The Pope's Faulty Thesis (in regards to Islam)

Once again, you liberals turn things upsidedown and backwards! Liberals consist of welfare folk and permanent students who keep taking classes to avoid the real world, and the only job they can get is as a professor to spread their misconceptions.Meanwhile, conservatives farm the heartland, protect the country, build mansions, create jobs (for illegal immigrants because liberals won't take those jobs), and pay taxes to keep the liberals healthy.

---

'Liberalism is a mental disorder' - Michael Savage

and you say I have a faulty thesis. lol.my dad alone is disprove of your thesis. Crashfrog is disprove of this. Omnivorus has served in our army--ever read the 9-11 Disney thread started by cranston?All I see conservative's doing is arguing over stupid stuff--like how my thesis is wrong.oh, by the way--you never showed how my thesis was wrong--you just stated that conservatives do a bunch of things that have no bearing on education. Actually try showing how lesser educated people tend not to be conservative if you want to disprove my thesis.abe w/o edit:
(last time I checked, Bill Gates created a butt-load of jobs)abe (this one is an edit):
since when did Virginia join the heartland? methinks you need to review your geography of the lessons. those ignorant conservativesEdited by kuresu, : No reason given.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

First, you never had a "thesis", just an opinion. You are the one with the burden of proof, not me.
Second, citing a few people as proof is a faulty method. Even conservatives are educated to know that.
Third, lighten-up. You were unable to distinguish serious discussion from humor. That probably stems from an assumption that your "thesis" is correct and conservatives are dumb (which, by the way is not necessarily correlated with formal education).
Fourth, this is all off-topic and is going nowhere.

---

'Liberalism is a mental disorder' - Michael Savage

Thanks for getting back to me, Jar.It appears that one of your supporting quotes has been lost through duplication (check the first two quotes in post 44 and you'll see what I mean).I'm wary of commenting too much on what you wrote because of this; I want to see what you properly had in mind. However, I want to elaborate a little on my earlier posts: I think that perhaps I am not being clear enough.I think I'm starting to see where you are coming from here, but I can't stop seeing his comments in the wider context of Abramic faiths that to me he seems to establish.For instance, the "burning bush" section is presumably a reference to pre-Hellenic Judaism, and so the implication might be that Christianity offers a refinement of Jewish thought through its relationship with Greek philosophy.The section on the medieval church's decision to distance itself from Plato and embrace a kind of voluntarism seems to sit in parallel with the passage that has inflamed so many tempers. He is clearly critical of the medieval church, precisely because he sees Greek thought as so central to a successful religion because it can in his view allow theology to be integrated into the wider body of human learning more seamlessly. The same criticism is, I believe, strongly implied of Islam through this parallel.To me, his conclusion seems to be expressing a fear: a fear that the further his church drifts from Hellenistic principals, the more wild it will become, unmoored as it is from rational discourse and a collegiate approach to learning.In other words, I think that he is expressing a fear that Christianity might, in rejecting its Greek heritage, become more voluntaristic, more Islamic.I think it ironic that the pope should believe this because it seems to me that the Enlightenment -- which borrowed incidentally from classical philosophy preserved by Islamic scholars -- acted to mitigate the power of a corrupt and all-powerful church to the dismay of those in positions of religious power. In this light, his espoused belief in some natural bond between Christianity and Greek thought becomes a convenient fiction to cover a huge embarrassment to his thesis: namely, the conflicts before, during and after the eighteenth century between reason on one hand and his own Catholic church on the other.But this discussion of why I believe his thesis to be weak is only addressing one part of the OP. What I was (perhaps mischievously) speculating was whether it was possible that the pope had done something really Machiavellian. That is, to provoke fervently religious Muslims to wrathful demonstration through the inclusion of a controversial quote -- a quote that when studied closely and rationally can seem perfectly innocuous -- in a speech about Christianity's privileged relationship with reason.It has worked like a charm. Although, as I hope I have gone some way towards showing, his claim that Christianity has some natural affinity with Greek philosophy and reason is very questionable, he has been seen by many moderates around the world to have proved his point - not through argumentation, but through its public reception in the Middle East and elsewhere.During the last election in this country one of the buzz-words was "dog whistle" (I assume it’s been appropriated from American political-speak of ten years ago). If it’s a term that you are unfamiliar with, it simply refers to the ability of some public speakers to consciously say two very different things to two different audiences at the same time. I think it’s possible that the pope employed this technique here.His statement seems innocuous to many moderate Westerners, but like an unforgivable slight to god-fearing Muslims world-wide. It just seems so neat. After rising to the proffered bait, his religious opponents have further damned themselves as unreasonable in the eyes of many, and all over a speech about reason.I think his plans for Europe have been significantly helped by this whole incident, whether he intended to or not.Personally, I'd like to entertain the idea that he's been phenomenally sneaky here for a while longer.

