THE POPE underfire!!!

[Desert Father]

To all concerned, before you join in any violent bandwagon please READ and UNDERSTAND the context of Pope Benedict's speech. Its as if the only statement highlighted is the quote of that Byzantine emperor.

Excerpt:

In this lecture I would like to discuss only one point -- itself rather marginal to the dialogue itself -- which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason," I found interesting and which can serve as the starting point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation ("diálesis" -- controversy) edited by professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that sura 2:256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion." It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under [threat]. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Koran, concerning holy war.

Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels," he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably ("syn logo") is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats.... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...."

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry.

As far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we find ourselves faced with a dilemma which nowadays challenges us directly. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?

I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: "In the beginning was the 'logos.'"

This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts with logos. Logos means both reason and word -- a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist. The encounter between the biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance.

The vision of St. Paul, who saw the roads to Asia barred and in a dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him: "Come over to Macedonia and help us!" (cf. Acts 16:6-10) -- this vision can be interpreted as a "distillation" of the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between biblical faith and Greek inquiry.

In point of fact, this rapprochement had been going on for some time. The mysterious name of God, revealed from the burning bush, a name which separates this God from all other divinities with their many names and declares simply that he is, already presents a challenge to the notion of myth, to which Socrates' attempt to vanquish and transcend myth stands in close analogy. Within the Old Testament, the process which started at the burning bush came to new maturity at the time of the Exile, when the God of Israel, an Israel now deprived of its land and worship, was proclaimed as the God of heaven and earth and described in a simple formula which echoes the words uttered at the burning bush: "I am."

This new understanding of God is accompanied by a kind of enlightenment, which finds stark expression in the mockery of gods who are merely the work of human hands (cf. Psalm 115). Thus, despite the bitter conflict with those Hellenistic rulers who sought to accommodate it forcibly to the customs and idolatrous cult of the Greeks, biblical faith, in the Hellenistic period, encountered the best of Greek thought at a deep level, resulting in a mutual enrichment evident especially in the later wisdom literature.

Today we know that the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced at Alexandria -- the Septuagint -- is more than a simple (and in that sense perhaps less than satisfactory) translation of the Hebrew text: It is an independent textual witness and a distinct and important step in the history of Revelation, one which brought about this encounter in a way that was decisive for the birth and spread of Christianity. A profound encounter of faith and reason is taking place here, an encounter between genuine enlightenment and religion. From the very heart of Christian faith and, at the same time, the heart of Greek thought now joined to faith, Manuel II was able to say: Not to act "with logos" is contrary to God's nature.

In all honesty, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages we find trends in theology which would sunder this synthesis between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit. In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which ultimately led to the claim that we can only know God's "voluntas ordinata." Beyond this is the realm of God's freedom, in virtue of which he could have done the opposite of everything he has actually done.

This gives rise to positions which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazn and might even lead to the image of a capricious God, who is not even bound to truth and goodness. God's transcendence and otherness are so exalted that our reason, our sense of the true and good, are no longer an authentic mirror of God, whose deepest possibilities remain eternally unattainable and hidden behind his actual decisions.

As opposed to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language (cf. Lateran IV).

God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love "transcends" knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Ephesians 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is logos. Consequently, Christian worship is "logic latreÃ*a" -- worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason (cf. Romans 12:1).

This inner rapprochement between biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry was an event of decisive importance not only from the standpoint of the history of religions, but also from that of world history -- it is an event which concerns us even today. Given this convergence, it is not surprising that Christianity, despite its origins and some significant developments in the East, finally took on its historically decisive character in Europe. We can also express this the other way around: This convergence, with the subsequent addition of the Roman heritage, created Europe and remains the foundation of what can rightly be called Europe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was an academic discussion about God and reason. It was not something insulting to Muslims. That is really the danger of not knowing entirely what one is trying to convey.

[SamuraiArcher]

for me, na-a gyud sayop ang atong POPE sa iyang speech (for the simple reasons, nga na-ofend ang mga muslims), but our POPE dili gyud ginahanglan mag apologize sa mga muslims.....bisan unsaon pa nato pag-ingon nga nothing is wrong sa speech ni POPE, but nasuko naman gud ang muslims.....wait na lang ta unsa pay himu-on sa mga muslims sa mga Catholics....i canot blame pud sa mga muslims kay ingon ana man ilang values.....

[HoundedbyHeaven]

Membership in the Hitler Youth was compulsory-- no one could escape registering in it.

Because one grew in Nazi Germany doesn't mean he or she agreed with Nazi ideology.

I am of the opinion that anyone who accuses all the Germans who lived in Nazi Germany as racists is a racist instead.

