quote:

Originally posted by Lorenzo De La Cruz:
When did they last excommunicate someone for not abiding by what the Papacy wanted?

Very recently, 5 people, including an archbishop were excommunicated, link.

Thx Merlin, that was a very interesting report.

quote:

Originally posted by Lorenzo De La Cruz:
Yes, I did read the whole thing.

Good analysis.

I've also read the book by Irshad Manji - Muslim refusenik and found it interesting reading.

If it were not for the Islamic World, Europe wouldn't have had the Renaissance. Now the problem is the present.Which is going to prevail in Islam? The European or Desert Islam?

Lorenzo, IMO - Life with problems would be no Life at all, and neither wil "prevail" over the over.

I concur with your quotation from Nietzche, something similar was said 1300yrs earlier , which I found in what may seem to some a most unlikely source, the Quran .

"In the Holy Quran Allah says not to mock anyone's religion as they may revile Allah in return.
Over the 49 generations of the Holy Imams, Ismailis have practiced their belief with the above guiding principle and with maintenance of their dignity. When faced with rejection of our tenets, I choose to point to another verse from the Quran:

The Disbelievers 109.006 (translations)
YUSUFALI: To you be your Way, and to me mine.
PICKTHAL: Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.
SHAKIR: You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion.

and

002.256
YUSUFALI: Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
PICKTHAL: There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.
SHAKIR: There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.

http://www.amaana.org/ISWEB/quran.htm


Pls note : I'm not a muslim , just searching for facts.

Thanks for the info smoked duck.

Can there be a better illustration than your post that everyone has there own moral code/belief system? Forcing someone into your own way is evil.

quote:

Lorenzo, IMO - Life with problems would be no Life at all, and neither wil "prevail" over the over.

oh dear. Correction :

It should have read "IMO - Life - "WITHOUT" problems , would be no life at all.

Apologies, I should have checked and corrected this error earlier.

cheers.

quote:

Originally posted by Lorenzo De La Cruz:
Thanks for the info smoked duck.

Can there be a better illustration than your post that everyone has there own moral code/belief system? Forcing someone into your own way is evil.

SO, out of curiosity, are you saying that for someone to have 'forced' Hitler into another belief system than he personally abided by, would have been "evil".

Society would be an even messier place if every individual was allowed to act in his "own way", as a result of being guided by their "own moral code/belief system".

The "missing link" requested is, I believe, an historical one. The Pope quoted an Orthodox leader who was engaged in a "balance of power" struggle with the Islamic groups to the south and south-east of the Ottoman empire. In that context, his commemts were the Orthodox leader's appraisal of an invading force.
As a Histoy graduate, I deeply resent any attempt to censor accurate historical quotes becaues they may be politically uncomfortable. As a Christian I am unhappy that some Muslims apparently want to home in on any detail that they can capitalise on as objectionalble while ignoring the context and background of the references they find objectionable.

quote:

Originally posted by Christiana:


As a Histoy graduate, I deeply resent any attempt to censor accurate historical quotes becaues they may be politically uncomfortable. As a Christian I am unhappy that some Muslims apparently want to home in on any detail that they can capitalise on as objectionalble while ignoring the context and background of the references they find objectionable.

That which are as far as you've been schooled as "accurate" historical quotes may perhaps not be quite "accurate". It depends on which side's 'historical' records we've been told to accept.

As many have previously enquired , why this Pope should have chosen to revive the obviously offfensive quotation at this time.

quote:

Originally posted by Christiana:
As a Histoy graduate, I deeply resent any attempt to censor accurate historical quotes becaues they may be politically uncomfortable. As a Christian...

So how then do you reconcile your belief in a religion which relies on a book and character for which there is little evidence and clearly contains inaccurate quotes and statements?

Hi Joobs, you've reminded me of a song from Gershwin's - Porgy + Bess,

"It ain't necessarily so
De things dat yo' liable to read in de Bible
It ain't necessarily so--

quote:

Originally posted by smoked duck:
Hi Joobs, you've reminded me of a song from Gershwin's - Porgy + Bess,

"It ain't necessarily so
De things dat yo' liable to read in de Bible
It ain't necessarily so--

and to continue a great song...
"methuslah lived nine hundred years
But who calls that livin' when no gal'll give in
To no man what's nine hundred years..."

I'd forgotten that part. Thanks .

quote:

Originally posted by smoked duck:
Hi Joobs, you've reminded me of a song from Gershwin's - Porgy + Bess,

"It ain't necessarily so
De things dat yo' liable to read in de Bible
It ain't necessarily so--

Quoting lines from songs is nice and dandy but it really is just avoiding the question isn't it. It isn't a question of "not necessarily being so" but of being "demonstrably false". Yes there are parts of the bible which one cannot prove or disprove but we can certainly show other parts are totally false. As a christian do you find it objectionable that you have to make apologetics for the bibles errors or do you just ignore them?

If, however, you accept it has errors then how do you know which parts are good, what is the objective criteria for such. Without such then how can you have faith in a text or claim it has any authority when it demonstrably contains errors. By ignoring the errors and claiming the book has authority or claim to truth you are just being dishonest.

As examples (and since you are a history graduate) would you care to explain:

Where is the evidence for the Biblical flood and how would it be possible for such a craft to contain even a tiny proportion of species for the year+ voyage which is reported.

Just who Solomon was, where his fabulous kingdom existed and where all the archaeological evidence for him is to be found?

How Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of being a messiah? (I mean the original one not the later christian *******ised version made up post event.)

A coherent chronological sequence of events as given in the resurrection accounts (without bodging it or leaving bits from some versions out).

As a history graduate I am sure you are aware that we give Julius Caesar's "Gallic Wars" credit since it is invariably validated by other accounts of the events, including those of his enemies. Care to tell us which contemporaneous histories and historians of the period back up the main and obviously noteworthy events described in the NT.