I think you may be onto something, Tusko. The Dahlai Lama was in Denver at the same time as the Pope inserted his foot in his mouth, and the Dalai drew some big crowds and garnered a lot of respect.Why is it that Christianity can't have any Jesus-like spokesmen?Are we selling out to the Western theocratic mindset?

The Dalai Lama is an agent of satan (unbeknownst to himself most likely). Of course he is going to garner a lot of respect. What else do you expect?Read Acts again Phat and see what happens when the gospel is preached. Riot or ridicule ensues. This is not to say that a riot or ridicule is indicative of the gospel being preached (see: The Popes speech) but you will not expect 'a lot of respect' neither.{abe} They tend to get crucified? The apostles were all Jesus-like spokesmen. Tradition has it that they all, bar John suffered violent death.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I used to agree with you 100% on that theory, Ian...and im not gonna say that there is NOT a spiritual war of ideologies and meanings on our planet.IF that is in fact what IS going on, we are in for one heck of a time!Better start doubling up on prayertime.Ironically, however, what IF by us becoming more fundamentally religious and (narrow minded) we actually conribute to the deterioration of relationships with the other religions?In other words, is Christian absolutism a self fullfilling prophecy of a sign of the last great battle?More to this topic, is the Pope an agent of Satan also, in your opinion?

There is a spiritual supermarket out there for a reason. What would that reason be do you think? All paths lead to the summit?. Or piling on the counterfeit in an attempt to bury truth. The first commandment is prime for this reason I believe. It addresses the biggest problem. Fundamentalism is so frequently used as a negative one could form the opinion that it was in fact a negative. Is "I am the way, the only way" not the most fundemental statement of all. "Me - period"This is not to say one should become atagonistic and violent and repressive - that is another kind of fundamentalism. But truth is completely intolerant of lie Phat and there is no harm in stating the truth just because that causes others to scream "intolerant, exclusive, no proof". It is the power of the gospel to convert a man. It is for Christians to deliver it - be they shot as messagers or no. Whilst opposition is not a guarentee that one is preaching the gospel it is safe to say that unless there is opposition one is not preaching the gospel. I see more of the negative fundamentalism than I do the positive to be honest. I don't go looking for end times myself - its not an area of interest for me Of course. Roman Catholicism preachs a false gospel and he is the main man. But then I can be used so too - so I ain't condeming the guy. I don't know how much truth he (the Pope) has (and is suppressing) any more than I know the amount of truth the Dalai Lama has - and is supressing.The Pope may be a Christian, he may not be. That is the key issue for him I think.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Hear Ye. Hear Ye. All pay heed to ThingsChange where he correctly writes: The topic of this thread is the Pope's thesis concerning rationality and religion, its applicability to other religions, and the reaction to same. Anything not relating at least peripherally to that discussion will receive unfriendly notice from yours truly.Any comments on this warning, please take it to the appropriate thread below.Da Judge Hath Spoken

---

"Here come da Judge" - Flip Wilson Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:

General discussion of moderation procedures

Thread Reopen Requests

Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics

​

New Members: Important threads to make your stay more enjoyable:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]

