Source (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-09-15T194847Z_01_L14330092_RTRUKOC_0_US-RELIGION-POPE-ISLAM.xml)


CAIRO (Reuters) - Muslims on Friday deplored remarks made by Pope Benedict on Islam and many of them said the Catholic leader should apologize in person to dispel the impression he had joined a campaign against their religion.

The furor prompted several thousand flag-waving Palestinians to march in the Gaza Strip in protest against the Pope's comments.

"This is another Crusader war against the Arab and Muslim world," said Hamas official Ismail Radwan as he addressed some 5,000 chanting demonstrators.


Pakistan's National Assembly, parliament's lower house, unanimously passed a resolution condemning the Pope's comments.

In a speech in Germany on Tuesday, the Pope appeared to endorse a Christian view, contested by most Muslims, that the early Muslims spread their religion by violence.

The 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the world's largest Muslim body, said quotations used by the Pope represented a "character assassination of the Prophet Mohammad" and a "smear campaign".

"The OIC hopes that this campaign is not the prelude of a new Vatican policy toward Islam ... The OIC also hopes that the Vatican will issue statements that reflect its true position and views on Islam and Islamic teachings," it said.

The Pope on Tuesday repeated criticism of the Prophet Mohammad by the 14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus, who said everything Mohammad brought was evil "such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preachedThe Pope, who used the terms "jihad" and "holy war" in his lecture, added "violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul".

"The Pope of the Vatican joins in the Zionist-American alliance against Islam," said the leading Moroccan daily Attajdid, the main Islamist newspaper in the kingdom.

"We demand that he apologizes personally, and not through (Vatican) sources, to all Muslims for such a wrong interpretation," said Beirut-based Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah, one of the world's top Shi'ite Muslim clerics.

Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi defended the Pope's lecture and said he did not mean to offend Muslims.


"It was certainly not the intention of the Holy Father to undertake a comprehensive study of the jihad and of Muslim ideas on the subject, still less to offend the sensibilities of Muslim faithful," Lombardi told Vatican Radio.

A high-ranking Church source expressed fears for the Pope's safety, saying: "While I think the controversy will go away, it has done damage and if I were a security expert I'd be worried."

APOLOGY

The Muslim Brotherhood, the Arab world's largest group of political Islamists, demanded an apology from the Pope and called on the governments of Islamic countries to break relations with the Vatican if he does not make one.

The Sheikh of al-Azhar, one of the Sunni Muslim world's most prestigious seats of religious studies, said: "The Azhar asserts that these statements indicate clear ignorance of Islam

They attribute to Islam what it does not contain," the sheikh, Mohamed Sayed Tantawi, said in a statement on MENA.

In Iraq, the Pope's comments were condemned at Friday prayers by followers of radical Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

"This is the second time such an offence has been give before Ramadan," said Sheikh Salah al-Ubeidi, one of Sadr's aides, referring to last year's publication of cartoons in a Danish paper sparking violent Muslim protests around the world.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel told Bild newspaper the aim of the Pope's speech had been misunderstood.


"It was an invitation to dialogue between religions ... What Benedict XVI emphasised was a decisive and uncompromising renunciation of all forms of violence in the name of religion," she was quoted as saying in an article to appear on Saturday.

The Koran endorses the concept of jihad, often translated as holy war, but Muslims differ on conditions for it, with some saying it applies only for self-defense against external attack


What to think of this ? The Pope quotes a statement from the 14th century, and all hell breaks loose again.

Should the Pope apologize, as they demand ?

[ September 18, 2006, 21:29: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

Oh hell no he shouldn't apologise. He should let the comment stand and let the muslim religion prove him wrong. If they take violent action then they're just proving him right.

If anything they shouldn't just demand an apology, they should prove why he's wrong first. Arab nations have a habit of burning American flags and calling the States everything horrible under the sun yet they don't demand an apology despite most claims being utterly false.

The whole issue is pretty pointless and people are getting riled up about what some old guy in a big hat said.

I don't want to offend catholics but I think Benedict XVI is one to be ignored. So I don't mind he apologises or not, because his comments are worthless. I wish someone more rational and sensible was pope.

The Pope was ill-judged to have quoted Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus, who is hardly an impartial observer of Islam, so casually and he would probably be better advised in future to address the concerns within Catholicism before commenting on those of another faith. What is more, it is unclear from the passages that followed the quote whether the Pope refutes or, indeed, endorses the emperor's language and although the Pope does make it clear that he was offering a quotation he did not sufficiently distance himself from the claim that Muhammed was responsible for evil. There might have been less fuss had Benedict a clearer record in favour of dialogue with Islam and he has certainly taken a less conciliatory approach in the Church's dealings with Islam than his predecessor Pope John Paul. However, the Pontiff has apologised today and that should be enough for what was almost certainly nothing more than an ill-judged remark.

Didn`t the guy who is now pope also claim that the Beatles were satanic? and that ACDC meant Anti-Christ Death to Christ?
Its not just the muslims who has their share of fanatics I think..............

Oh hell no he shouldn't apologise. He should let the comment stand and let the muslim religion prove him wrong. If they take violent action then they're just proving him right.That pretty much sums it up, but religions are not about "being rational." Another topic proved this to me a little while ago. The fact is that the muslims are simply feeling touchy due of one reason or another (suicide-bombers, Afghanistan, Iraq, US invasion, Israel... your pick). So naturally they need a good way to vent out all that steam. Since religions have caused most of the trouble, religions can also vent out the steam too, no? ;)

Well. The Vatican hasn't been going easy on "unbelievers" too, back then.

Crusades n stuff.

so in my opinion: they all suck, i could not care less about what happens between them.

*sigh*

when people realize teh Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one true god everything will be so much better :D

i could not care less about what happens between them. That should be nice IF, as always, the few "we-are-talking-in-the-name-of-the-people" people, fight/blow themselves eachother, and not involving innocent people in their stupid crusades.

Actually, I think it´s great that Papa Ratzi diverted the attention that Denmark has been getting from the Mohammed-psychos.... erhh, crisis. The people of my little backwater country are no longer The Unholy Satans of Humanity.
I could even give you a link to an interview with Sayyed Tantawi, the spiritual leader of the sunni-muslims, approx 1 billion people. He claimed that what Denmark did was one of the biggest crimes ever commited. Kinda makes me proud to be Danish, I must say. Hitler, Idi Amin, Ayatollah Khomeini, Stalin etc. Sissies! Yup, we´re Danish, and we´re the Scourge of Humanity! Beware!
I´m just waiting for what comments this guy has about the Pope´s speech.
Here´s the link, though. The interview is in Danish, so it´s probably not going to make much sense to the majority of the people here. But anyway...
http://www.jp.dk/muhammed/artikel:aid=3901146/

Well - someone has to stand up and say it. Might as well be someone as expendable as the Pope...

Of course - there's the whole 'remove the plank in your own eye first' - you can preach about there been no justification for violence when you don't have any in your dogma...

Further to Yulaw9460's link, here is a translation of the article from the Jyllands-Posten. Some notes and my personal comments follow.

--- Translation ---

Grand Imam: Jyllands-Posten must be shut down

Grand Imam demands that the Jyllands-Posten be shut down, that the chief editor of the paper be jailed for the prophet drawings, and that the cultural editor be drawn as a pig.(1)

JP extra

The Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten should be banned, and the chief editor Carsten Juste should be going to prison for up to three years. Furthermore, the newspapers cultural editor Flemming Rose should suffer the humiliation of being depicted as a pig.
These are the words of Egyptian Grand Imam, Sheikh og Al Azhar, Sayyed Tantawi - the spiritual leader of the world's up to one billion Sunni Muslims - in the first interview he has granted a Danish newspaper.

- The satirical drawings(2) of the prophet Mohammed is one of the worst crimes ever committed. The editor should be sent to prison for one, two, or three years. Furthermore, the paper should be banned from distribution for a number of years. This is for the courts to decide, says Sayyed Tantawi to the Berlingske Tidende.

According to the Grand Imam, who is regarded as a very liberal religious leader by experts on Islam, the Mohammed drawings have nothing to do with freedom of expression - as the Jyllands-Posten and the Danish government have claimed. It is the freedom to be rude, states Sayyed Tantawi.

- The Prophets, be it Jesus, Moses, Abraham or Mohammed, are the chosen of God. You in the West must understand that you cannot treat prophets the way you treat presidents or other normal people, states Sayyed Tantawi, who believes that the cultural editor of the Jyllands-Postens, Flemming Rose - the man behind the controversial drawings - should suffer the humiliation of being depicted as a pig.

However, it does not frighten Flemming Rose, the man behind the drawings, to be depicted as a pig.

- It is thought-provoking that he thinks it will be a humiliation for me to be drawn as a pic. It confirms that this Imam suffers from a terrifying lack of knowledge about our civilization, and it confirms the necessity of maintaining a dialog, without necessarily having to compromise, says Flemming Rose.

--- NOTES ---

(1) About Flemming Rose being depicted as a pig - a group of Imams from Denmark travelled to the Middle East, including Egypt, in late 2005 to gain support against the caricatures. They brought copies of the caricatures - and they also brought false drawings, including one of the prophet Mohammed depicted as a pig, in order to exacerbate the "crime" that had been committed. This may be the reason the Grand Imam wants Flemming Rose depicted as a pig, if he still believes the pig drawing was one of the original caricatures.

(2) I have translated "tegning" literally as "drawing" to keep the word's meaning, but it is my personal opinion that the "drawings" were actually "caricatures"!