Pax.

[Freeza]

istoryador How about starting it with yourself. And please dont further ridicule the Pope on this issue. Because when time will come that extremists Muslims will butcher non Muslims like chicken, you are not safe either. You who espouse an intolerant and fundamentalist Christian thinking.

hahahaha! you are hilarious, my friend!

Your vatican is the one that has BUTCHERED people since its inception, so dont you lecture me about speaking up about your pope, who by the way has a traceable line of incestuous, murdering, pillaging, raping, butchering popes before him... Is that what your God has taught you?

I, on the other hand, will side with the PEACEFUL muslims, who make up most of the muslim world, who are, as you have noticed, not represented here in istorya. I may be a Baptist, but my God has taught me that we are all brothers, muslims included, so don't you talk about butchering and all that cr*p...

Now, if a muslim imam had said "Show me just what JESUS brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached", I'm sure you would get your panties all ruffled up over it, without even acknowledging the fact that the Vatican has done just that, spread the faith by the sword... How do you think it reached your shores...?

The punk got some point weed if u have live in pikit area, north cotabato for example during the erap all out war
the baptist or iglesia ni cristo, jehova or rc etc band together mostly local cvo members and some cafgus cause they know what will happen if a wild undicipline 15 year olds MILFs will do in their small municipality or worse if the kids wont obey their 35 olds commanders.

and as for ur rant its true as most religions christian , hindu,islam,..etc in the past the vatican got some blood on their hands.BUT its 20th century now we cant say death to madona for it concert cross stunt, or death to Dan Brown for it's conspiracy da vinci code book( Salman Rushdie the writer of a comical lame book the Satanic Verses is one example of a fundamentalist view casualty)it should be like you can wear your burqua whole day but i can wear my bikini or topless bikini the whole day too just like in prison u respect me i respect u , fanatical, fundamentalist, radicals, violent views can no longer be comprehended and accepted and more on tolerance and harmony u could criticize but with resposiblility.

[Freeza]

for me, na-a gyud sayop ang atong POPE sa iyang speech (for the simple reasons, nga na-ofend ang mga muslims), but our POPE dili gyud ginahanglan mag apologize sa mga muslims.....bisan unsaon pa nato pag-ingon nga nothing is wrong sa speech ni POPE, but nasuko naman gud ang muslims.....wait na lang ta unsa pay himu-on sa mga muslims sa mga Catholics....i canot blame pud sa mga muslims kay ingon ana man ilang values.....

er the POPE did make an apology he is the POPE after all humility is one of it's essence.

as u said the POPE na-a gyud sayop sa iyang speech we can voice our own opinion u could even criticize the bible u could even paint JESUS in t-shirts or make fun of the POPE in news papers or books but im sure u wont get an excommunication or a death death decree from the POPE

but try that the other way around try to criticize their Ayatolahs or ...etcc and what would u get death decree even a simple cartoon caricature or a bikini will get u killed from the extrememist and fundamentalist radical though
majority of them wont care or just as tolerate as anybody else but the problem is the radicals seems to gain the upper ground or at least 99 percent media milage.

[weedmeister2]

and as for ur rant its true as most religions christian , hindu,islam,..etc in the past the vatican got some blood on their hands.BUT its 20th century now we cant say death to madona for it concert cross stunt, or death to Dan Brown for it's conspiracy da vinci code book( Salman Rushdie the writer of a comical lame book the Satanic Verses is one example of a fundamentalist view casualty)it should be like you can wear your burqua whole day but i can wear my bikini or topless bikini the whole day too just like in prison u respect me i respect u , fanatical, fundamentalist, radicals, violent views can no longer be comprehended and accepted and more on tolerance and harmony u could criticize but with resposiblility.

I agree with you Freeza, its just that this guy seems to think that his religion is the only one being butchered...

He should be dropped in the middle of Baghdad so he knows what "Christian Persecution" really means.

[sister maria]

critique of a religion doesn't have to be collective in general, it could be subjective but mostly taken as a slight to their religion in general.

some moderate muslims didn't even bat an eye on what the pope said. the fundies soiled themselves though.

[SamuraiArcher]

i think we all know how sensitive the muslims are....or i'll put it this way..nga nangita lang gyud ang mga muslims ug gamay nga bingkil just to have reasons nga makagubot ang kalibutan...ingon ana na gyud na sila....nothing we can do sa ilang mga practices....for me, the best thing for us catholics to do is likay lang gyud sa gubot..kay kita man ang mas peace loving individuals.....

[iskoLares]

db nag apologize nmn siya ganina?!