Yes it was lost but right now I have absolutely no idea what it was. Sorry bout that. LOLI think our biggest difference has to do with what as individuals we preceive to be the substance of the speech.I agree and have always agreed and imagine right now that he would agree that including the discussion from 1391 was a mistake. But was it central to the speech as a whole?The talk as a whole was almost 4000 words, 17 paragraphs. Except for the section where he quotes from a 1391 discouse, where he also states that it was recorded by only one side and so possibly biased, and where he points out that what is said seems to be presented "with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness which leaves us astounded", he deals with Christianity.I would like to point out a few things I see as significant.First, he is addresssing the Sciences, that part of a collegium in the classic senses. Second, the thrust of the whole speech is on the importance of reason in religion. Third, he shows concern about how the Christian Church behaved in the past as well as pointing to modern trends that seem to be going on today.I think the talk was intended to begin a discussion of the place of religion, a charge that theology must be based in reason and not blind to the world we live in. Also, as a Theologian, I believe he is saying that the two lines, science and theology, address two distinct areas and that both are essential but each must be based on reason.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'm not sure we are going to see eye to eye on this one.I don't dispute that he sees reason as central to religion, in fact I agree wholeheartedly. In a way, I think that's why I felt that his treatment of Islam in it was quite insensitive.I think that his charge probably isn't that Islam is a bloodthirsty religion, or a violent one. I think it is much more damning: namely that Islam is irrational - or at least, through its acceptance of a god that can do impossible things, less rational that Christianity.This may not have been the central thrust of the argument that he was making on the night - it could have been an apparently throwaway aside. However, I don't believe he can hide behind the claim that he was just being "scholarly". He is, after all, the pope, and I don't think he can be considered a scholar in the same sense once he assumes that role.As I have said on too many occasions already, I think this attitude that Christianity is fundamentally bound together reason is questionable. I think the church has been less than reasonable on many occasions in history and has instead relied on its power to partially or wholly silence reasonable voices.You, however, seem to be defending your position perfectly reasonably. Not enough to change my mind, however! Perhaps we have reached an impass?

Hey Phat,Thanks for your contribution, and apologies for my tardiness.I'm not really sure if I'm on to something or not, to be brutally honest.I heard that the pope had a little dig at Judaism a couple of days later, so it would seem that he's really going for it at the moment... or perhaps its all innocuous.I'm not sure what the Western theocratic mindset is either... living in a western country that, broadly speaking, considers itself secular, I'm not sure if I'm familiar with it.T x

I imagine that the Pope would agree with you.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Oh - no, I don't doubt that at all. I just think that there is a degree of irony in a statement that expresses regret for the church's historical failings at the same time as it applauds the church's close relationship with rationality and reasonableness.To spell it out - I think that a lot of those failings have been failures to be rational and reasonable, and instead have demonstrated a desire to maintain power. Perhaps it is true in a Machiavellian world that such attempts to maintain power are reasonable. But when I refer to reason I am refering to it as something scholarly and removed from petty geopolitical concerns. (I hope such a thing can exist!)