--- And for my personal two cents ---

The Jyllands-Posten did have the legal and moral right to bring caricatures of the prophet Mohammed. However, I also have the legal right to stick out my tongue or thumb my nose at other people. But if I do so, it is my own fault if people dislike me for it and refuse to associate with me. What the Jyllands-Posten did was insensitive and immature. This doesn't excuse burning of Danish flags, sacking of Danish embassies, or general vilification of all Danes - but I don't blame Muslims for being enraged. It's just that the reactions were way out of proportion, and I suspect that the caricatures were not the real reason, more like a match being set to a powder keg.

They say worse things about Christianity all the time and they don't seem to have any problem with that. Additionally, they seemed to forget that the Crusaders took place less than 400 years after the massive attack of Muslims taking Palestine, Egypt and North Africa from the Byzantine Empire, as well as less than 300 years since the Muslim conquest of Spain in quite insidious circumstances.

Moreover, Emperor Manuel Paleologus demanded explanation as to why Muslim conquest in the form of a Jihad holy war was being directed against his homeland, if the Qoran said, "There is no compulsion in religion."

So what's offensive to Muslims? Quoting the inconvenient part of Qoran? Those who claim not to be extremists should be the last people to feel offended.

Besides, it was the Persian sage's idea that God wasn't bound by his own word, so Muslims could state He wanted them to run a Jihad even if He had expressly forbidden conversion conquest before. So?

I suppose the Pope is apologising because he didn't actually want to single out Muslims but simply talk about the relationship between theology, metaphysics and pondering the supernatural, and reason. But this is just my guess.

Looks like I'm the first Muslim to actually come by this thread...

Having read that article...I must say that I couldn't give two hoots about the Pope. I mean seriously...he's saying that violence in any religion is unacceptable and that Islam has innate tendencies towards violence, correct? That was my interpretation of that article...

And with all due respect I don't see why I need the approval of the CHRISTIAN pope for my religion...so yeah...big deal...

"The OIC hopes that this campaign is not the prelude of a new Vatican policy toward Islam ... Hilarious. At every turn the pope made his intentions known of furthering dialogue and mutual respect between religions. But those people cant let fact get in the way of a chance to force conflict where thoughts should have been inspired. By willfully misinterpreting a single citation (which doesnt even reflect the pope's opinion, but was a mere means to Benedikt's argumentation) they made clear what they are aiming for: Intimidation and spreading resentment.
Regrettable only that the pope was taken aback by the "vehemence" of reactions. He shouldnt give these madmen a quarter since he isnt in the wrong. For once. :p

Dendri,

At every turn the pope made his intentions known of furthering dialogue and mutual respect between religions. Actually Pope Benedict XVI has unfortunately withdrawn from the interfaith initiatives inaugurated by his predecessor, John Paul II, at a time when they are more desperately needed than ever. As pope Benedict moved move archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, one of the Catholic Church's leading experts on Islam, and head of its council on inter-religious dialogue, away from the centre of influence in Rome, and sent him to Egypt as papal nuncio. However, the Pope, as is evident from his personal expression of regret yesterday, is still in favour of dialogue and certainly does not seek needless confrontation.

Personally I think the Pope's denigration of Islam reeks of hypocrisy, since the Catholic church is ill-placed to condemn violent jihad when it has itself been guilty of unholy violence in crusades, persecutions and inquisitions. It would certainly be more constructive for the Vatican to condemn those militias in Africa, such as the diabolical Lord's Resistance Army, who use Christianity to justify violence before criticising Islam?

True dialogue will only be achieved when both sides are prepared to be self-critical in discussing aspects of their history that are not pretty and not edifying rather than simply having Christians saying to Muslims 'I will tell you what your history is about' and Muslims quoting distortions of Christian history which are just as laughable as Christian distortions of Muslim history. It's not all Crusades and Jihad.

I think if the Pope's intentions were as innocent as he proclaims, he could have found a better quote.

I also agree with Faraaz... why should any non-Catholic care about what the Pope says, anyway?

Actually Pope Benedict XVI has unfortunately withdrawn from the interfaith initiatives inaugurated by his predecessor, John Paul II, at a time when they are more desperately needed than ever.Why are these initiatives so desperately needed right now? A problem addressed in Benedikt's lecture of Regensburg. Religion and violence. Btw, the harshest critics of the pope admit that he is intend on improving interreligious relations. This lecture was meant as an invitation for same. Just as he showed his good will on other occasions.

However, the Pope, as is evident from his personal expression of regret yesterday, is still in favour of dialogue and certainly does not seek needless confrontation.His personal regret was the embarrasing display his words unleashed, not the the words themselves, neither their message. I would also say he doesnt seek confrontation at all, needless or otherwise. I am always willing to correct my thoughts on the matter, though, should there be evidence for your claims. Otoh, I have my suspicions what ends the mobs (and the ones orchestrating them) have in mind.

Personally I think the Pope's denigration of Islam reeks of hypocrisy, since[...]Never mind that Islam was debased by the reactions, violence, threats by its faithful around the globe. Please, where exactly has the pope denigrated Islam?

Muslims: Islam is not a violent religeon, and we will kill everyone who says otherwise. :shake:

I think their actions proved the pope's point, if he was actually trying to make one.

I feel for the peaceful Muslims who have to put up with the crap their misguided fanatical brothers do.

@ Faraaz. I'm a muslim as well and like you I think the pope is talking a load of crap. So why should I care! I wouldn't insult Jesus simply because as a Muslim I believe he once lived (hope you people aren't suprised). If the pope vents his anger publicly because he thinks mohammed is evil, then unfortunately I don't care and neither do most other muslims so he can keep his retarded opinion to his select group of followers. I think the pope is the one whose being evil here. Breaking one of the ten commandments of the christian religion by telling lies. He knows what he's doing, after all he is a leading pope. I wonder how much he earns ?

@Pacman: I'm not going to kill anyone. Where did you get that statement from ?

Hi Dendri,

Btw, the harshest critics of the pope admit that he is intend on improving interreligious relations.This is certainly not how he is perceived in Britain. Although in the eighteen months since he was elected Pope, Benedict would seem to have softened his abrasive image he is still regarded as a somewhat ruthless conservative. Whilst still a Cardinal, Ratzinger (in)famously once referred to Buddhism as a form of masturbation for the mind! Even his apology at the weekend managed to bring Jews into the row. This is, however, a mater of opinion and we certainly can't expect Benedict to completely accept Islam or else he would no longer be Pope! :)

Please, where exactly has the pope denigrated Islam? I think offence was taken because although the Pope did make it clear he was offering a quotation there was no phrase clearly distancing himself from the claim that Muhammad was responsible for evil. Further offence lay buried beneath theological rhetoric when the Pope argued that because God in Islam "is absolutely transcendent" [a notion some Christian theologians also share], He is "not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality". Which, surely, is another way of the Pope saying that Islam may be beyond reason. He then makes a further reference to the views of the Byzantine emperor: "Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God” For in claiming that there is no reasoning in or with Islam, and then further claiming that to act without reason is to act contrary to the will of God, is pretty close to the assertion that this religion is godless. This is why the Pope's remarks may look rather more than just a slip or a casual mistake.

Never mind that Islam was debased by the reactions, violence, threats by its faithful around the globe. Most certainly true, and I never said otherwise. However, as I have previously stated, the Catholic church is ill-placed to condemn violent jihad when many Catholics are themselves guilty of violence and it would be more constructive if the Pope wielded his considerable influence to reign in those fanatics who use Christianity to justify violence. There were certainly infinitely more constructive ways to make his point about violence than to quote the rant of a 14th century emperor who is hardly an impartial observer of Islam.

@Pacman: I'm not going to kill anyone. Where did you get that statement from ?Oh, just about every muslim gathering i've seen on the news lately, like the one rally in Britain after the cartoon incident. They wrote it down on banners and stuff, displaying their peaceful interpretation of Islam. Gave me a good chuckle, i can tell you that much.

However, as I have previously stated, the Catholic church is ill-placed to condemn violent jihad when many Catholics are themselves guilty of violence and it would be more constructive if the Pope wielded his considerable influence to reign in those fanatics who use Christianity to justify violence.The thing is there are no Christian terrorists who go on murderous rampages slaughtering civilians in the name of God, yet there ARE Muslim terrorists who do this in THIS day and age. Deliberate targetting of civilians is not something modern Christians do, so to say the Pope is throwing stones from his glass house (or cathedral... whatever) is not a correct assumption to make.

Dare I ask somebody to provide evidence of a Chrstian fanatic attacking civilians of another faith because the unfaithful must be purged or some such in the past 25 years?

I'm a muslim as well Oh wow! How come SP hasn't been blown up yet? Oh, that's right, being a muslim doesn't automatically make you a terrorist. Seriously, it's great to have some diversity of views and opinions on these Boards, especially to help provide some balance to this particular discussion, which sometimes gets a bit too hypothetical and second-hand.

What I'd really like is a clear definition of Infidel as mentioned in the call to Jihad. If it generically means Chirstians and Jews or Americans in particular, then the Pope was spot on. If Infidel simply means one who seeks to kill you for your beliefs or violently disrupt your worship, then the Pope was out of line.

Any religion that demands the shedding of innocent blood is, in my mind, evil and inhuman...

SatansBF - The theological leanings of Benedikt are not my concern. I know nothing of a group that goes by the name of Lord's Resistance Army. Possibly because the scale of violent fanaticism in Christianity does not compare to that in Islam? Nor the number of Christians who act on their extreme beliefs? I do not know.