[Desert Father]

The summons has gone out for Moslems to kill the Holy Father. It has finally happened. Where are all the Moslem voices saying that such a charge goes too far?

I hope the Swiss guards keep their guns loaded and their powder dry. The Pope has no real army and the Italian police are really a first line of defense. He has a right to be protected. As for St. Peter’s and our other institutions, they are places of worship but also storehouses for art, literature and history. If the Vatican museum and library were destroyed, an important resource and treasury for Western civilization would be forever lost. And, we are facing the enemies of civilization and freedom.

But, Popes are no longer prisoners of the Vatican. They move around, give talks, offer public Mass and kiss babies. They make big targets.

The call has finally gone out for the execution of the Pope. Salman Rushdie might be able to go into hiding, but Pope Benedict XVI never will. I am afraid for him. Maybe I am a little like Peter in this Sunday’s Gospel, trying to tempt Jesus away from his mission and the terrible prophecy of his rejection, passion and death? I can hear Jesus’ response now, “Get behind me, Satan!� Jesus asks all of us to take up our crosses and follow him. The Pope might be an old man, but even old men like their lives. But I have no doubt that he will face what comes with an abiding faith and confidence in Christ.

It was not a few words taken out of context that caused all this turmoil. This has been a volcano growing beneath us for some time. Christianity and Islam never made a true peace, but rather had maintained a truce centuries long. The problems and conflicts remain. Both are missionary faiths. While they share certain religious elements, with each other and the Jews, they are in their core identities quite different. The Church has learned the hard lesson of tolerance and patient endurance, Moslems have not. A Christian martyr dies for the faith loving and forgiving his murderers. A Moslem martyr sacrifices his life as well, however he is driven by hatred to take his enemy with him. There is a physicality and coarseness to Islam that distresses Christians, especially things like the seven virgins that wait to be despoiled in the afterlife as a reward to righteous Islamic male adherents. There are many personal things about Mohammad that repulse Christians, and yet any honest historical appraisal (not to mention real criticism) earns immediate rebuke and threats and maybe even death. This makes dialogue very difficult, if not impossible.

The Pope spoke about the Moslems as our brothers and sisters, and fellow sons and daughters of Abraham. He has said that violence cannot be used in the cause of furthering religion. There is no way radical Moslems can agree to this. The signs they carry in protest say it all, Jihad is a basic tenet of Islam as they understand it. Despite the naysayers, the worldwide protests clearly indicate that it is this form of Islam, and not the tempered version we usually see in the U.S., that is the true face of this worldwide religion.

Despite another apology from the Holy Father for the misunderstanding, events are eschalating. Now there is no more pretense. While men gathered at the mosque in Southern Mogadishu, a powerful Islamic cleric of Somalia, Sheikh Abubukar Hassan Malin, declared Friday night at prayers:

“We urge you Muslims wherever you are to hunt down the Pope for his barbaric statements as you have pursued Salman Rushdie, the enemy of Allah who offended our religion. Whoever offends our Prophet Mohammed should be killed on the spot by the nearest Muslim. We call on all Islamic Communities across the world to take revenge on the baseless critic called the pope.�

I rather hope that Pope Benedict XVI does not visit Turkey in November. The government there has not rescinded the invitation, probably because they feel that they need this event to prove that the are secular enough to join the European Union. The Holy Father has opposed Turkey’s entry and wanted and clear recognition of the EU’s Christian heritage in its charter.

There is a best-selling novel in Turkey right now called PAPA’YA SUIKAST (or ATTACK ON THE POPE) by Yücel Kaya. It is a novel that predicts that Pope Benedict XVI will be assassinated. It has a question as the subtitle, “Who will kill Benedict XVI in Istanbul?�

A number of people there feel that it is a pretty sure thing. Would such a terrible tragedy reawaken the sleeping faith of Christians? Might it open our eyes to the pervasive nature that we face today? Given that the misunderstanding emerges from Islamic ignorance and bigotry, the critics owe the Holy Father an apology. If they kill him, would those who fueled the fires of intolerance and violence say they were sorry, even then? I am not optimistic.

Security has been heighted around the Pope. The Mujahideen Army of Iraq has threatened a suicide attack on the Pope. They want revenge for his daring to quote a historical figure that criticized their religion and the violence of Jihad. Their website has a post that states, “smash the crosses in the house of the dog from Rome.�

Could other world leaders convince the Pope not to go to Turkey? During the last half a year, three priests have been assaulted in Turkey and the missionary Fr. Andrea Santoro was murdered in February. We know the killers are there…and they are waiting for their chance.

http://fatherjoe.wordpress.com/2006/...nced-to-death/