In the middle of September, 2006 Pope Benedict of the Catholic Church made a speech at the University in Regensburg, Germany.
The core of the speech has been characterized as a criticism of modern western civilization for committing itself too much to reason and cutting God out of science and philosophy.
Ian Fisher of the New York Times said that Pope Benedict started out ”by recounting a conversation on the truths of Christianity and Islam that took place between a 14th- century Byzantine Christian emperor, Manuel II Paleologus, and a Persian scholar.’
Even the New York Times seems to have gotten the message wrong that Pope Benedict was sending.
Pope Benedict did not start by recounting the conversation. The quotation that caused the stir was far into the speech but that is only a minor point.
He was speaking about how reason has polluted faith to such an extent that the message of peace that Jesus brought was being lost in modern society. In fact the speech contained elements of his inaugural lecture at the University in Bonn from 1959.
It is a speech of love, the message of Jesus, the word of God and of and for humanity.
The media reported on a reference to a statement made by Emperor Manuel II Paleologus hundreds of years ago and sparked off a bitter response from the Muslim community around the world.
I am going to begin this evening with a short history so that we have a background for Emperor Paleologus.
The Fall of the Roman Empire took place over a long period of time. During one period the Empire broke into two pieces. There was the western empire which fragmented further into several countries like France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Portugal - et cetera with a central church whose head of state was in Rome.
The Eastern Empire retained its government and shape but was slowly over run by barbarians from the north and the Muslims from the east who were considered savages at the time.
Eventually the capital of the Eastern Empire at Byzantium was conquered and the Eastern Emperor, of which Manuel II was one of the last, ceased to be a governing power. The Eastern Churches are called Orthodox and range from the Greek Orthodox to the Russian Orthodox with other churches formed from what were formerly mainly Roman provinces.
Each of these orthodox churches has a different internal governing system and until Pope John Paul II made overtures they did not even speak to the Catholic Church in Rome.
During the Fall of the Western Empire a pantheon of gods was replaced by belief in the One True God. Much of the material from that time was preserved and passed down through the ages to the present day. Much of it was also destroyed.
Some of the most holy places in Rome to Catholics were once the same places used to worship Apollo, Diana, Zeus and Hera. Those are the ancient gods of Rome. Their statues were moved it of the buildings and the interiors redesigned to reflect the Catholic faith. A lot of this art is still in existence.
To the east of the Roman Empire - to the east of the Eastern Empire in fact, was in ancient times a nation called the Parthian Empire. After much fighting the Parthian Empire eventually ended up as the Persian Empire.
What happened when Mohammad came along was more bitter, divisive and destructive than the slow and thorough absorption of the old Roman religions by the Catholic religion.
Mohammad declared a campaign of destruction. When the Muslims entered Riyadh they attacked the pantheon of the Parthian or Persian Empire. They destroyed every statue and image they found. The priests were killed along with faithful trying to make a defense. Families were destroyed, the city burned and all the wealth and weapons taken for the continued fury of the spread of the Muslim faith.
The result is that the Muslim faith seemingly has no memory. There was a complete and willful break from the past which, rather than supplanting what was before it replaced it with another more insecure and fragile arrangement. Where local Parthian or Persian tax payers used to collect money now armed priests called Imams collected what is referred to as the ”poor-tax’ which finds its way these days rarely to the tables of the poor and more often to the makers of guns, rockets and mortars. Osama Bin Laden for example had access to billions of dollars and rather than using it for constructive projects he used it to attack the World Trade Center in order to disrupt trade.
Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and other governments controlled in this way whine to the west about helping the poor while they sit on oil, gold, silver, tin and other natural resources controlled by a few religious leaders as in Iran or by Kings and princes as in Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Jordan.
It was a terrible time and unlike the slow change that took place in Rome it has never seemed to end. In fact the same behavior that the early Muslims showed to the art and culture of their own people was repeated when the Muslim Taliban in Afghanistan destroyed the 18 story tall statues of Buddha with dynamite.
This sort of destructive, irresponsible behavior was echoed again when a Danish cartoonist drew a caricature of Mohammed wearing a bomb for a hat.
These are two well known incidents in modern times but the destructive behavior has been repeated time and time again through history. Muslims sometimes say it is to defend their faith but lately it has started to seem a little like the fanaticism of men like Billy Sunday and Billy Graham who pull an enemy out of the hat so the donations of the faithful will keep pouring in.
The problem is that the violence that is unleashed through the old interpretation of the Koran is extreme.
Now to return to modern times. What exactly did Pope Benedict say?
Here it is. The Pope is referencing an edited text of Emperor Paleologus’s remarks :
"But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, 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 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 sentence that drove the Muslim world into a blood frenzy is : "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 press did not dwell on the next sentence which reads, "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."The response of the Muslim community was almost instant. As if they had been sitting in wait for anything to set them off. If their reaction had not been so violent, apparently unthinking and illogical it might have been humorous.
