Comments on: Cornell Style Christianity

By: johnboy316

johnboy316 — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 03:13:00 +0000

No one was ever forced by the Inquisition to convert. Torture was used to extract confessions of what heretics believed, not to get them to deny it. Torture and the burning were not used to *coerce* penance. Johnboy, read William Thomas Walsh’s excellent book on the Inquisition before you go throwing inane accusations around.

This is still unnacceptable. Get with the teachings of the Church, and not with medieval political corruption.

By: johnboy316

johnboy316 — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 03:05:00 +0000

“The Church is certainly not afraid of the truth that emerges from history and is ready to acknowledge mistakes wherever they have been identified, especially when they involve the respect that is owed to individuals and communities. She is inclined to mistrust generalizations that excuse or condemn various historical periods. She entrusts the investigation of the past to patient, honest, scholarly reconstruction, free from confessional or ideological prejudices, regarding both the accusations brought against her and the wrongs she has suffered.” JPII THE GREAT, see EWTN link here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDO
C/JP2PARDN.HTM

By: johnboy316

johnboy316 — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 02:58:00 +0000

In the absence of any remark regarding the Inquisition, it is totally inappropriate to make the claim that I referred to the Inquisition. In any case I understand the importance of an honest investigation and historical analysis of the Inquisition; as the late Holy Father indicated, without getting into general accusations, in light of his request of forgiveness of past sins of individual Catholics.

By: Tobias Petrus

Tobias Petrus — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 00:19:00 +0000

By: johnboy316

johnboy316 — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 20:21:00 +0000

But I think you havn’t understood the point of the Emperor’s statement: to him, Islam is a violent religion because it accepts, he thinks, even mandates, violence to spread the Islamic faith.

The Pope stated explicitly that the Emperor’s words were NOT his own personal belief. Of course, the whole issue is not what the emperor meant per se, but rather the Pope.

We cannot deny that the contradictory passages are in the Koran, as Pope Benedict had mentioned. How is it interpreted in Islam? How does a Muslim interpret it, in the light of Islamic theology which affirms that God is not bound by his word? These are unanswered questions, and perhaps the Pope is inviting Muslims to give a reasonable statement of their own faith. Unfortunately, our Muslim brothers seem to have gotten so worked up about a dead Emperor’s word and have not (could not?) give a reasonable account of their faith about jihad.

The radical “jihad” raised by some Muslims in the Middle East is disputed by Muslims in the west, for instance. You cannot simply blanket condemn all Muslims on the basis of a certain sect who holds violent jihad as the over-riding preoccupation of Islam. There are Muslims who reject this type of lack of reason…which is what the Pope, I’m sure, wishes to bring back to the table of dialogue. Otherwise, the “radical jihad” mentality will continue to spread as it apparently has been for years.

It was unfortunate that at a university, precisely where reason should prevail over passion, the genius and wisdom of the Pope’s words were not presented more clearly and carefully to the students.

I’m not sure if this is a subtle “attack” on the Pope’s lecture or just a call to more understanding of the Pope’s words. In any case.

By: Simon

Simon — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 15:45:00 +0000

So to condemn the inhumane acts of violence on behalf of religion does not mean to undermine the goodness of the religion itself;

Very true, johnboy316. But I think you havn’t understood the point of the Emperor’s statement: to him, Islam is a violent religion because it accepts, he thinks, even mandates, violence to spread the Islamic faith.

It was unfortunate that at a university, precisely where reason should prevail over passion, the genius and wisdom of the Pope’s words were not presented more clearly and carefully to the students.

By: johnboy316

johnboy316 — Sat, 30 Sep 2006 17:34:00 +0000

The quote was outrageous in its limited characterization of Mohammed.–CCC Chaplain

It was, unless you understand the Holy Father’s point and the quote in context of the actual dialogue with the Emperor and the Persian Muslim. As previously and briefly noted the issue at play was the moral dilemma presented back in the 15th century that is cropping up again on a grand scale. So to condemn the inhumane acts of violence on behalf of religion does not mean to undermine the goodness of the religion itself; but merely to point out some of its members have their religion hijacked by a unjust aggressive mentality towards non-believers. Yes, this has happened in the past by Catholics and such has been asked forgiveness appropriately by JPII. But the Church, particularly Pope Benedict XVI, has not lost sight of the good in Islam (as evidenced by his apparent “respect” for the Muslims).

By: johnboy316

johnboy316 — Sat, 30 Sep 2006 17:24:00 +0000

it condemns the *original* aspects, the parts that Mohammed introduced, as being violent and inhuman

The real point the Emperor was making in his dialogue with the Persian Muslim back in the day (part obviously quoted by the Pope Benedict XVI) was that of faith and reason…how could a person have true faith in Islam if one is essentially forced to convert by violence? Exactly another slam to some of the Cornell Society for a Good Time members’ view on the use of coercive measures to mitigate heresy…

By: Joe Six Pack

Joe Six Pack — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 14:34:00 +0000

I had sıx Turkısh laborers at my home from 9 AM untıl 6 PM movıng ın my household goods -- very tırıng work. All but one of them were fastıng - no food or lıquıds consumed from about 5 AM untıl 7 PM every day.

I thought ıt was pretty ımpressıve - a full days worth of tırıng manual labor wıthout even a sıp of water.

One of the Turkısh contractors who translates for me saıd that only the poor fast. The ırony, he saıd, ıs that the fast ıs desıgned to fıght agaınst materıalısm and lıve ın a spırıt of poverty and yet the wealthy of Turkey do not fast.

By: Tobias Petrus

Tobias Petrus — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 23:21:00 +0000

Good post, Ambrosius. I read somewhere that the Emperor’s statement does not, contrary to the first impression, condemn each and every aspect of Islam. Rather, it condemns the *original* aspects, the parts that Mohammed introduced, as being violent and inhuman. The Old Testament Jews and New Testament Christians had all of the positive aspects of Islam: fasting, prayer, almsgiving, the “Abrahamic tradition,” submission (in the true sense) to God’s Will, etc.

Good point about Constantinople, too. What people today forget is that the last Byzantine Emperors favored Union at Rome and effected it at the Council of Florence. So when the Divine Liturgy was last said in the Hagia Sophia, it was a Catholic Mass and the name of the reigning Pope was invoked. Cool, huh? Too bad the surviving Greeks and their liturgical kinsmen did not persevere in the Union.