Late Addendum:
Both Matthew 27:44 and Mark 15:32 have both of the ones crucified with him taunting (oneidizo) Jesus. John makes no mention of any exchange whatsoever.
Note that in Luke’s account, Jesus says to the one thief “Today you will be with me in paradise.” (The “you” is singular in the Greek.) No reply is made at all to, and no statement about the fate of, the other thief. How much conclusion dare we draw—from the text itself—when the text is silent? Perhaps openness, rather than conclusiveness, is called for...
Originally posted by NemesioOriginally posted by Nemesio
You really do like strawmen. Do you think it makes you sound erudite to correct something
that wasn't said?
Note I never said that contrition is an element of salvation. I said it is elemental to
Christianity, just like works of charity. There is no such thing as a Christian who doesn't
do works, or doesn't forgive, or sincerely seek forgiveness.
Nemesio
Contrition is elemental to Christianity.
Originally posted by that rabid liker of strawmen
Surely you aren't serious on this one.
My bad. When you emphatically used the word elemental in relation to Christianity, I thought you meant that contrition was an essential or basic part of being a Christian. I'm not sure how I could have so grossly misread you.
Perhaps my misreading had something to do with these next spate of words you provided:
"There is no such thing as a Christian who doesn't do works, or doesn't forgive, or sincerely seek forgiveness."
According to that line of thought, that malefactor on the cross was SOL, regardless of what the final Judge had to say about the matter. In your literalist (!) approach to the NT writings, you have sorely missed the intents of many passages.
While Scripture certainly stands alone, it must be read in light of all of Scripture. You cannot pick and choose , smorgasboard-style; otherwise, you end up with a monstrosity of contradiction and absurdity. Certainly God is not the author of confusion.
The fact of the matter is, Heaven will be populated by scores of people who didn't get the Christian life right, but nonetheless got the salvation part. Your statement otherwise is incorrect.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by NemesioFrankly, I do not see what is so offensive about the Pope's comments. He took an obscure scholar's opinion on Islam in order to derive a conclusion that violence is incompatible with faith and reason. If say, he did apologise for that, wouldn't that whitewash his criticism of Islamic violence we hear of so frequently (and which has been demonstrated following the Pope's comments)?
Once again, you have failed to answer my question. Your information doesn't change the
careless and insensitive manner in which the Pope provided this information. That is, the
Pope didn't point out all the times the RCC was responsible for violence within its sects, so
there was hardly a balance.
Further, you said it was hard to write an apology. T ...[text shortened]... orgiveness to apologize? Does his political duties outweigh his religious duties?
Nemesio
And when I said that "it is difficult to apologise" I was meaning in the general sense (as you were asking in the general sense, why theren't very often apologies from the Vatican). I would think that your apologies would be acceptable however my only reservation is that they water down the Pope's critique of religious violence.
Catholics have to constantly confront criticism of their church (consider the slander on this thread), I fail to understand why Muslims deserve special treatment.
Originally posted by Conrau K
Frankly, I do not see what is so offensive about the Pope's comments.
Okay. Let's review.
1) The Pope made reference to an otherwise unknown author a quote which specifically said that
the only thing the Mohammed brought was evil and inhumanity;
2) The Pope did not condemn such a statement nor did he suggest that the statement was an
inaccurate characterization about Islam; and
3) The Pope did not observe similar acts of violence brought about by the Church by way of
comparison to suggest that many evils have been done in the name of religion.
Do you disagree with these three essential points?
If you don't, then what's the debate? He was careless and his carelessness was insulting and hurtful.
Now, if you feel that it wasn't hurtful then you either 1) feel the characterization is just, or 2) feel
that having the contents of a religion's being called evil and inhumane is not insulting.
He took an obscure scholar's opinion on Islam in order to derive a conclusion that violence is incompatible with faith and reason.
Do you feel that it was necessary to quote that Mohammed's only innovation was evil and
inhumanity in order to make this conclusion? Do you feel that it is even relevant? Do you feel
that the absence of similar examples in Church history skewed the viewpoint even somewhat?
If say, he did apologise for that, wouldn't that whitewash his criticism of Islamic violence we hear of so frequently (and which has been demonstrated following the Pope's comments)?
No. Being hurtful because someone else is violent is not a normative Christian value (or at least
Jesus says so). Does turn the other cheek ring a bell? To offer something with no expectation of
repayment?
No, a Christian's duty is not impacted by the lack of receptivity of any other individual. You are
called to love your enemy, and asking for forgiveness is certainly part of that.
And when I said that "it is difficult to apologise" I was meaning in the general sense (as you were asking in the general sense, why theren't very often apologies from the Vatican). I would think that your apologies would be acceptable however my only reservation is that they water down the Pope's critique of religious violence.