I think offence was taken because although the Pope did make it clear he was offering a quotation there was no phrase clearly distancing himself from the claim that Muhammad was responsible for evil. Further offence lay buried beneath theological rhetoric when the Pope argued that because God in Islam "is absolutely transcendent" [a notion some Christian theologians also share], He is "not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality". Which, surely, is another way of the Pope saying that Islam may be beyond reason. He then makes a further reference to the views of the Byzantine emperor: "Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God” For in claiming that there is no reasoning in or with Islam, and then further claiming that to act without reason is to act contrary to the will of God, is pretty close to the assertion that this religion is godless. This is why the Pope's remarks may look rather more than just a slip or a casual mistake.
Where to start? You actually made me search for that lecture and read it with some care for detail. No easy thing, given that it deals with theological questions of a rather high order. Being a native German speaker I got the drift of it firsthand. Where you suspect underlying insults, hidden slights and inferences the pope surely meant to make... I must say thee nay. It is nothing but an introduction to his musings about reason/logos and how it cannot be complete by only relying on empirical data and facts that can be verified. How that conviction is hampering Europe's prospect of entering an eye-to-eye dialogue with cultures who think such limited reason/logos offensive to their innermost beliefs and understandig of how this world presents itself to us.
Now, if you, SBF, or any of those hopeless lunatics in the streets feel the pope did not sufficiently distance himself from the 'Islam is godless and Mohammed is a herald of evil' vileness then that's only proof you did not understand. Europe is the one that was slapped around, because she lost sight of that wholesome logos, in Benedikt's understanding. Logos as the Byzantine emperor expressed it in that dispute with a Persian scholar. The contrast is not logos vs. Islam but logos vs. modern Europe. The sole reason why this citation was chosen, I assume with some certainty, as the pope disapproved of the Mohammed caricatures. If he was that nefarious I am sure he would at least be consistent, wouldnt you agree?

Then again there is no avoiding people who want a conflict. No matter how trivial they will use all to bring it on.

Heh - apparently there was some graffiti today along the sound-barrier walls on the highway; 'The Pope was right.'

And with all due respect to the Muslims here and elsewhere as individuals (separated from their belief system) - yes, I think the Pope was right when he brands Islam as a Bad Thing.

On the other hand, I think the same about basically all of Christianity. Islam is just doing a better job of expressing its absurdity in the modern world.

Dendri,

I know nothing of a group that goes by the name of Lord's Resistance Army. Possibly because the scale of violent fanaticism in Christianity does not compare to that in Islam? Nor the number of Christians who act on their extreme beliefs? I do not know.Like yourself I cannot answer that question except to say that ridiculous, outmoded and hateful religious practices are unfortunately prevalent in both faiths. As regards the Lord's Resistance Army (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3462901.stm) they are a rebel group which has been fighting the Ugandan Government for nearly 18 years, and has killed or maimed tens of thousands of civilians in their attempts to “purify” the populace.

Where you suspect underlying insults, hidden slights and inferences the pope surely meant to make... I must say thee nay. It is nothing but an introduction to his musings about reason/logos and how it cannot be complete by only relying on empirical data and facts that can be verified. As you have pointed out the Pope's address was primarily a scholarly exercise that sought to challenge the idea that rationality is intrinsically and necessarily secular. Where I found a sharp criticism of Islam was when Benedict followed his assertion that in Muslim teaching,"God is absolutely transcendent", and therefore "not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality [i.e logos] "with this further quote from the Byzantine Emperor: "Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God”. Such a statement appears to me as pretty close to an assertion that Islam is godless. However, since I am only able to read the statement in translation I would appreciate your opinion of the relevant passages.

Abomination,

The thing is there are no Christian terrorists who go on murderous rampages slaughtering civilians in the name of God, yet there ARE Muslim terrorists who do this in THIS day and age. Deliberate targetting of civilians is not something modern Christians do, so to say the Pope is throwing stones from his glass house (or cathedral... whatever) is not a correct assumption to make.

Dare I ask somebody to provide evidence of a Chrstian fanatic attacking civilians of another faith because the unfaithful must be purged or some such in the past 25 years? To name but a few: the massacres in the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2255902.stm) , the attacks by Christian Rebels on Hindu villagers (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/758342.stm) in North Eastern India, the communal violence in Nigeria (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4743672.stm) , millennialist militias (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3462901.stm) in Africa, and the sectarian strife in Northern Ireland (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/576832.stm). Such actions are obviously a complete distortion of Christianity and it also true that some Muslims are equally guilty in this respect, but it is naïve for you to believe that Islam has a monopoly on such barbarity.

Where I found a sharp criticism of Islam was when Benedict followed his assertion that in Muslim teaching,"God is absolutely transcendent", and therefore "not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality [i.e logos] "with this further quote from the Byzantine Emperor: "Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God”. Such a statement appears to me as pretty close to an assertion that Islam is godless. However, since I am only able to read the statement in translation I would appreciate your opinion of the relevant passages.Allah transcending our categories is not the position of the pope, obviously, but that of Islam. The words of a Muslim scholar, Ibn Hazn, were cited in Benedikt's lecture as an example. More accurately, Benedikt used the work of a Professor Khoury who made these observations. To what degreee that is an assertion you will have to discuss with our Muslim friends here or elsewhere...
The pope points out, though, that similar beliefs were held among Christians throughout the centuries, including good old Immanuel Kant.

Benedikt's phrasing of

Hier tut sich ein Scheideweg im Verständnis Gottes und so in der konkreten Verwirklichung von Religion auf, der uns heute ganz unmittelbar herausfordert. was translated - somewhat lacking - as

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. In any event, the pope did not deny the existence of a god in Islam. Far more he spoke of a parting (Scheideweg) in the understanding of this god. I think that is a far cry from claiming Islam is godless, as all that was revealed is that Christianity and Islam arent exactly identical in their attempts to imagine the divine.

How banal is that?

Pardon me, but the assertions you accuse the pope of I fail to recognize.

In any event, the pope did not deny the existence of a god in Islam. Far more he spoke of a parting (Scheideweg) in the understanding of this god. I think that is a far cry from claiming Islam is godless, as all that was revealed is that Christianity and Islam arent exactly identical in their attempts to imagine the divine.I've heard that Allah translates to "the God". This suggests that it is the same God, but they follow the teachings of a different teacher. They reduce Jesus Christ to simply being a prophet instead of the divine son of God, and promote Mohammed as a great leader of the faith.

Naturally, we Christians haven't been told much about this Mohammed, so we discount him. Further, some of his teachings are all but contradicted the teachings that we've been taught, so we reject it.

Whether Islam is "evil and inhuman" depends on who paints the picture. Most of what I hear is peaceful, so that doesn't sound too bad (not for me, but not intolerable). If you listen to Osama Bin Laden, then that makes it the Greatest evil the world has ever known...

Now there is this cartoon. (http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1703765/posts)
I'm affraid that this won't end up very well, and what scares me most is the fact that people who don't have any opinion on the matter would die.

first off historically, islam did spread as a religion semi forced on people in conquered contries. when the prophet muhammed and his followeres set out and conquered the east, they allowed other religions to stay along side Islam, but they impossed extra taxes and took away certain rights from none muslims, later on they much like the christians took the policy of "convert or die". So none of our major religions are free of having been spred with violence.
But unlike any of the other major religions, Islam has not have a periode of it being the lesser religion in its core contriese.

Secondly: the whole "only muslims fundamentalist exist" is bull****, just look at ireland. it has suffered from generations christian fractions fighting each other.

and Allah translate into "the lord". the prophet muhammed was greatly inspirred by jews, the muslims believe themself to be decendents of the house of David (as far as i remember) and the first chapters of the quoran is just like the genesis.

Bringing up Ireland is a lame excuse, the IRA focusses on England and England alone. The Islamic hardliners have a much wider perspective, global domination. I have yet to meet the Irishman who wishes to rule the world, so don't come up with that crap.

You know, I can't help but feel that most of the interpretations of the Qur'an with regards to Jihad are not completely appropriate in today's modern environment.

Guys, you HAVE to keep in mind that the Quran was written during a time where civilization as we know it was non-existent in Arabia. At that time, pagan religions held sway and Mohammed was persecuted by the paganists much the same as Christ was by the Jews. The only difference, IMO, is that Christ went about spreading Christianity more passively, whereas Mohammed was active, and defended himself AND his community by waging war against some VERY aggressive tribal antagonists.

Now, having said that, I find interpretations of the scriptures of Jihad saying "Kill All Americans" made by extremist Muslims like Taliban, as well as Pacman saying we're all turban wearing maniacs with an AK-47 in one hand and a Molotov cocktail in another..BOTH to be extremely offensive.

I know, Pacman and similar anti-Islamic people are going to find some way of twisting what I have said into saying that:

1) "So you say the Quran is irrelevant today?"
2) "So you are saying that violence IS promoted by Islam?"
3) "So you say that killing innocent people in the name of Jihad is GOOD?"

And so on and so forth...please, just take what I have said in the spirit I have said it. And try not to make us Muslims look to be quite as bad as that. After all, Islam IS the fastest growing religion in the world...and we're hardly doing it by conquest of countries at the moment. :p

Edit: On a slightly related note, this is about the whole Christ in Islam issue. As I was taught by my parents, and my personal interpretations of the Quran, here's a short summary:

* Throughout the Quran, Jews, Christians and Muslims are collectively referred to as "People of the Book" or something similar. I have always understood this as meaning that these three religions all worship the same God.

