Pope Benedict's comments regarding Islam

[hipipol]

Why bother?

Any halfwit who believes that "the divine" should be part of all our daily lives is deranged - "Divine" being a word only aplied to Abrahamic "revealed" bollocks.
Judaism, Xtian and Muslim "belief" is the kind of superstitious twaddle that may have really helped nomadic goat herders subject to accasional bouts of Ergotism from their manky bread but really ought not to have any place in the Modern World.
The Great Lord Tharg will soon appear to all of you, an ALL will be cool
I know this for a fact, blah, blah, witter
All tosh

 

[kyser_soze]

Innit? Someone accused me and others of 'defending' Pope Benny and his unconscionable views while at the same time defending a religion where one of it's 'bishops' insisted that the pope should 'kneel before him and aoplogise' and another who bascially said 'Islam is a peaceful religion, and anyone who says otherwise is going to get their arses kicked'.

 

[Aldebaran]

Personally I think that some monothiestic faiths grow out of a desire for unity and there was IIRC much disunity on the Arabian pennisular at the time of the rise of The Prophet

Not only that, there was a clear desintegration of traditional values. It is argued that Muhammed

people like Yeshua Ben Joseph and Muhummed were religious and social revolutionaries in different ways.

One only needs to look at the Meccan revelations to see this. It is proposed by (mostly) Western scholars that Muhammed's preaching was first of all a reaction against staggering desintegration of ancient (tribal) customs and values, hence first of all stemming from a social concern for the weakest in society.

But you cannot deny that the verse I quoted is a message from God/HaShem/Allah that there is a monotheistic faith line transmitted through three different paths but essentially following the same deity. Well thats my opinion anyway.

No Muslim shall argue against that. Al Qur'an itself states repeatedly that what was reveiled to Muhammed is nothing else then a repetition of that very same Message of God.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

The Pope favourably qouted a Byzantine Christian Emperor saying that the teachings of Mohammad were "only evil and inhuman". That's not attack on a *trend* in Islam but an attack on Islam as a whole

I read the original German text as published on the Vatican’s website.
You have it wrong, he didn’t say anything that can even be remotely interpreted like that.
Placed in context there is nothing wrong with the quotation. It serves as introduction to the subject “God and logos” or “faith and reason”.

and given that the Pope is personally opposed to Turkey's membership of the EU and has in the past met with the late Oriana Fallaci who said Muslims in Europe "breed like rats" it is understandable why many Muslims are offended my his bloody stupid remarks.

Many people are opposed to Turkey’s membership of the EU, outside and inside Turkey. I’m not able to reach a conclusion about it myself (at this moment I am more inclined to decide against then for it). Being opposed to this does not automatically mean you are an enemy of Islam. As for “meeting Oriani Fallaci”: I don’t see why the leader of Christianity (as such also the leader of the Vatican State) can’t “meet” controversial people. I meet controversial people all the time.

That said, obviously the small minority of bigots who have gone rioting are just brain dead morons who do more to fuel prejudice against Muslims than the Vatican could wish for.

I doubt the official line of the Vatican to be “wishes to fuel prejudice against Muslims”.
In every society there are people who riot whenever they detect a reason to do so. On the other hand, if you see official reactions coming form the Muslim world, I must conclude it to be their explicit wish to disregard the full context of the speech in order to give in to the cries of the street. The media – also the Western - don’t go free in this at all. As usual.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

This was no casual slip. Beneath his scholarly rhetoric, the Pope's logic seemed to be that Islam is dangerous and godless

No.

…/…And yes, the Pope did make it clear he was offering a quotation.

Even so, these words fell from the lips of the spiritual leader of a billion Christians without anything like enough qualification. There was no phrase distancing himself from the claim that Muhammad was responsible for evil. It's little surprise, therefore, that the remarks have roused anger and demands for a personal apology.

I don’t see what you mean with “not enough qualification”. In my view the Pope is the most qualified to speak about Christianity.
There was no mentioning of Muhammed being responsible of evil and there is in my view no need at all for any apology.

in Muslim teaching, because "God is absolutely transcendent", He is "not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality". In other words, there is no reasoning in or with Islam. Which, surely, is another way of the Pope saying how dangerous he thinks Islam is.