But several people died apparently as a result of their reaction.
The onus was put back on Pope Benedict and it was intimated that his remarks caused the violence. I heard one radio talk show host on a local religious radio station in Detroit talk about the ”behavior’ of the Pope and yet she admitted that she had not seen the text of the speech. She was acting just like the Muslim fanatics that opposed him. The text was available online at that time but this Christian fanatic decided to remark on items she did not take the time to investigate.
The problem for the Muslim world is that even though he did not intend to paint the modern Muslim religion as bloodthirsty and violent the response and reaction from Muslim leaders around the world can only lead a responsible, logical adult to conclude that this may be so.In the meantime the response from the Muslim world began to deteriorate.Here is what the Pope said in response, ""These were in fact quotations from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought. The true meaning of my address in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect."Following are some of the things that were said and done by the Muslim community in response to Pope Benedict”s speech in Regensburg. You can make your own decision about whether they responded correctly or not. I do not feel that they did and that, rather than proving what Pope Benedict had to say, they underscored the words of Emperor Manuel II Paleologus himself.Iraqis burned an effigy of Pope Benedict XVI during a protest in Basra. Basra is a city that has seen thousands of political and religious assassinations since the occupation of Iraq began. The Shiites and Sunnis are slaughtering each other but took a break to join together and burn a paper puppet of Pope Benedict.The New York Times tells us that "an Iraqi group linked to Al Qaeda posted a warning on a Web site threatening war against "worshippers of the cross.""Ayatollah Ali Khameni, the top Muslim in Iran, is reported to have called Pope Benedict’s remarks "the latest link" in the "chain of conspiracy to set off a crusade."A Turkish man with a fake gun attacked a Protestant church in the Turkish capital of Ankara.In Somalia, gunmen shot an Italian nun and her bodyguard to death outside a children's hospital in the capital. It is not clear whether the shooting of Leonella Sgorbati, 64, was related to the papal controversy, but Somalian Islamic extremists had threatened to attack Catholics.Reuters news agency reported, "She was shot three times in the back."
Reuters goes on to say, "There is a very high possibility the people who killed her were angered by the Catholic Pope's recent comments . "Somalia was recently taken over by a Muslim government whose first actions were to disarm or kill anyone that opposed them. They have maintained order with violence.In Sudan the attacks on the Christians in Darfur by armed agents of the Sudan government continue. In a weakly worded statement Condoleeza Rice said that the violence in Darfur is "getting worse".The concept of spreading Islam by the sword is alive and well in the 21st century.
The Islamic government in Sudan’s north is pushing south with guns and bombs. They are clearing out the Africans who have lived there for thousands of years in order to sell oil contracts to Communist Chinese and even European and American companies.
In Somalia the Muslims are killing anyone that opposes them and replacing local governments with a government based on Muslim law called Sharia.
In Afghanistan the Islamists continue to spread their influence by killing anyone who opposes them.
Active cells of terrorists and Islamic preachers in Pakistan continue to incite violence in western India, Afghanistan and central Asia.
The western parts of Communist China are also feeling the sting of this renewed military expansion.
All through north Africa, the shores of East Africa and even eastern Europe Muslim extremists seemingly resort to violence first.
These are real expansions and they are not being addressed by international diplomacy.Indonesia, a major trading partner with the United States, continues to be ruled by a military style government heavily steeped in Muslim influence. Three apparently innocent Christians were recently executed for anti-government activities just before the Muslim holy days of Ramadan in what appears to be an insult to the West in that the Muslim cleric and men who killed so many in a bombing in Bali have still not been sentenced.
The executions were scheduled for early August, but were postponed following an appeal by Pope Benedict. Then the scheduled executions of the Bali bombers, who murdered 202 people, was also postponed. They may have a new date set in October but there is no telling with the Indonesian government.Din Syamsuddin, chairman of Muhammadiyah, the second largest Islamic organization in Indonesia said, "It is obvious from the statements that the Pope doesn't have a correct understanding of Islam. Whether the Pope apologizes or not, the Islamic community should show that Islam is a religion of compassion."
Fauzan Al-Anshori, spokesman for the Indonesian Mujahideen Council, said "Muslims can't eliminate jihad from the Islamic discourse, the same way Christians can't do away with the doctrine of Trinity,"The Associate Press stated that "Al Qaeda in Iraq warned Pope Benedict XVI on Monday that its war against Christianity and the West will go on until Islam takes over the world . "Protests broke out in South Asia and IndonesiaThe Mujahedeen Shura Council in Iraq released a statement addressing the pope as "a cross-worshipper" and saying, "You and the West are doomed, as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere. You infidels and despots, we will continue our jihad (holy war) and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism, when God's rule is established governing all people and nations."Another Iraqi group said on the internet, "If the stupid pig is prancing with his blasphemies in his house then let him wait for the day coming soon