* In the Quran, I have understood what I have read to mean that there were four Books of note.

-The Zubur (sp??) was revealed to David, who we believe was the first (chronologically speaking) prophet.
-The Torat (Jewish holy book) was revealed to Moses, who we believe was the second prophet.
-The Injil (Christian holy book) was written by the disciples of Christ based on his teachings, who we believe was the third prophet.
-The Quran (Islamic holy book) was written as dictated by the Angel Gabriel to the Prophet Mohammed, who we believe was the fourth and FINAL prophet.

* This implies that Jewism, Christianity and Islam are like Windows 95, Me and XP, atleast in my interpretation. Sort of like updated versions of the SAME DAMN THING! It really pisses me off when Christians and Jews argue about Islam, I mean COME ON! You guys are technically speaking, the closest thing to Muslims without actually BEING Muslim. Its one thing when Hindus start riots and genocide in India against Muslims (Partition of India etc.) but its completely another when YOU guys start doing it! :grr:

As a disclaimer, I would like to add that these views are my own, and that no offense is intended to any religion I have mentioned in my post. Also, Pacman, I find MOST of your posts extremely offensive, and a little moderation on your part would go a long way.

Cheers everyone!

Edit2:
@Aikanaro:
And with all due respect to the Muslims here and elsewhere as individuals (separated from their belief system) - yes, I think the Pope was right when he brands Islam as a Bad Thing.
Wow...that's a pretty bold statement. I'd actually agree with you though, if you confined your statement to the morons who start saying "Kill the pope" and other extreme Muslims, instead of people like me who just want to get on with things without being the subject of all this negative sentiment.

Edit3...this is getting out of hand!:

@SatansBedFellow: Great post! I really found your point of view on the whole issue very objective and non-biased, not to mention informative. :thumb: Nice one. :thumb:

[ September 24, 2006, 17:13: Message edited by: Faraaz ]

Generalisations: They're Fun And Easy!

@Clixby: I believe my response can be accurately summarised as..." :p "

Faraaz, I wasn't talking about you. I agree with you.

Well...I was kidding you know... :)

Sticking the tongue out at the other person and all that...

Edit: Sorry I guess...although I'm not too sure what I'm apologising for! :)

[ September 24, 2006, 18:37: Message edited by: Faraaz ]

anti-Islamic people are going to find some way of twisting what I have saidI think I gave them a bit of practice, Sorry...

And try not to make us Muslims look to be quite as bad as thatBut I thought that making religion look bad/foolish was what most people do here?

The Injil (Christian holy book) was written by the disciples of Christ based on his teachings, who we believe was the third prophet.This is the biggest difference between Christianity and Islam. You teach that Christ was a prophet, we teach that he was the Son of God.

I'd actually agree with you though, if you confined your statement to the morons who start saying "Kill the pope" and other extreme MuslimsSo they piss you off like some Christian extremists piss the rest of us Christians off.

Generalisations: They're Fun And Easy!And it saves people from having to actually think while claiming that they are superior to everyone else.

@Gnarfflinger: Mate, I still dunno if you were agreeing with me or not...

Edit:

So they piss you off like some Christian extremists piss the rest of us Christians off. HELL YES! Its the same old story all over again. A VERY vocal minority earns a reputation for the entire community, where the overwhelming majority do not share those sentiments.

For instance, with reference to the Holocaust during WWII..is it fair for me to say that all Germans are racist Nazi pigs? Its not!! Its pretty much the same thing with Muslims as well. We are PEOPLE! Just like you guys! You get nutjobs in EVERY group of people you can think of! Whether it be Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Americans, Indians, Saudi Arabians, Chinese, Japanese...it doesn't matter.

They are NOT a true representation of what we are all about! I've said this on these boards sooo many times...

*Le sigh*

Faraaz:

What I said wasn't a generalisation of people but of beliefs - I'm saying that *Islam* is bad, not muslims. My statement didn't involve anyone - neither muslims such as yourself nor the nutters who want the Pope dead.

Seperating people from their beliefs is, IMO, important. The people calling for the death of the Pope could be really nice people ... until you bring up the subject of religion at which point they morph into nutters. Thus as far as I can tell it is the religion that is the problem, not the people (well - I'm sure some of them are just morons - but that can't be generalised to everyone).

So by that statement I made I was only meaning that your beliefs suck, not you ;)

[edit: hmm, this post gives the impression that I only dislike Islam because of the nutty muslims out there - that's not true. I detest it for a wide variety of reasons...]

I don't understand how people can say "X religion is a bad thing because the did bad stuff in the past and have nutjobs". The point is that this happened in the past, and the teachings of that religion have changed over time as society evolves. Religion is not static, as much as militant atheists would like to believe. The only people who follow a holy book of any kind to the word are fundamentalists, and for the rest it provides some guidelines to living the "right" way.

Also, I'd be incredibly offended if I was a Christian and someone told me my beliefs suck, since by extension you'd be insulting the foundation from which I draw meaning.

Mate, I still dunno if you were agreeing with me or not...Once you get past the doctrinal differences we face the same challenges.

Clixby;

I'm just going to assume that everything you said there was aimed at me...

... in which case I'm pretty sure you must have missed the bit that I editted in. The things you note are not my only issues with Islam and religion in general - they're just the most obvious manifestations of it.

Religion can change - of course it can. That doesn't make it any less nonsensical or dangerous. It's the absurd thinking that makes it dangerous - the suspension of rationality which leads to all sorts of horrible things. The 'nutters' aren't necessarily even nutters outside their religious lives - only when religion is invoked do they start suspending their rational and critical thinking and thus look bat**** crazy to those of us who are holding onto those things.

Suspending reality is something that moderately religious people do as well - not just hardcore fundies, and while the results aren't as spectacularly bad, they're still bad. So many things are unreasonably taboo because of religious thinking - people deny themselves a lot of things which otherwise would be enjoyable because 'God tells them to', not because they actually are bad things. It can also stop all kinds of scientific and medical advances on the basis of things that, well ... aren't real.

This is why I think religion - and faith in general - is a bad thing, and why I think that the Pope was right in saying that Islam sucks. Not that the Pope's beliefs are that much better mind you - they still carry the same rubbish which makes Islam dangerous.

Blah - anyway, rant over. I could probably say a lot more on the subject ... but I'll try not to. My wrist is sore anyway...

Two quotes to end with:

"I'm not convinced that faith can move mountains, but I've seen what it can do to skyscrapers." -William H. Gascoyne

'Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.' - Voltaire

So many things are unreasonably taboo because of religious thinking - people deny themselves a lot of things which otherwise would be enjoyable because 'God tells them to', not because they actually are bad things.But what if they actually believe that the choices they make are actually better? A parent tells a child not to skate on thin ice not to be vindictive or arbitrary, but because there is real danger. Just like the Commandments of God warn us of real danger. They command us to be sexually pure. This is not to be punitive or restrictive, but to protect us from STD and unplanned pregnancy as well as complicated interpersonal situations. As a Mormon, Alcohol, Tobacco and illegal drugs are forbidden not for the sake of "silly rules" but to protect us from the harmful effects of these substances.

'Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.' - Voltaire Believing absudrities is not a pre-requisite for attrocities. All that is required is an excess of Wrath, jealousy, greed, Lust, pride or Gluttony.

@Aikanaro: So, by extension of your statement, am I to understand that Christianity is just as bad as Islam?

Edit: Sorry Abomination..fixed now.

[ September 27, 2006, 10:14: Message edited by: Faraaz ]

Gnarff:

I'll take what you say in your first paragraph seriously when you can give me a non-doctrinal reason why homosexuality is bad. Until then I'm considering your points about sins always being bad things as invalid.

Faraaz:

Assuming you mean me, as Abomination hasn't posted...

Yes, Christianity is fundamentally just as bad as Islam. Fortunately however the vast majority of Christians now ignore the worst parts of their religion - the basic problem of faith is still there though, and is still screwing things up.

Eh? When did I say that? That's twice I've been misquoted when I didn't even post :confused:

But to answer your question: yes. Just as bad and as good as each other. They both have their various practices and I recently discovered that a workmate of mine is muslim, he doesn't do strange dogmatic things like only shave on sundays or something much like how presbetarians worship in a rather relaxed manner and can pretty much do as they please so long as they don't harm others.

The more organised and the more strange 'customs' or practices a certain division of a religion is the worse it is in my opinion. People who practice such things honestly need to question 'why' they do those things and by not doing them they are immoral... like having to eat fish on thursdays only or some strange **** like that.

Sorry Abomination, I was browsing multiple threads at the time, and I just had my head up in the clouds at the time I suppose.

Again...apologies.

@Aikanaro: How is this any different from Muslims?? There's not a lot of Muslims who would give people spouting off about Jihad the time of day...myself being a prime example. As well as all my family members and all my muslim friends...

To give you an example, during the months after 9/11 and the American invasion of Afghanistan, the mullah in my local mosque was "encouraging" the youth to go to Afghanistan and "lend our aid" to our Muslim brothers being slaughtered by the "American dogs"...does this mean I'm making this post from a cybercafe in Kabul? Not really...

However, I do agree with you partly about religion being a major reason for most of the things messed up these days.

I'm not sure if you are familiar with the communal riots in India between Hindus and Muslims, but recently, there were some incidents in Godhra, Gujarat...the western parts of India. Horrific would be an apt adjective to use in this instance. Intelligent people give way too much importance to what should, in essence, be a guideline to living a fulfilling life.