He said nor implied anything of the kind. He referred again to Khoury’s description of the conversation from which he quoted, adding Khoury’s reference to Arnaldez, who on his turn quoted Ibn Hazm, which was in fact to the point.
All this served as illustration on how such an approach differs from the Greek influences on Church theology. In fact: he mentioned notions of God within the history of Church theology that are similar to those of Islam (and on which he disagrees).

salaam.

 

[ska invita]

"...how can a man believed by Catholics to be "infallible" make a mistake?"

hahahaha! good one bbc!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5355758.stm

 

[Jonti]

What everyone seems to have missed completely in this speech of the Popes - and I only really picked up on it reading the op-ed in the Times from Saturday last night - is that he concluded it by saying that the real enemy of both Christianity and Islam was materlism/rationalism 'that does not allow for the possibility of the divine in it's worldview'.

But hey, let's just focus on one out-of-context line from what was quite an interesting lecture - I'm betting that half these pieces on Christian Triumphalism, Pope should apologise have been written by journos who haven't bothered reading what he actually SAID.

I have no doubt, and no evidence, you are correct in your assessment of how one earns a living "writing the news", which I suppose we must call it. It's getting more obvious. On the net, one can know folk who do bother to do the necessary reading.

And the Pope is of course right; it's pretty much self-evident. I do not doubt High Mosque Islam sees this every bit as clearly as he does. All the same, the poet may suggest there is someting in the style of Nature which is suggestive of the Divine -- and so may the scientist. It is true that the term God has no operational significance for science. That does not stop the scientist from having Faith.

It all depends where religion is prepared to draw the line. We have a self-evident right to be free from religion, and laws that stem from theology.

 

[phildwyer]

What everyone seems to have missed completely in this speech of the Popes - and I only really picked up on it reading the op-ed in the Times from Saturday last night - is that he concluded it by saying that the real enemy of both Christianity and Islam was materlism/rationalism 'that does not allow for the possibility of the divine in it's worldview'.

But hey, let's just focus on one out-of-context line from what was quite an interesting lecture - I'm betting that half these pieces on Christian Triumphalism, Pope should apologise have been written by journos who haven't bothered reading what he actually SAID.

For fuck's sake Kyser, *you* obviously haven't read what he said. Far from opposing rationalism, the Pope was equating reason with the logos of John 1:1--much as I have frequently done in conversations with you on this very forum. The Pope said, among other things that "acting irrationally contradicts God's nature." You stubbornly continue to equate materialism and rationalism, although I have showed you many time that materialism is irrational by its very nature. I often wonder if you are fully paying attention.

 

[phildwyer]

That does not stop the scientist from having Faith.

Irrational faith is worthless superstition. True religion is rational.

 

[laptop]

As a 13th-Century Caliph said: "Dyweranity has nothing to do with this discussion. Kindly leave this thread."

 

[phildwyer]

As a 13th-Century Caliph said: "Dyweranity has nothing to do with this discussion. Kindly leave this thread."

You're just jealous cos the Pope agrees with me. He calls on us to "overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable and... once more disclose its vast horizons." He notes that "the West has long been endangered by its aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality" and calls for "the courage to engage the whole breadth of reason." In short, the Pope is calling for a new Age of Reason to crush the materialist superstition that has brought us to the brink of disaster. Just like me. If I were a less generous man I would suspect plagiarism.

 

[Jonti]

Here is a public service announcement ​

 

[phildwyer]

Here is a public service announcement ​

Don't like being shown up for the bullshitter you are, do you?

 

[phildwyer]

All the same, the poet may suggest there is someting in the style of Nature which is suggestive of the Divine

You don't by any chance write poetry yourself do you, Jonti? Call it a wild guess.

 

[nino_savatte]

Don't like being shown up for the bullshitter you are, do you?

Oh! The hypocrisy! For someone who has a reputation for bullshit, it's a little rich of you to refer to others in this way.

 

[nino_savatte]

You're just jealous cos the Pope agrees with me. He calls on us to "overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable and... once more disclose its vast horizons." He notes that "the West has long been endangered by its aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality" and calls for "the courage to engage the whole breadth of reason." In short, the Pope is calling for a new Age of Reason to crush the materialist superstition that has brought us to the brink of disaster. Just like me. If I were a less generous man I would suspect plagiarism.

All of this uttered by someone who claims not to be Xtian but spouts so many turgid Xtian phrases, it's unbelievable.

"The Pope agrees" with you. Well, there's a surprise.

How can the head of the Catholic faith call for a new "Age of Reason"? There is nothing reasonable about superstitous mumbo-jumbo.