when the armies of the religion of right knock on the walls of Rome."In Iran, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said, "Those who benefit from the pope's comments and drive their own arrogant policies should be targeted with attacks and protests."Islamic Defenders' Front said in Jakarta, India said, "His comments really hurt Muslims all over the world. We should remind him not to say such things which can only fuel a holy war."Malaysia's foreign minister, Syed Hamid Albar, said Benedict's apology was "inadequate to calm the anger."President Bush weight in and said that Pope Benedict was sincere in his apology for comments on Islam that have sparked outrage in the Muslim world. I can’t figure out which side he is on because according to the Catholic Church Pope Benedict did not apologize. Bush was with the Malaysian Prime Minister at the time so politics may be taken into account.Another statement out of Iraq was, "We shall break the cross and spill the wine."In Palestine a church in Tulkarem was attacked with gasoline bombs followed by an attempted attack on a church in Tubas, near Jenin along with gasoline bomb attacks on three churches in Nablus, as well as an attack on a church in Gaza.In Turkey, a recipient of much American aid money, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan asked Pope Benedict to apologize for his "ugly, unfortunate statements."In Morocco King Mohammed VI sent a written message to the pope denouncing his "offending statements."Pakistan's National Assembly voted unanimously a resolution condemning the Pope Benedict’s comments.
The Pakistani National Assembly wrote, "This statement has hurt sentiments of the Muslims. This is also against the charter of the United Nations. This house demands the Pope retract his remarks in the interest of harmony among different religions of the world."In New Delhi, India, Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the chief cleric of Jama Masjid, India's largest mosque said, "No Pope has ever tried to attack the glory of Islam like this Pope. Muslims must respond in a manner which forces the Pope to apologize."Meanwhile, violence continued in Somalia where the Muslim extremists attempted to assassinate the new President. The President lived by 8 people including his brother were murdered. The attack came as the President of Somalia has been trying to work out an agreement to reign in the Conservative Council of Islamic Courts which wants to run Somalia on Muslim Sharia law.Protests occurred in South Asia and across Indonesia.Muslims extremists said the pope's comments proved that the West was in a war against Islam.The Pakistani government made a big noise about Pope Benedict’s comments but they didn’t say anything about the fact that violence and religion don’t mix. In fact, neither did the Indonesians, Malaysians, Morrocans, Egyptians, Sudanese, Iraqis, Iranians or any of the Muslim dominated governments.To harken back to the past in Delhi, India in 1398 Chinggis Khan invaded the city. He had Hindu and Muslim prisoners separated. He then ordered all the non-Muslims to be killed. Over 100,000 Hindus were killed that day.The battle between Buddhism and the Muslim religion which caused the destruction of the statues in Afghanistan dates back to the 1300’s as well.Pope’s Speech from Regensburg :Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is a moving experience for me to stand and give a lecture at this university podium once again. I think back to those years when, after a pleasant period at the Freisinger Hochschule, I began teaching at the University of Bonn. This was in 1959, in the days of the old university made up of ordinary professors. The various chairs had neither assistants nor secretaries, but in recompense there was much direct contact with students and in particular among the professors themselves.
We would meet before and after lessons in the rooms of the teaching staff. There was a lively exchange with historians, philosophers, philologists and, naturally, between the two theological faculties. Once a semester there was a dies academicus, when professors from every faculty appeared before the students of the entire university, making possible a genuine experience of universitas: the reality that despite our specializations which at times make it difficult to communicate with each other, we made up a whole, working in everything on the basis of a single rationality with its various aspects and sharing responsibility for the right use of reason-- this reality became a lived experience.
The university was also very proud of its two theological faculties. It was clear that, by inquiring about the reasonableness of faith, they too carried out a work which is necessarily part of the whole of the universitas scientiarum, even if not everyone could share the faith which theologians seek to correlate with reason as a whole. This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God. That even in the face of such radical skepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.
I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Mnster) of part of the dialogue carried on-- perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara-- by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was probably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than the responses of the learned Persian.
The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship of the three Laws: the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Qur'an. 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 edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that surah 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 Qur’an, 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 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 Saint 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, is already presents a challenge to the notion of myth, to which Socrates's 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. Ps 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. Eph 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is logos. Consequently, Christian worship is worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason (cf. Rom 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.