The only difference is in scale, I guess - though I'll admit that I don't really have that much knowledge of what's going on in Muslim nations. From what I do see though Islam has a larger number of 'hardcore' members than Christianity. Of course - Christianity might catch up in that regard is America keeps going the way it is...

I'll take what you say in your first paragraph seriously when you can give me a non-doctrinal reason why homosexuality is bad. Until then I'm considering your points about sins always being bad things as invalid.I've heard that homosexual relations carry a greater risk of STD infection, as well as an increased risk of "damage" to the areas involved. Further, it is not natural, despite what others claim.

Fortunately however the vast majority of Christians now ignore the worst parts of their religionCould it be that from the past abuses that we've learned to study the doctrine ourselves and came to conclusions that those past things are not what God intended, and have come to understand a better way to live?

it is not naturalYou shouldn't have said that... ;) Since now I have to have my piece about this.

Let's start defining what's natural. First of all natural is anything that can be. Electromagnetic radiation is natural. Simple molecules formed into complex cellular machinery is natural. Mutations are natural. Mental functions are natural. Disruptions in mental functions are natural. They all happen within the spectrum of natural occurences.

Defining rare occurences in nature unnatural doesn't work. It's devoid of meaning, or the meaning is blurred for the very least. You could say that something isn't normal, meaning that the statistical likelihood of that occurence isn't very big. So why won't you?

Homosexuality is natural. It happens in the nature all the time and humans are no exception. It's rare, but it happens so much that a search for valid causal reasons for it has been going on for some time. That is it happens so often that it could have a hereditary basis to some extent. It might have something to do with beneficial hereditary traits, think on a population scale and not individual, mind you. That would make it not only natural, but maybe even a good thing in the means of survival.

If you go on argumenting morals on the basis of what's natural, then do your research better and put your argument on a firmer basis.

I've heard that homosexual relations carry a greater risk of STD infection, as well as an increased risk of "damage" to the areas involved. Further, it is not natural, despite what others claim.STDs can only be spread provided one of the people involved already has an STD. AIDS can be transmitted sexually however that is not the only way one can be infected with AIDS. Just because somebody is a homosexual male does not mean they will engage in anal-sex.

Having regular sexual relations increases the chance of damage to the genetalia as opposed to not having sexual relations... the same applies to homosexual sexual relations. Obviously the more you use something the higher chance you'll 'strain' something. A woman who has too much vaginal sex with a man can damage herself if she does it too much, too rough and if the male is packing a fairly large penis. However the church doesn't condemn sex for that reason.

The definition of what is natural is entirely up to the interpretation of the viewer. I would argue that homosexuality IS natural since people are homosexual not by choice but by... well... being 'naturally' inclined that way. It's in their nature. They can't fight it.

You shouldn't have said that... Since now I have to have my piece about this.Well, I was asked to defend my stance without scripture. One of the main purposes of sexual activity is to reproduce. Homosexuality does not further this agenda. That is what I base this on. Just as a disease's sypmtoms are considered abnormal, homosexuality is abnormal, whether you are more comfortable calling it sin, disease, curse, shoice, genetic defect or waht have you.

Abomination: I'm not allowed to use holy books to defend my position, you can't use medical or science books to defend yours.

It's in their nature. They can't fight it.I will not accept that unless you can prove that Free Will also does not exist. Homosexuality is a temptation, stronger for some than others, but still a temptation. As such it can be fought.

I'm not allowed to use holy books to defend my position, you can't use medical or science books to defend yours.The reasoning for not using holy books to defend a position is that they are based on unchanging dogma and the reasoning behind homosexuality being evil is because 'God says so'. You bring up points saying that it's unnatural and try to use scientific reasoning to prove it's wrong yet you won't allow me to defend using the same principles?

Free Will does exist to an extent in many things. You have no choice but to breathe air because your body requires it. You have no choice but to consume food because your body requires it. You wish to have a relationship with somebody of the opposite gender because your hormones push you in that direction. I'm never tempted to be homosexual, I have no sexual feelings towards men, to me it's not even on the table - however others DO have these feelings and they can't change the fact that they're sexually attracted to men and not sexually attracted to women. I dare say they would be happy to change their feelings to avoid the social harassment they recieve from fag-haters, homophobes and the christian church. Since they're not attracted to somebody of the opposite sex you would condemn them to a life without honest romantic love?

It is NOT a temptation. The temptation is how much homosexual sex one has, not the act of loving a member of the same gender - that is something that can not be changed. Frankly I don't see how it can be a temptation. What are the advantages of being homosexual over being heterosexual? I dare say none. I dare say that heterosexual relationships are better, more enjoyable, even from a sexual perspective (although I honestly can't say I know what a homosexual sexual relationship is like). Some homosexuals have never had a heterosexual relationship, they don't know what they're missing out on because they've never even tried it, if they've never tried the other side how are they being tempted?

As for reproduction I dare say anything swaying humans towards not reproducing as much these days is a good thing with over-population being a concern for most countries. I would dare say homosexuality is a way for humans to deal with sexual need and frustrations without the after effect of population growth.

Homosexuality is a temptation So is kissing my wife, but I don't see anybody telling me not to that.

Just as a disease's sypmtoms are considered abnormal, homosexuality is abnormal, whether you are more comfortable calling it sin, disease, curse, shoice, genetic defect or waht have you.By that logic, we should also shun geniuses, psychics and the color-blind, too. Abnormality isn't bad or harmful in and of itself. That you choose to consider an abnormality that does not harm or affect you in an way to be immoral is your issue, not the homosexuals'. One of the main purposes of sexual activity is to reproduce. Homosexuality does not further this agenda.By your logic: One of the main purposes of water is to hydrate and deliver oxygen molecules to carbon-based life forms. Hydro-electric power does not further this agenda. Therefore, hydro-electric power is abnormal, a chosen deviancy and therefore immoral. So are light-water nuclear reactors, ice machines, water slides and swimming pools.

Try again.
. Homosexuality is a temptation, stronger for some than others, but still a temptation. As such it can be fought.So earlier you compared it to a disease, and now you say it's a temptation that can be resisted. Which is it?

By the way - you could resist your heterosexual urges if you wanted to bad enough. Doesn't mean you should.

One of the main purposes of sexual activity is to reproduce. Homosexuality does not further this agenda.Actually the female siblings of homosexuals have more children in average. So that which causes homosexuality might increase the number of offspring by making the females of the same family more fertile. It stands to reason that it even might have a positive effect on how much the children are being nurtured.

You see the thing is that reproduction isn't that simple as a man and a woman banging their uglies together for the love of it and the love for each other and having babies as much as they can. It takes a whole family and preferrably a healthy community to succesfully produce successive generations with us humans.

If you could show that homosexuals increases aggression in the society and mortality rates, then I might be one of the people that would start to consider that homosexuality is wrong. But even that's a very problematic stance, since that would make other behavioral patterns wrong that can't possibly be considered as such by most of people. Like the mainstream masculine culture for instance ;)

I didn't notice this one before: I've heard that homosexual relations carry a greater risk of STD infection, as well as an increased risk of "damage" to the areas involved. This, as Barmy would say, is total bollocks, mate. Where this urban legend came from was the rapid spread of STD's (particularly HIV) in the gay community during the '80's. The reason for the spread had nothing to do with homosexuality, but rather the unprotected sex homosexuals thought there was no harm in engaging in, for obvious reasons (no pregnancy) and it was also believed at the time that STD's couldn't be transferred anally.

That's the factual basis. Logically, there's not a single good reason for this to be true if you think about it. Honestly - how could sexual preference weaken one's immune system? Can you think of one good reason?

As to "damage" - no more likely than in heterosexual sex. A large penis in a small vagina can cause damage too, but that's hardly a reason to be against the union of a giant and a midget. Besides - the human ass is designed to expand and contract regularly to accomodate long, hard cylindrical objects (daily if you get enough fibre). They may get sore, but they can generally take it. Damage may occur in extreme circumstances (such as rape and lack of lubrication), but it's far from the norm.

Again, this is another "think about it" - do you really think SO many people (gay and straight) would continue to engage in and enjoy anal sex if it were so painful? It would have to hurt if permenant damage is so likely.
Further, it is not natural, despite what others claim.First of all, that's your opinion, period. Second, whether or not it's "natural" is completely irrelevant. Humanity's ability to flourish, evolve and improve is based on our knack for going against our nature. Climbing into large metal cylanders with wings and flying around the world is unnatural. Developing miracle cures for disease is unnatural. Artificial limbs are unnatural.

So stop hiding behind the bible and/or the arguement that it's unnatural/abnormal and just admit your prejudice already. It's clear you just plain don't like gay people and are afraid to say it.

Again, this is another "think about it" - do you really think SO many people (gay and straight) would continue to engage in and enjoy anal sex if it were so painful? It would have to hurt if permenant damage is so likely. I generally agree, although I am inclined to think that the risk of damage is a little higher with anal as compared to vaginal sex. After all the former is design as an "out only" opening.

The reasoning for not using holy books to defend a position is that they are based on unchanging dogma and the reasoning behind homosexuality being evil is because 'God says so'.I am not a prophet of God, therefore I have only personal experiences with His teaching in my own life (which have bee rejected) and what is written in holy books. I can't produce God to tell you for Himself what he thinks. By the same token, you yourself can't produce all the fancy scientific equipment and replicate the experiment, and must rely on books. I can't use my books, you can't use yours. Fair enough?