 

[kyser_soze]

For fuck's sake Kyser, *you* obviously haven't read what he said. Far from opposing rationalism, the Pope was equating reason with the logos of John 1:1--much as I have frequently done in conversations with you on this very forum. The Pope said, among other things that "acting irrationally contradicts God's nature." You stubbornly continue to equate materialism and rationalism, although I have showed you many time that materialism is irrational by its very nature. I often wonder if you are fully paying attention.

You really make me laugh sometimes - you manage to contradict yourself within 3 posts of this statement on this thread, but I find it genuinely offensive that you DARE say that this pope is calling for an 'age of reason' and capitalise it so as to make an allusion to Thomas Paine's truly great work of rational thought about religion.

0/10.

 

[nino_savatte]

You really make me laugh sometimes - you manage to contradict yourself within 3 posts of this statement on this thread, but I find it genuinely offensive that you DARE say that this pope is calling for an 'age of reason' and capitalise it so as to make an allusion to Thomas Paine's truly great work of rational thought about religion.

0/10.

Aye, when I saw it I thought I was dreaming...and then I realised it was more dwyer bullshit.

The church was steadfastly opposed to anything that challenged its monopoly on culture. I don't think Benny would like the thought of being compared to arch-atheist, Thomas Paine either.

 

[ska invita]

This was no casual slip. Beneath his scholarly rhetoric, the Pope's logic seemed to be that Islam is dangerous

No.

Not much of an argument Alderban.

I think Freedlands piece puts it well:

Of course he has the right to quote whomever he chooses, but there is now a significance to his words that did not apply when he was a humble scholar. This is what makes the Pope's defenders so disingenuous when they insist that he was merely engaged in a "scholarly consideration of the relationship between reason and faith". He is not a lecturer at divinity school. He is the head of a global institution with more than a billion followers. So he has to think carefully about the sources he cites. When he digs out a 700-year-old sentence that could not be more damning of Islam - "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached" - he has to know there will be consequences.

If he did not fully agree with the statement by the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologos, he should have put some distance between himself and it. But read the lecture and the only hint of papal disavowal is a description of Manuel's "startling brusqueness". Which means the Pope was either inept, failing to disown Manuel's sentiment effectively, or that he in fact agreed with it and wanted to say so. Again, that is his right - but he should have known, given who he is, that it would have the most calamitous results.

good piece all round: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1876422,00.html

-Oh. and I also agree with Phil and the Pope that materialism is limiting our knowledge - but that is probably all we are ever going to agree on in regard to the nature of reality.

 

[kyser_soze]

I think that article is a load of bollocks - first his comparing a speech made to scholars with the idiocy of Hoddle and Kilroy-Silk, and then by basically saying that the Pope should self-censor (something he has criticised other journalists for in the past).

Would Freedland be so quick to criticise a significant leader of another faith for saying something insulting about another? I doubt it. The debate that follows the piece is interesting reading as well.

 

[kakuma]

have any muslim leaders apologised for that nun getting shot yet??

that was a lot worse

 

[phildwyer]

All of this uttered by someone who claims not to be Xtian but spouts so many turgid Xtian phrases, it's unbelievable.

"The Pope agrees" with you. Well, there's a surprise.

How can the head of the Catholic faith call for a new "Age of Reason"? There is nothing reasonable about superstitous mumbo-jumbo.

Have you read the speech, Nino? Here it is:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5347876.stm

So you can clearly see that the Pope *is* calling for a new Age of Reason--to emerge out of a "critique of reason from within." Basically he is a rationalist as opposed to an empiricist. He is therefore *more* reasonable than Baconian science which, as he and I agree, is no better than superstition.

 

[nino_savatte]

Have you read the speech, Nino? Here it is:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5347876.stm

So you can clearly see that the Pope *is* calling for a new Age of Reason--to emerge out of a "critique of reason from within." Basically he is a rationalist as opposed to an empiricist. He is therefore *more* reasonable than Baconian science which, as he and I agree, is no better than superstition.

I thought you'd come out swinging like the pub drunk. You obviously overlooked the contradiction of the head of the Catholic faith calling for a new "Age of Reason". Religions (particularly Abrahamic ones) don't deal in "reason". Benny's talking out of his mitre.

No wonder people think you're a joke.

