelled to avoid them?

 

[Kendra17]

Whats is the basis of you claimed expertise on the Koran. I profess to have not read all your posts, but have seen nothing so far except for the same agitprop that infects a political discussion of the Islamic threat and the verses that supposedly justify such action. You are climing to be a true exegete, but I don't believe it. I don't think you know anything more about that faith than those who you speak ex cathedra to (pun intended)

I haven't claimed expertise. I claim continual interest in learning and read source material and other scholarly material. I have done years of study and research.

What does it really matter to you, anyways? The only reason you come after many of my posts (although you profess not to read them, you've responded to quite a few of them) is because you don't like what I'm saying. You'd come after anyone no matter what their pedigree. You'd come after Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz, Victor Davis Hanson, Alan Dershowitz, and even former Muslims (like Walid Shoebat), etc. You're against my position. You don't question anyone else on here about their background despite the fact they insist I'm wrong on almost every count.

What is LuvDuke's educational background as it pertains to Islam? What is Laura's-- as it relates to Islam? Yours- with relation to Islam?

If I held a PhD in Middle Eastern or Islamic studies it still wouldn't matter to you unless I was an apologist you could quote for pro-Islam purposes. If I had no knowledge or education at all but professed to be a Muslim who wanted peace, you'd cite me as proof of your argument.

 

[sodaseller]

He probably did contemplate them. Is he compelled to avoid them?

That would be an interesting theological debate. Off the top of my head, as the Vicar of Christ, no; as Universal Pastor, yes. But I doubt his choices were in either context. As I have said, I do not believe he thought his words would get outside the academic ecumenical community. In that context, he surely knew they would be inflammatory and expected even contemplated that reaction. But outside reaction is another matter. But I think as pastor that foressing such consequences counsels against the statement.

If nothing else, he is stepping too far and dishonoring JPII

 

[Charade]

How do you know they're on the mark? What context do you think they were delivered in? But even if we indulge that they are "on te mark" for the context you are referring to (which I submit is wholly different from the context for which they were offered), is not the last element of the common Jesuitical 4 step ethical analysis to contemplate foreseeble consequences, even in speaking truth?

Does the context even matter? Suppose they comments were isolated and deliberately delivered knowing the reaction they would get. Doesn't the reaction prove the statement to be true?

Are we having a "which came first, egg or chicken?" argument?

 

[mrsltg]

If nothing else, he is stepping too far and dishonoring JPII

I appreciate the intellectual discussion of this thread however, I think this goes too far. How has Benedict "dishonored" John Paul? By giving an academic speech? He wasn't even stating an opinion. He simply spoke about a subject and gave some quotes. I am honestly baffled by how this would dishonor his predecessor?

 

[Teejay32]

That would be an interesting theological debate. Off the top of my head, as the Vicar of Christ, no; as Universal Pastor, yes. But I doubt his choices were in either context. As I have said, I do not believe he thought his words would get outside the academic ecumenical community. In that context, he surely knew they would be inflammatory and expected even contemplated that reaction. But outside reaction is another matter. But I think as pastor that foressing such consequences counsels against the statement.

If nothing else, he is stepping too far and dishonoring JPII

we're in the early days of consequences yet. I also think he said exactly what he meant to say, and his apology was "I'm sorry you're upset about it."

 

[Fitswimmer]

why we should allow the Muslims to get upset over something we don't find that important.

Nobody begrudges them being offended, I've been offended by some of the remarks made about religion on this thread. However, I'm not running around with an AK-47 looking for people to shoot!

I do believe that there is a double standard about who is allowed to be offended. Everyone trips all over themselves trying not to offend Muslims, but portraying Christians as ignorant bigots is perfectly ok.

 

[Galahad]

I still want to know whether he pulls for Notre Dame or Boston College.

 

[Charade]

Did he apologize for what? Being a member of Hitler Youth?

Wasn't he forced to be in that and escaped from it? Many were forced to be in it. I hold no ill will against anyone that was forced and escaped as soon as they could.

 

[sodaseller]

I haven't claimed expertise. I claim continual interest in learning and read source material and other scholarly material. I have done years of study and research.

What does it really matter to you, anyways? The only reason you come after many of my posts (although you profess not to read them, you've responded to quite a few of them) is because you don't like what I'm saying. You'd come after anyone no matter what their pedigree. You'd come after Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz, Victor Davis Hanson, Alan Dershowitz, and even former Muslims (like Walid Shoebat), etc. You're against my position. You don't question anyone else on here about their background despite the fact they insist I'm wrong on almost every count.

What is LuvDuke's educational background as it pertains to Islam? What is Laura's-- as it relates to Islam? Yours- with relation to Islam?

If I held a PhD in Middle Eastern or Islamic studies it still wouldn't matter to you unless I was an apologist you could quote for pro-Islam purposes. If I had no knowledge or education at all but professed to be a Muslim who wanted peace, you'd cite me as proof of your argument.

This answers my questions and confirms suspicions. That imprint was clear. Label it honestly. You are quoting political polemicists, not exegetes or even amateur theologians.

And to be clear, I am not a credentialist. Your arguments don't fail for a lack of pedigree, but for a lack of internal logic. Again, the evil you decry is not a function of dogma, unless you are referring to Augustinian original sin, which you plainly are not. As Pascal noted, men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do so from religious conviction. But the Islamic sacred text is not notably different from the Christian sacred text in providing ready made theological justifications for evil.

That's not say that there are not more credible teleological arguments as to why those same passages have a greater capacity to produce evil acts that their analogs in the Christian sacred text, which was part of Benedict's point. But that's nothing you've ever noted, so I doubt you are even aware of it.

As for why I respond, for the same reason you profess to post - to keep evil from triumphing.

 

[sodaseller]

Wasn't he forced to be in that and escaped from it? Many were forced to be in it. I hold no ill will against anyone that was forced and escaped as soon as they could.

You are correct. The Hitler Youth charge is not fair

 

[Teejay32]

I still want to know whether he pulls for Notre Dame or Boston College.

Can't picture him for the fighting Irish.