You have no choice but to consume food because your body requires it.But you can choose which food to eat. You can choose between KFC and Pizza. You can choose a roast beef dinner or a strict Vegan diet. Some choices are better than others. Further, the amount of food desired varies from one person to the next. Likewise, Sex is a natural drive in all humanity. It varies in tastes and how much is desired, but you may still choose your sexual partner. What we, as Christians, ask is that you not choose those of the same gender and restrict yourself to your opposite gender spouse. We believe that this is best for all of us.

I dare say they would be happy to change their feelings to avoid the social harassment they recieve from fag-haters, homophobes and the christian church.Then why not go to the source of the Christian Church--Jesus Christ Himself, and ask his help in changing? If they are unwilling to do that, then I have no sympathy for their plight. I have offered my counsel, take it or leave it.

It is NOT a temptation. The temptation is how much homosexual sex one has, not the act of loving a member of the same gender - that is something that can not be changed.You have stated that you are heterosexual. And I believe that you have stated that you are male. You are free to choose which women you have sexual relations with. Could you abide restrict your choices to exclude those women who are married, under age or already related to you? It's just a natural extention to ask that you restrict your sexual partners to those of opposite gender.

As for reproduction I dare say anything swaying humans towards not reproducing as much these days is a good thing with over-population being a concern for most countries.I have opinions on that too, but that's way off topic.

So is kissing my wife, but I don't see anybody telling me not to that.They aren't because a) She's of the opposite gender, b) you are legally and lawfully married. AS long as you don't get too showy with it, I would think you OUGHT to be showing her affection as much as possible.

That you choose to consider an abnormality that does not harm or affect you in an way to be immoral is your issue, not the homosexuals'.It's not about harm, but about living righteously.

By your logic: One of the main purposes of water is to hydrate and deliver oxygen molecules to carbon-based life forms. Hydro-electric power does not further this agenda. Therefore, hydro-electric power is abnormal, a chosen deviancy and therefore immoral. So are light-water nuclear reactors, ice machines, water slides and swimming pools.Reproduction is not the only purpose of sex. There are benefits to the relationship between man and wife as well. Homosexual relations are an example of improper sexual relations. Just like using it to drown a person is an improper use of water.

So earlier you compared it to a disease, and now you say it's a temptation that can be resisted. Which is it?I gave a list of options. I choose Sin off that list. As such, it can be resisted.

Actually the female siblings of homosexuals have more children in average. So that which causes homosexuality might increase the number of offspring by making the females of the same family more fertile. It stands to reason that it even might have a positive effect on how much the children are being nurtured.Correlatin does not mean causation. As well, statistics can say whatever you want them to say.

You see the thing is that reproduction isn't that simple as a man and a woman banging their uglies together for the love of it and the love for each other and having babies as much as they can. It takes a whole family and preferrably a healthy community to succesfully produce successive generations with us humans.Yes, a community to share the values of said community. But you want to restrict which communities are allowed to share their values. You say that the values that I wish taught are less valued than other values? By what right or authority?

If you could show that homosexuals increases aggression in the society and mortality rates, then I might be one of the people that would start to consider that homosexuality is wrong. But even that's a very problematic stance, since that would make other behavioral patterns wrong that can't possibly be considered as such by most of people. Like the mainstream masculine culture for instance Well, there may be issued with contemporary socialization of gender roles too. Teaching men that they must be more aggressive is not a good thing because it generates morte aggressive men. Again, it comes back to the values taught.

As to "damage" - no more likely than in heterosexual sex. A large penis in a small vagina can cause damage too, but that's hardly a reason to be against the union of a giant and a midget. Besides - the human ass is designed to expand and contract regularly to accomodate long, hard cylindrical objects (daily if you get enough fibre). They may get sore, but they can generally take it. Damage may occur in extreme circumstances (such as rape and lack of lubrication), but it's far from the norm.The Vagina is designed to allow babies to come out. I have yet to pass a "daily log" that size. I have yet to see a penis that size either...

Humanity's ability to flourish, evolve and improve is based on our knack for going against our nature. Climbing into large metal cylanders with wings and flying around the world is unnatural. Developing miracle cures for disease is unnatural. Artificial limbs are unnatural.But Unnatural works both ways. Genocide is unnatural. Just like someone had to design and build the airplane, someone had to design and build the death camps in World War II. The question is does this elevate the human condition in the world or does it weaken it. I say that it does not help, but rather hinders the human condition.

So stop hiding behind the bible and/or the arguement that it's unnatural/abnormal and just admit your prejudice already. It's clear you just plain don't like gay people and are afraid to say it.It's not the people I don't like, but the fact that they feel the need to claw away at what I believe in. When they kept to their own, I didn't know about their sins, we could get along just fine. When they wanted to make their sex lives my business, then they made my opinion their business.

This actually goes back to the topic to start with. The Pope spoke out against Islam because of a belief that he and those who look to him were targetted for anihilation by them. Faraaz has stated otherwise. Likewise, You attack Christianity believing that we hate homosexuals. This is not true, we are commanded to love them, but we cannot condone or support them in their sins. You would not argue for the rights of carjackers to take a car from someone as long as they don't hurt them, would you?

I generally agree, although I am inclined to think that the risk of damage is a little higher with anal as compared to vaginal sex. After all the former is design as an "out only" opening.Thanks, that's one of the points I was trying to go for. Also, isn't there a risk involved with oral sex if it gets screwed up? As a single person in a religion that forbids fornication, I have little experience with that...

I can't produce God to tell you for Himself what he thinks. By the same token, you yourself can't produce all the fancy scientific equipment and replicate the experiment, and must rely on books. I can't use my books, you can't use yours. Fair enough?Uh, no. Not fair enough. The challenge was issued for you to give reasons why homosexuality is actually 'bad' for humanity. How homosexual relationships cause harm to society as a whole without referring to religion or words such as "sin" and "righteous" since something is only one of those two if God says it is.

Personally I can not produce all the experiments and fancy equipment to prove something but other people HAVE and they achieved certain results and can proove, without a doubt, the results of their findings. To say I can't use that type of evidence to back up my argument... ah! Purple space monkeys who rule the universe think that homosexuality is just fine and dandy.

But you can choose which food to eat.But you can't choose if you want to eat food or not. You have to eat. That's the type of feeling associated with homosexuality. They can't feel attracted towards somebody of the same sex because they simply don't. It's the exact same to how I imagine you feel towards somebody of the same sex, you can't 'get it up' looking at them much the same how homosexuals don't find people of the opposite sex attractive. They have 'no' choice. Then why not go to the source of the Christian Church--Jesus Christ Himself, and ask his help in changing? If they are unwilling to do that, then I have no sympathy for their plight. I have offered my counsel, take it or leave it.Excuse me... BAHAAHAHAHAHAHA! Since when has there ever been a recording of somebody taking up the fine print with the Big Man and Him appearing saying "Oh, you know what I said about gays? Well Brian here has convinced me that I was kind'a out of line about that. You fags ain't so bad. As long as you're not banging my priests I got no beef with you, peace a'ight?". It's never happened. The argument being presented is to prove that homosexuality is actually wrong without referring to religious scripture. So far it's only bad because God well... kind'a says so. You are free to choose which women you have sexual relations with. Could you abide restrict your choices to exclude those women who are married, under age or already related to you? It's just a natural extention to ask that you restrict your sexual partners to those of opposite gender.They don't need to ask me to restrict myself since I feel no inclination towards wanting to have sex with anyone of the same gender. Homosexuals are not so lucky. They only feel sexual attraction towards people of the same gender so asking them to forego sexual relations with people of the same gender is the same as asking them to forego sexual relations period. I don't like, but the fact that they feel the need to claw away at what I believe in. When they kept to their own, I didn't know about their sins, we could get along just fine. When they wanted to make their sex lives my business, then they made my opinion their business.Actually homosexuals have never tried to make their sex lives your business. They just want to be legally entitled to the same rights as a married couple, it's religion that's butting in, not homosexuals.

My god says that homosexuality is just fine.

Do I win?

My god says that homosexuality is *not* fine and that your god is wrong. :D

Oh, and since someone said something about "do not kill" some silly 2,000 years ago, we shouldn't have new treatments for diseases nowdays. J/K! The sooner we die, the sooner we may have our salvation! :xx:

IMO, the reason fundamentalist Christians aren't strapping dynamite to themselves is because their country isn't undergoing massive political upheaval combined with a war right on their doorstep. If America was in the position Iraq is in now, I'd be willing to bet money it'd be more or less the same situation. just watch Jesus Camp.
There are kids in the US that are getting taught that they are the Warriors of God, Bush is God's right-hand man, and that it's a good and honourable thing to die for God. Sound familiar?

Any religion can be twisted to promote violence if necessary. Hell, kamikaze pilots in World War 2 were Buddhists.

My god says that homosexuality is *not* fine and that your god is wrong. Oh noes!

@ Gnarff, [EDIT - lengthy debunkery ahead]
It's not about harm, but about living righteously.According to YOUR definition of righteousness, which clearly not everyone shares. Your judgement and condemnation of others, whose lifestyle and nature do NOT effect you in any meaningful way, is far from righteous. Again - stop hiding behind your religion - I'm not buying it. Reproduction is not the only purpose of sex. There are benefits to the relationship between man and wife as well.Exactly my point. Sex creates an emotional and romantic bond between two people. Some would argue that's much more important in this day and age than reproduction. I'm one of them. Homosexual relations are an example of improper sexual relations. Just like using it to drown a person is an improper use of water.Homosexual relations are improper FOR YOU. We've established that. But proper is a relative term. Someone engaging in homosexual relations, though improper to you, also has no impact on your life whatsoever and harms no one else. Let me give you an example.