The thesis that the critically purified Greek heritage forms an integral part of Christian faith has been countered by the call for a dehellenization of Christianity-- a call which has more and more dominated theological discussions since the beginning of the modern age. Viewed more closely, three stages can be observed in the program of dehellenization: although interconnected, they are clearly distinct from one another in their motivations and objectives.
Dehellenization first emerges in connection with the fundamental postulates of the Reformation in the 16th century. Looking at the tradition of scholastic theology, the Reformers thought they were confronted with a faith system totally conditioned by philosophy, that is to say an articulation of the faith based on an alien system of thought. As a result, faith no longer appeared as a living historical Word but as one element of an overarching philosophical system. The principle of sola scriptura, on the other hand, sought faith in its pure, primordial form, as originally found in the biblical Word. Metaphysics appeared as a premise derived from another source, from which faith had to be liberated in order to become once more fully itself. When Kant stated that he needed to set thinking aside in order to make room for faith, he carried this program forward with a radicalism that the Reformers could never have foreseen. He thus anchored faith exclusively in practical reason, denying it access to reality as a whole.
The liberal theology of the 19th and 20th centuries ushered in a second stage in the process of dehellenization, with Adolf von Harnack as its outstanding representative. When I was a student, and in the early years of my teaching, this program was highly influential in Catholic theology too. It took as its point of departure Pascal’s distinction between the God of the philosophers and the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
In my inaugural lecture at Bonn in 1959, I tried to address the issue. I will not repeat here what I said on that occasion, but I would like to describe at least briefly what was new about this second stage of dehellenization. Harnack’s central idea was to return simply to the man Jesus and to his simple message, underneath the accretions of theology and indeed of hellenization: this simple message was seen as the culmination of the religious development of humanity. Jesus was said to have put an end to worship in favor of morality. In the end he was presented as the father of a humanitarian moral message. The fundamental goal was to bring Christianity back into harmony with modern reason, liberating it, that is to say, from seemingly philosophical and theological elements, such as faith in Christ’s divinity and the triune God.
In this sense, historical-critical exegesis of the New Testament restored to theology its place within the university: theology, for Harnack, is something essentially historical and therefore strictly scientific. What it is able to say critically about Jesus is, so to speak, an expression of practical reason and consequently it can take its rightful place within the university. Behind this thinking lies the modern self-limitation of reason, classically expressed in Kant’s "Critiques", but in the meantime further radicalized by the impact of the natural sciences. This modern concept of reason is based, to put it briefly, on a synthesis between Platonism (Cartesianism) and empiricism, a synthesis confirmed by the success of technology. On the one hand it presupposes the mathematical structure of matter, its intrinsic rationality, which makes it possible to understand how matter works and use it efficiently: this basic premise is, so to speak, the Platonic element in the modern understanding of nature. On the other hand, there is nature’s capacity to be exploited for our purposes, and here only the possibility of verification or falsification through experimentation can yield ultimate certainty. The weight between the two poles can, depending on the circumstances, shift from one side to the other. As strongly positivistic a thinker as J. Monod has declared himself a convinced Platonist/Cartesian.
This gives rise to two principles which are crucial for the issue we have raised. First, only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered scientific. Anything that would claim to be science must be measured against this criterion. Hence the human sciences, such as history, psychology, sociology, and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of scientificity. A second point, which is important for our reflections, is that by its very nature this method excludes the question of God, making it appear an unscientific or pre-scientific question. Consequently, we are faced with a reduction of the radius of science and reason, one which needs to be questioned.
We shall return to this problem later. In the meantime, it must be observed that from this standpoint any attempt to maintain theology’s claim to be "scientific" would end up reducing Christianity to a mere fragment of its former self. But we must say more: it is man himself who ends up being reduced, for the specifically human questions about our origin and destiny, the questions raised by religion and ethics, then have no place within the purview of collective reason as defined by "science" and must thus be relegated to the realm of the subjective. The subject then decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective "conscience" becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical. In this way, though, ethics and religion lose their power to create a community and become a completely personal matter.
This is a dangerous state of affairs for humanity, as we see from the disturbing pathologies of religion and reason which necessarily erupt when reason is so reduced that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it. Attempts to construct an ethic from the rules of evolution or from psychology and sociology, end up being simply inadequate.
