aguywhoplaysthief on 18/9/2006 at 00:29
It's official: the Pope is a pussy.
I'm seriously sick of public figures being bullied into apologies, especially when they don't mean it.
If a U.S. politician came out today and said he wouldn't apologize for anything he says or does while in office, ever, then I'd sell my kidney and give the proceeds to his campaign, even if he was to the left of StD.
Gingerbread Man on 18/9/2006 at 00:55
I don't understand this shit at all. Surely the Pope of all people ought to be standing there saying "Look, you guys are wrong. Protestants are wrong, Baptists are wrong, Jews are wrong, Muslims are wrong, you're ALL wrong because wtf CATHOLIC"
Isn't that sort of his job?
I don't personally believe in any of it, but even I can see that the head of a major religion really shouldn't be explicitly or implicitly or even vaguely or begrudgingly admitting that perhaps maybe it's possible I guess that someone else's religion might conceivably have a tiny shred of potential merit. Seriously, wtf?
Christianity may say things along the lines of "Come on, guys... don't persecute or hate anyone else just because they're different" but it sure as hell never says "respect other people's beliefs because who knows? what if they're right and we're not?" That's practically the opposite of religious conviction.
Anyway, was anyone really surprised by the whole "Pope says something that people who weren't listening closely interpreted as saying Islam breeds violence -- someone starts yelling NO WE FUCKING AREN'T YOU CAN'T SAY THAT SHIT ABOUT US WE WON'T STAND FOR IT AND TO PROVE IT WE'LL SHOOT A GODDAMNED NUN NOW YOU TAKE IT BACK YOU DICKHEAD" routine?
WHO ARE YOU CALLING HOSTILE?!
Once again I find myself hoping that Mr and Mrs Actual Muslim are shaking their heads at the idiocy of it all and putting as much distance between themselves and these hypersensitive fuckheads as possible.
(edit)
I'm not saying the Pope should stand up and lambaste Islam, but I am saying he shouldn't apologise for it if he does decide to. I can't imagine what would happen to a highly-respected Imam who publically apologised for insinuating that the Christian world ought to be more respectful of Mohammed.
Anyway, I realise that Benedict's comments were taken out of context and hyped up in a very deliberately provocative way... What I have issues with is the fact that he feels it is appropriate or necessary to clarify, justify, or qualify his remarks -- even if they had been deliberate attacks on Islam.
When the POPE doesn't seem to have the requisite conviction in Christianity, what the hell?
To be honest, I think I'm making a mess of the idea I meant to present here. I get the feeling I started out wandering into something that sounds irrelevant and just kept running. But I assure you it all sounded pretty cogent in my head. You're just going to have to trust me on that.
Scots Taffer on 18/9/2006 at 01:11
Us? Violent?
UR FUCKEN DED! >:|
And no, it's not completely lost in your ramblings, GBM, I see your point pretty clearly - that is to say: look, if the Pope is to be the head of a faith that practices exactly as pavlov's cat indicates then surely they are right and everyone who practices all those other broken religions are wrong, so justification for offensive comments of broken religions need not be considered. Sorta. Kinda.
aguywhoplaysthief on 18/9/2006 at 02:02
I think your post was quite coherent GBM, and I agree with it.
Scots Taffer on 18/9/2006 at 02:32
And that point is, conviction is fine until it's RACIST.
metal dawn on 18/9/2006 at 02:45
Azathoth laughs
Mahomet went to Hell, but so did an assload of Popes; so we're even.
(Books are a religion of their own; two points for the one I'm referencing)
Religion, good and well, but only in small-ish doses for me.
ercles on 18/9/2006 at 06:22
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
I have no real opinion on the matter considering I'm neither totally learned in the matter nor a Christian. My original statement was an observational one from the viewpoint of someone who was dragged by his then-girlfriend to several churches where only the Catholics among them preached about the Trinity. Maybe the rest took such a thing for granted or maybe they realized that an infinite God should have infinite incarnations and forms, but whatever...
It's incredibly dangerous to start making blanket statments such as you did, especially when you yourself admit that you know almost nothing about the subject (although it was pretty obvious). That's how a lot of these problems start in the first place
Epos Nix on 18/9/2006 at 10:06
Ignoring the fact that I didn't mean to generalize the entirety of Christianity with my original statement, what are these "problems" you speak of? I was contending Convict's idea that there is some kind of rift between the God of Christianity and Islam's Allah due to the fact that, from my viewpoint at least, the concept of the Trinity doesn't have 100% acceptance among Christians and it's existence is mostly due to Biblical interpretation rather than a straight-forward statement made by Jesus. And even so, doesn't the Koran hold Jesus in extremely high regard saying that he is infact the Messiah, or am I mistaken there too? Where is the rift here?
Now I know that things aren't totally happy between these two religions but in a broad general sense I don't see the "mutually exclusive" thing happening, Biblical interpretations or no. Islam is still an Abrahamic faith and if Abraham and Moses' God is the one God then it stands to reason that didn't change much simply because Jesus decided to walk the Earth for a bit.
Dr Sneak on 18/9/2006 at 11:23
Quote:
Mahomet went to Hell, but so did an assload of Popes; so we're even.
I agree with that!:laff: :thumb:
As for the difference between Allah and the God of the Old and New Testament-they are 180 degrees apart. If you read the Koran and are familiar with the Bible, you will quickly see that the Koran is a bizarre mixture of pagan Arab beliefs, plagiarized Bible stories and some really mean spirited rants Mohammed goes into about his foes. Allah is not the Arabic word for god, it's a name of a lunar deity the Arab tribes worshipped in pre-Islamic days. Most of the pilgrimage rituals that Muslims do today were taken from old pagan rites, Mohammed just dusted them off and incorporated them into his new religion and removed the other idols from the Kabba. So you cant really say that the two guys are the same.
Here are some resources that you can check out for yourselves:
(
www.prophetofdoom.net)
(
http://www.faithfreedom.org/)
(
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html)
(
http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/bukhari/)
(
http://answering-islam.org/)
Convict on 18/9/2006 at 11:35
Quote Posted by pavlovscat
He isn't sorry, he's just sorry he got called on it.
I think he said he's sorry that he hurt anyone's feelings rather than 'oops I got busted for saying something I shouldn't have'.
GBM based on what was suggested by the BBC, I wonder if the pope apologised because he didn't want to have Catholics, in Islamic countries, hurt (where laws aren't so well enforced).
Epox Nix I understand that Muslims hold Jesus as a prophet, I'm not aware of them having a messianic figure (but I could be wrong). I just meant that if you say Jesus is God and someone else says Jesus is not God then these are mutually exclusive views. I don't know percentages for a fact but if you include Catholics and Protestants and groups that believe in a non-Trinity Biblical god, then I strongly suspect that the Trinitarian Catholics and Protestants make up high 90's% of them.