 

[phildwyer]

I thought you'd come out swinging like the pub drunk. You obviously overlooked the contradiction of the head of the Catholic faith calling for a new "Age of Reason". Religions (particularly Abrahamic ones) don't deal in "reason". Benny's talking out of his mitre.

No wonder people think you're a joke.

Read the damned speech, Nino. You know--*before* shooting your mouth off about it? Don't pretend that you read it in the four minutes separating our posts. Go away now and read it, and think about the way the Pope appeals to Socrates and Plato (two well-known *rationalists*), noting well his observations on the concept of the "logos," and then come back and tell us what you take his position on Reason to be. Then I'll talk to you. But I cannot argue with someone who has simply failed to consult the material of which we speak.

 

[kyser_soze]

Have you read the speech, Nino? Here it is:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5347876.stm

So you can clearly see that the Pope *is* calling for a new Age of Reason--to emerge out of a "critique of reason from within." Basically he is a rationalist as opposed to an empiricist. He is therefore *more* reasonable than Baconian science which, as he and I agree, is no better than superstition.

No he isn't - the subtext of this is that he's calling for a return to enquiry that includes theology as part of the scientific process, and despite his comment that he 'does not seek to turn back the developments of modernity', along with his final comments about empirical sciences he seeks a return to enquiry that is controlled and managed by theological concerns - i.e. a return to pre-enlightenment control over investigaiton and answers that contradict the teachings of A Church - whichever one it happens to be.

Altho I can see why this is popular with you phil - his use of the Logos and other bits of Greek philosophy, and with the exception of one mention of Kant, completely ignoring any philosophy from the C19th onwards because that really challenges religion and the rationality of religious faith, something that the Greeks didn't, with their assumption that 'The Other' was really real (IYSWIM).

What is funny is that his parting comment also clearly refers to the thoroughly corrupted combination of faith and science that is driving in the US at the moment -

Yet the world's profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions.

Amazing that not a single critic of the speech has basically picked up that this means 'There's a lot of people out there who are pissed off with the West and the current guiding elements of it's central philiosophy'. A more broadminded, cross-faith view I can't imagine that a conservaitve pontiff could make!!!

I've got to say tho, reading it for the 3rd time makes me even more angry about the utterly ridiculous reaction to what he said - the quote about Islam is UTTERLY relevant to what he goes on to say in a broader sense, and given that Ayatollah Khamani said he 'needs to learn about Islam' I think the Ayatollah should maybe have read the whole lecture text.

 

[goldenecitrone]

he seeks a return to enquiry that is controlled and managed by theological concerns - i.e. a return to pre-enlightenment control over investigaiton and answers that contradict the teachings of A Church - whichever one it happens to be.

It must frustrate him terribly that he can't give Dawkins a bit of the old Galileo treatment.

 

[nino_savatte]

Read the damned speech, Nino. You know--*before* shooting your mouth off about it? Don't pretend that you read it in the four minutes separating our posts. Go away now and read it, and think about the way the Pope appeals to Socrates and Plato (two well-known *rationalists*), noting well his observations on the concept of the "logos," and then come back and tell us what you take his position on Reason to be. Then I'll talk to you. But I cannot argue with someone who has simply failed to consult the material of which we speak.

The concept of reason and religion (especially in the case of one of most repressive institutions in the world) do not go together.

Get back to your bottle of gin or whatever poison takes your fancy.

 

[kyser_soze]

There's another, more disturbing subtxt here as well...basically, the concluding paragraph of that speech is saying 'All religions share a common problem etc.' could be read to mean 'The real clash of civilisations won't be the continuation of the crudsades against Islam, but between religious and rational models of looking at the universe'.

I admit, it's pretty far fetched, but since the Muslim world managed to turn one simple example into an attack on the Umma I reckon that material rationalists like myself should be allowed to take equal offence at his remarks...

 

[Fruitloop]

Have you read the speech, Nino? Here it is:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5347876.stm

So you can clearly see that the Pope *is* calling for a new Age of Reason--to emerge out of a "critique of reason from within." Basically he is a rationalist as opposed to an empiricist. He is therefore *more* reasonable than Baconian science which, as he and I agree, is no better than superstition.

You and your Baconian science! How many present-day scientists see their endeavour as a progression from observations to forms?

 

[kyser_soze]

Benny doesn't even mention Baconian science (which has appeared a couple of times on here recently by God botherer types attempting to denigrate scientific method) in his lecture...probably because he shares your opinion fruit, and not phils...