You live on a city block. Two blocks away from you lives an ordinary gay couple. A normal, friendly, tax-paying, non-violent, drug-free committed gay couple (like most of them are, whether you choose to believe so or not). For sake of arguement, you live in this close proximity for most of your lives. In this example, there are two scenarios.

In the one scenario, you go your whole life without knowing this couple is gay. You live your life, go to work, raise your kids, and are not harmed by their presence in any way. In another scenario, you find out one day that they are a gay couple. You will still live your life, raise your kids, and go unharmed - the only difference being that now that you know you think it's all yucky and wrong, but your life (just as before you found out) goes on otherwise unchanged.

Point: what someone else chooses to engage in, especially when that act doesn't cause harm to anyone, is not your place to approve of or deny. Even if you choose to hide behind the book of mormon and/or the bible, you are in fact passing judgement on others who's lives and actions harm you in no way whatsoever. As drowning someone is improper use of water, what YOU are doing is improper use of YOUR faith. As such, I find it dispicable, petty and counterproductive. But Unnatural works both ways. Genocide is unnatural. Just like someone had to design and build the airplane, someone had to design and build the death camps in World War II. The question is does this elevate the human condition in the world or does it weaken it. I say that it does not help, but rather hinders the human condition.It's a stretch (not to mention intellectually dishonest) to compare being gay to genocide, or the development of modern flight to erecting a prison camp - but I'll bite. You're right - unnatural does work both ways. But again, you're choosing to see as harmful something that is not. It clearly does no harm to you or anyone else. When you say it does not help, it does not help YOU. Speak for yourself. There's nothing righteous about forcing your beliefs on others.

Clinging to archaic beliefs hinders the human condition too, you know. It's not the people I don't like, but the fact that they feel the need to claw away at what I believe in. When they kept to their own, I didn't know about their sins, we could get along just fine. Ah, the old "the gays are invading my whole life" crap. Please tell me how homosexuals have clawed away at your beliefs. And by doing so, please also acknowledge that your beliefs are so WEAK to begin with that gay couples living their lives completely seperate from your own can actually chip away at your connection to God. When they wanted to make their sex lives my business, then they made my opinion their business.This has got to be the most hypocritical thing I've ever seen you write. YOU are the one who is making the sex lives of others YOUR business. The mere act of someone wanting to be open with who they are and what they do does NOT constitute shoving it in your face and making it your business. You have as much right to be openly Mormon as others do openly gay. In fact, I would argue that evangelical Christians like yourself do far more "shoving in the face" of your own beliefs and hangups than all the gays the world has ever seen combined. Is your own sexuality so insecure that someone doing something contrary to it is such a threat to you? You attack Christianity believing that we hate homosexuals. This is not true, we are commanded to love them, but we cannot condone or support them in their sins. You would not argue for the rights of carjackers to take a car from someone as long as they don't hurt them, would you?Gnarff, a carjacker taking a car from someone is, by definition, hurting them! In fact, I'm glad you wrote that: this (along with your point about homosexuality increasing STD likelyhood) illustrates nicely the reason I'm so often at odds with your views. I think you allow your faith to divorce you from your common sense. Sometimes it seems you do so willingly.

Let's be clear - I'm not attacking Christanity. I'm a christian myself. Who I'm attacking are other Christians, like you, who won't be happy until everyone believes and lives as they do. Who refuse to find a place for homosexuals within the folds of their faith. If we lived in a simple, perfect world this might be possible. Instead we live in an extremely complex world where precious few things are black and white, no matter how badly you wish it were. Clinging to archaic beliefs does not move society forward. One needn't look further than the middle east to see what I'm talking about.

I don't think the bible is as clear about homosexuality being a sin as some seem to. I've seen the chapter and verse, many times, and I believe it's vaguely worded and open to interpretation. And even if it were crystal clear, the bible is FAR, FAR from perfect. It has been written and rewritten by human beings several times over the last two millenia and as such, is as fallable as we are. There are many things the bible condemns that people choose to ignore. I think evangelicals dishonestly use the bible as a crutch to justify their own prejudices.

At the end of the day, my whole problem with this stems from the fact that sin or not, homosexuality is pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things. It's one very small part of what makes someone a human being, and certainly should not be grounds for denying someone a personal connection to God. Again - I say a personal connection - which is what religion and faith are supposed to be about.

[ September 30, 2006, 23:10: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

DR, give it up. In the end, Gnarff's opinion boils down to his belief of what will happen on Judgement Day. All those sinners will be fighting on the Ole Lucky's side. Gnarff seems to be terribly afraid that his side will loose. That's why he wants to prevent gays to live their life.

Gnarffling one of your major problems other than the obviuse you just plain hate homosexuals is you take your holy book and says its just as good and well argumentated as scientific research.

the problem is, for most of us religius books do not equel a scientific research. because it is based never changing dogma's and often give no reason for its statements. Becuase god says its bad, its not a reason for me, for i am a none believer.
so while a certain scientific reasearch might produce some facts your holy book produces none other thn age old prejustice.

Oh and by the way the bible says its sinfull to eat pigs, badgers and the cave bat. i hope you havent eaten any of them lately ;)

why not go to the source of the Christian Church--Jesus Christ Himself, and ask his help in changing? Sorry to ask this question again, but how would I do that?

messiah@msn.heaven

/me blinks in amazement

WTF, people, the topic of this thread is the Pope's comments in his recent speech. WHY ON EARTH must every topic about religion end up discussing homosexuality?

Let me sum it up: Gnarff thinks we're all damned because we don't agree with him on this topic. Most others think Gnarff is suffering from a severe case of arrogance and double-standards.

There. Can we now move onto some new material, please? :rolleyes:

I read i the paper this morning that a rather significant aspect of the Pope's speech is getting lost in all the furor over his poorly chosen quote (and I'm still not convinced that he didn't realize perfectly well what reaction he would receive). Apparently the gist of the speech was that the only chance the world ahs for peace is for everyone to follow Catholic thinking and teaching.

I don't know for certain, but something tells me that trying to make this happen would cause more strife that anything that King George, et. al., have concocted.

Personally I can not produce all the experiments and fancy equipment to prove something but other people HAVE and they achieved certain results and can proove, without a doubt, the results of their findings.But you are still taking their word for it. Just as I am taking the report of prophets, living and dead of their experiences with God. Why is your second hand report valid and mine not?

But you can't choose if you want to eat food or not. You have to eat.But having sex is optional. Analogy discarded.

Excuse me... BAHAAHAHAHAHAHA! Since when has there ever been a recording of somebody taking up the fine print with the Big Man and Him appearing saying "Oh, you know what I said about gays? Well Brian here has convinced me that I was kind'a out of line about that. You fags ain't so bad.ARRRRRRRRRGHHHHHHHHHH! We aren't talking about changing the rules, but the person asking. It's about helping a person overcome temptation. Anyone unwilling to test that really isn't contributing anything useful.

They don't need to ask me to restrict myself since I feel no inclination towards wanting to have sex with anyone of the same gender.I'm not talkiing specifically about same gender here. Read my all of my posts, not just the parts you want to mock.

Actually homosexuals have never tried to make their sex lives your business. They just want to be legally entitled to the same rights as a married couple, it's religion that's butting in, not homosexuals.Throwing their relationships into the public eye? Trying to change morality to suit their desires? When they make it public, that becomes my business. Normally their sins aren't my business, I'd like to keep it that way.

If America was in the position Iraq is in now, I'd be willing to bet money it'd be more or less the same situation. just watch Jesus Camp.I'd like to think we'd have better resistance tactics. Then again, if the war was not in Afghanistan or Iraq, it could well be here. Remember 9/11?

Again - stop hiding behind your religion - I'm not buying it.And I'm not buying your claims of superiority. What's your point? Are you just bashing religion for fun? If so, then you really need to get a life...

Exactly my point. Sex creates an emotional and romantic bond between two people. Some would argue that's much more important in this day and age than reproduction. I'm one of them.Having never been married, I really don't have much experience with that, but I suspect that without the covenent of marriage, these bonds can make things more complicated when the relationship sours...

In the one scenario, you go your whole life without knowing this couple is gay. You live your life, go to work, raise your kids, and are not harmed by their presence in any way.They don't shove their relationship in my face, then their sins are between themselves and God. They didn't make it my business, I have no need to trouble them with my opinion...

In another scenario, you find out one day that they are a gay couple. You will still live your life, raise your kids, and go unharmed - the only difference being that now that you know you think it's all yucky and wrong,I say my piece, but if they don't listen then I've done as asked. The subject is dropped. I'm still uncomfortable with them, but they don't throw their relationship in my face, I don't preach at them.

Even if you choose to hide behind the book of mormon and/or the bible, you are in fact passing judgement on others who's lives and actions harm you in no way whatsoever.I am warning them of the Judgement of God, which is commandment.

Clinging to archaic beliefs hinders the human condition too, you know.As does arbitrarily tearing down the normal morality as has existed for generations.

Please tell me how homosexuals have clawed away at your beliefs.How about getting some idiot judge to rule--contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms--that the definition of marriage ought be changed to accommodate them?

Let's be clear - I'm not attacking Christanity. I'm a christian myself.You could have fooled me. To follow Christ means to stand as a witness at all times and in all circumstances, even though they may be "politically incorrect". To champion a cause opposite to the teachings of Christianity while claiming to be one is hypocritical.