Before I draw the conclusions to which all this has been leading, I must briefly refer to the third stage of dehellenization, which is now in progress. In the light of our experience with cultural pluralism, it is often said nowadays that the synthesis with Hellenism achieved in the early Church was a preliminary inculturation which ought not to be binding on other cultures. The latter are said to have the right to return to the simple message of the New Testament prior to that inculturation, in order to inculturate it anew in their own particular milieux. This thesis is not only false; it is coarse and lacking in precision. The New Testament was written in Greek and bears the imprint of the Greek spirit, which had already come to maturity as the Old Testament developed. True, there are elements in the evolution of the early Church which do not have to be integrated into all cultures. Nonetheless, the fundamental decisions made about the relationship between faith and the use of human reason are part of the faith itself; they are developments consonant with the nature of faith itself.
And so I come to my conclusion. This attempt, painted with broad strokes, at a critique of modern reason from within has nothing to do with putting the clock back to the time before the Enlightenment and rejecting the insights of the modern age. The positive aspects of modernity are to be acknowledged unreservedly: we are all grateful for the marvelous possibilities that it has opened up for mankind and for the progress in humanity that has been granted to us. The scientific ethos, moreover, is the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which reflects one of the basic tenets of Christianity. The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application.
While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.
Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today. In the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. 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. A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures. At the same time, as I have attempted to show, modern scientific reason with its intrinsically Platonic element bears within itself a question which points beyond itself and beyond the possibilities of its methodology.
Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought: to philosophy and theology.
For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding. Here I am reminded of something Socrates said to Phaedo. In their earlier conversations, many false philosophical opinions had been raised, and so Socrates says: "It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being - but in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss".
The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur - this is the program with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. "Not to act reasonably (with logos) is contrary to the nature of God", said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.Koran QuotesChapter 8:12 " . Verily I am with you; wherefore confirm those who believe. I will cast a dread into the hearts of the unbelievers. Therefore strike off their heads, and strike off all the ends of their fingers."Chapter 8:67 reads, "It hath not been granted unto any prophet, that he should possess captives, until he hath made a great slaughter of the infidels in the earth."Chapter 9:123 reads, "O true believers, wage war against such of the infidels as are near you; and let them find severity in you: and know that God is with those who fear him.""Slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush" (Sura 9.5)."Those that make war against Allah and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be slain or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land. They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter." (Sura 5.33-34)"Allah revealed His will to the angels, saying: 'I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers!' That was because they defied Allah and His apostle. He that defies Allah and his apostle shall be sternly punished by Allah." (Sura 8.12-13)"In order that Allah may separate the pure from the impure, put all the impure ones one on top of another in a heap and cast them into hell. They will have been the ones to have lost." (Sura 8.37)"Muster against them all the men and cavalry at your command, so that you may strike terror into the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them who are unknown to you but known to Allah." (Sura 8.60)"Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and deal harshly with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate." (Sura 9.73)"When We resolve to raze a city, We first give warning to those of its people who live in comfort. If they persist in sin, judgement is irrevocably passed, and We destroy it utterly." (Sura 17.16-17)"When you meet the unbelievers in jihad, chop off their heads. And when you have brought them low, bind your prisoners rigorously. Then set them free or take ransom from them until the war is ended." (Sura 47.4)"Mohammed is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (Sura 48.29)
IV. Excerpts of Verses"And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.""Yea! if you remain patient and are on your guard, and they come upon you in a headlong manner, your Lord will assist you with five thousand of the havoc-making angels.""Fight then in Allah's way...rouse the believers to ardor maybe Allah will restrain the fighting of those who disbelieve... ""The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned""...fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah . ""O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand ...if there are a hundred patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a thousand they shall overcome two thousand by Allah's permission... ""...fight the polytheists all together as they fight you all together... ""...when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom until the war terminates . ""Be not fainthearted then; and invite not the infidels to peace when ye have the upper hand: for God is with you, and will not defraud you of the recompense of your works... "" ...surely from among your wives and your children there is an enemy to you; therefore beware of them""So obey not the unbelievers and fight strenuously with them in many a strenuous fight. " http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6362/713/1600/Popd3.jpghttp://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6362/713/1600/Popd17.jpg