Who refuse to find a place for homosexuals within the folds of their faith.Faith is more than belief, but obedience to these teachings. This includes obeying the laws and ordinances of the bible.

Clinging to archaic beliefs does not move society forward.How about clarifying those archaic beliefs instead of changing them. How many precepts can you change fromt he bible before you are no longer Christian?

At the end of the day, my whole problem with this stems from the fact that sin or not, homosexuality is pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things. It's one very small part of what makes someone a human being, and certainly should not be grounds for denying someone a personal connection to God. Again - I say a personal connection - which is what religion and faith are supposed to be about.It is on the personal level that we are addressing here. The more greivous the sin, the greater disconnection between man and God. God is no respecter of persons. The law is the same for all. What I am attempting to encourage is people to try to bring their lives more in line with the laws laid out in the Bible.

All those sinners will be fighting on the Ole Lucky's side. Gnarff seems to be terribly afraid that his side will loose. That's why he wants to prevent gays to live their lifeWrong. God's victory is foretold. I merely fight for the souls of those of my brothers and sisters from before we came to earth that have fallen into Satan's traps.

you take your holy book and says its just as good and well argumentated as scientific research.How about this logic:

If scientific theory refuses the existence of God and if God exists, then that theory is flawed. Ironically Pope Benedict XVI put it best...

"When the Creator's divine plan is ignored, the truth of human nature is lost."

Sorry to ask this question again, but how would I do that?Prayer. Pray to God the Father in the Name of His Son, Jesus Christ, with faith that He can help you to bring your desires in line with His will.

the topic of this thread is the Pope's comments in his recent speech. WHY ON EARTH must every topic about religion end up discussing homosexuality?How should I know? It just always comes up when the religion haters jump in on a religious topic. My answers don't change...

Apparently the gist of the speech was that the only chance the world ahs for peace is for everyone to follow Catholic thinking and teaching.Change Catholic to Christian and I would agree with that. If we can all agree on right and wrong, then a large portion of the contention in this world would disappear.

I don't know for certain, but something tells me that trying to make this happen would cause more strife that anything that King George, et. al., have concocted.King George didn't concoct this, but he didn't succeed in stopping it either. I think that most of what has happenned was what Bin Laden wanted...

I won't bother cataloguing various rule violations here except one, the fact that this thread has been hijacked far beyond the original topic. In case any of you forgot what that original topic was, its what the Pope said about Islam.

So, if anybody here wants to discuss homosexuality and religion, here you go:

http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?/topic/20/1632.html

If anybody wants to discuss safety in sexual relations, here you go:

http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?/topic/20/1633.html

If anybody wants to discuss sexual morality in general, here you go:

http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?/topic/20/1634.html

This provision of alternative threads to prevent further off-topic discussion is going to become standard practice for us moderators. So ... no more excuses for hijacking the same thread when we say that it stops. :p

EDIT: Whether we continue on with this thread or go into the others, please keep your tempers under control. :nono:

Sorry gnarf still aint good enough. your still trying to force your religeus belive on people who might not even believe in your god. that makes you no better then Muslims forcing women to wear certain types of cloth and marry men they dont even know.

Secondly the difference between your book and a scientific research is firstly a scientific research has to be of relative newer date to be valid and secondly it with has to be repedeble.
your book is neither. so in no way does it equel science.
Also unlike your book, science is willing to change and adopt new ideas.

there is no proofs or facts in religion, only funny stories that you can either belive in or not.
oh and according to the old testemony, the same that says homosexuallity is a sin, so is eating certain animals, while rape can be avoided as a sin if you pay the womans farther a certain amount of silver...

Change Catholic to Christian and I would agree with that. If we can all agree on right and wrong, then a large portion of the contention in this world would disappear.While I agree with your second statement, I must point out that Christian != Right. It's the same question as ever - what makes YOUR definition of "right" any more valid than MINE?

To try to compel others to live in accordance with your beliefs is the height of Pride, and by your very own rules you're all therefore doomed to hell.

QED

Sorry gnarf still aint good enough.Sorry, I can't act surprised at that without being accused of not paying attention. I've been hearing that ever since I got here. My sources don't change.

your still trying to force your religeus belive on people who might not even believe in your god.Not forcing, but advocating them. I'm not going to bust in on people in the middle of their sins and execute them. I do advocate that the Government to stand up and defend this morality.

Secondly the difference between your book and a scientific research is firstly a scientific research has to be of relative newer date to be valid and secondly it with has to be repedeble.So how how long before some of the theories that I keep getting bludgeoned with are out of fashion? Maybe in another hundred years this annoying gravity bit will no longer apply? It hurt when I fell and hit the back of my head on the floor...

The point I have is that the truth does not have an expiration date. I believe that my religion is true, which exempts it from an expiration date. Further, I know that some of the things recorded in scripture are in fact repeatable. People just have to actually try to repeat them...

only funny storiesWell, the record of Elijah versus the 400 Priests of Baal was hilarious (1 Kings 18:22-40 I think)...

While I agree with your second statement, I must point out that Christian != Right. It's the same question as ever - what makes YOUR definition of "right" any more valid than MINE?Divine source is the easy answer. If that is not granted, then there will be less consensus, and I admit that ALL my points are based on this premise. If I am ultimately wrong, then it falls apart, and the consequenses vary from irrelevance to exclusion from an afterlife I wouldn't feel comfortable with.

To try to compel others to live in accordance with your beliefs is the height of PrideTrue, but I seek not to compel, but to warn of wrong choices. I CANNOT stop people from sinning, but I can warn them of the danger that they are in.

Christian madness :eek:

A lot of the marines that I've had wounded and killed over the past five months have been by a faceless enemy. But the enemy has got a face.

"He's called Satan. He's in Falluja. And we're going to destroy him."

Col Brandl The worst thing is that he is not the only US Colonel to talk about Satan in Iraq :eek:

As Beren said, the topic is WHAT THE POPE SAID ABOUT ISLAM. It is not attacking Gnarff (nor is it Gnarff defending himself after a moderator put in a warning about the hijacking of this thread and then started three new separate threads to deal with the hijacking branches).

Islam, Pope, what he said about it . . . that's what will be in this thread.

What I'd like to know is has there been further comment on the issue from either side, the Vatican or the Muslim clerics??

I can't seem to find anything about further developments...

Last I heard (or maybe I shoud say "paid attention to" :) ) the Pope apologized that his words caused the reaction they did, and predictably the opposition said it's not enough and (ironically) that the Pope is fomenting unrest with his speech.

Wait, weren't they demanding that he apologise before and now that he has they want more? *sigh* How do you deal with these people?

Well, he didn't exactly apologize for what he said, he apologized that it caused the reaction it did...

Well, the cardinals knew he was more conservative than JP II when they elected him, so it's partly their fault. The Muslim communities are overreacting, but I suppose that what with Iraq, Lebanon and all, they're almost like a cat on amphetamines on a hot tin plate - one prod and they go berserk.
(Just in case you ask - regarding the cat, I haven't tried it, nor seen it)

it's fairly disturbing seeing how violently these people are reacting. it's like they were just waiting to pick a fight with the first person to say the wrong thing.

You know...seeing the reaction the Muslim protests get globally...I really wish they'd be more mature about this...and this coming from a Muslim is a bit...ehh. :p

And I agree with Clixby's assessment of the situation...they're not protesting what the pope said...they are just PROTESTING... :rolleyes:

Earlier in this thread I noticed a lot of the "Please point out where Christianity/the Bible directs anyone to murder people of different faiths" argument as a means of suggesting that Islam is inferior to Christianity in this regard.

The first problem with this is that the people putting forth the contention invoke sneaky qualifiers such as "...other faiths" and "modern Christians..." and such. This is a subterfuge to push aside the historical atrocities that Christians have commited. But to answer their challenges I will bring up the Holocaust(Catholicism of Hitler vs. the Jews), Jim Jones(a massive "suicide" bombing against themselves but would no doubt have been designed to take out others if they had been given time to think more on the scheme), David Koresh & the Branch Davidians(murdered children while commiting mass suicide and such), The "Right to life" clinic-bombing terrorists who often equate doctors and women seeking abortions to being of some "other faith"(i.e. satanism, feminism, atheism...all of which are typically & erroneously classified as "faiths" by fundies).

And so on...

It is fine to say that Middle-Eastern Muslims(esp. the radicals) are even more primitive than western Christians/Catholics and this anachronism contributes to more direct violence/atrocity today(comparable to what Catholics and Christians were doing a few hundred years ago).
But as someone else pointed out; if you put ANY religious people, including Christians in the same situation as the Muslims feel they are in(living in an impoverished dessert wasteland with ever present war at their doorstep) you will see the same behavior.

All religions are subject to reinterpretation given different circumstances/environments. The Jewish Yahweh went from being a violent, wrath-filled volcano-God of vengeance to an omnibenevolent deity with a change in the political climate.


IMO the Pope and the radical Muslim leaders are all equally full of crap and display an equal lack of intellect and honesty.

RuneQuester, there's a big difference between a religion in which a few nutbags can flat out lie about what the holy text says and end up leading a 'holy war' and one where the holy text actually does say to kill people and commit holy wars.

Yeah, Buddhism's been given a real hard ti... oh, right. You're misrepresenting Islam. Okay, nevermind.

Why does humanity seem to need to believe in an all-powerfull being in control of everything and everyone? Religion has probably killed more people then politics and goverment, and yet people still believe that god protects them. Also note that if a religous believer is killed, he is called a marter (yes I said HE, females all seem to be second rate when it comes to religion. You don't get priestesses anymore.)