So, you feel that, because Islamic extremists are being violent, the Pope has no obligation to
apologize for quoting (and not condemning) that the only novel thing the Islam has to offer is
evil and inhumanity? Didn't Jesus forgive the people who crucified Him while still on the cross?
Are you even familiar with the basic tenets of your own faith?!?
Catholics have to constantly confront criticism of their church (consider the slander on this thread), I fail to understand why Muslims deserve special treatment.
Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you and insult you and denounce
your name as evil on account of the Son of Man...[L]ove your enemies, do good to those who
hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. (St Luke 6:22;27a-28)
Christians are specifically called upon to forgive Muslim extremists (if you consider forgiveness an
element of love, of course). Given the that Pope was careless and insulting, it is his Christian duty
to apologize regardless of the hate and spite directed at him.
Or do you feel the Beatitudes have to be 'avoided' because of a different 'hermeneutic?'
Nemesio
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI did say that. I did not say that it was elemental to salvation (which is what you said).
My bad. When you emphatically used the word elemental in relation to Christianity, I thought you meant that contrition was an essential or basic part of being a Christian.
Your claim that one can be a Christian and not be forgiving/seeking forgiveness is so perversely
unOrthodox that it hardly merits comment.
Jesus makes explicit reference to the act of forgiveness multiple times in His ministry. That you
might deem this somehow 'optional' strikes me as absurd.
Perhaps you might want to flesh this out a bit, how you can assert that being a Christian
doesn't entail forgiving/asking for forgiveness when Jesus seems so very much bent on it.
Nemesio
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by Nemesio3) The Pope did not observe similar acts of violence brought about by the Church by way of
Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Frankly, I do not see what is so offensive about the Pope's comments.
Okay. Let's review.
1) The Pope made reference to an otherwise unknown author a quote which specifically said that
the only thing the Mohammed brought was evil and inhumanity;
2) The Pope did not condemn such a statement nor did he sug ...[text shortened]... itudes have to be 'avoided' because of a different 'hermeneutic?'
Nemesio[/b]
comparison to suggest that many evils have been done in the name of religion.
Does he have to? The Church has already issued apologies on that subject, so every time they critisice another religion do they have to mention the Church's wrondoings in the past (of which they did not commit and are not part of their core teachings)?
Do you feel that it was necessary to quote that Mohammed's [b]only innovation was evil and
inhumanity in order to make this conclusion?[/b]
Yes. That was the context in which the Emperor was talking in.
No. Being hurtful because someone else is violent is not a normative Christian value (or at least
Jesus says so). Does turn the other cheek ring a bell? To offer something with no expectation of
repayment?
You can't be serious. "Turning the cheek" does not mean that one just ignores people harming others with violence. That was the Church's sin during the Holocaust. The Church realizes that it has a responsibility to identify social injustice in its global community (and that includes religious violence)
No, a Christian's duty is not impacted by the lack of receptivity of any other individual. You are
called to love your enemy, and asking for forgiveness is certainly part of that.
How is this relevant?
So, you feel that, because Islamic extremists are being violent, the Pope has no obligation to
apologize for quoting (and not condemning) that the only novel thing the Islam has to offer is
evil and inhumanity? Didn't Jesus forgive the people who crucified Him while still on the cross?
Again, the Pope was not interested in condemning Muslims. The Pope is merely illustrating the relationship between religion and violence and how this is unreasonable. If Muslim's are not violent, why are they offended when it clearly doesn't apply? Their reaction clearly verifies his concern.
Christians are specifically called upon to forgive Muslim extremists (if you consider forgiveness an
element of love, of course). Given the that Pope was careless and insulting, it is his Christian duty
to apologize regardless of the hate and spite directed at him.
Who said Christians don't forgive Muslims? Why can't we criticise their rash actions?
Or do you feel the Beatitudes have to be 'avoided' because of a different 'hermeneutic?'
Let it go. You miscontrued what I was saying.
And which Beatitudes in particular?
Originally posted by Conrau KTypical ignorant stubborness. To say that Mohammed only brought to the table ideas that were evil and inhumane is offensive to Muslims, period. If he doesn't want to apologize for that offensive comment, fine but stop pretending it was not an offensive comment.
[b]3) The Pope did not observe similar acts of violence brought about by the Church by way of
comparison to suggest that many evils have been done in the name of religion.
Does he have to? The Church has already issued apologies on that subject, so every time they critisice another religion do they have to mention the Church's wrondoings in the past ...[text shortened]... t go. You miscontrued what I was saying.
And which Beatitudes in particular?[/b]
Originally posted by Conrau K
Does he have to? The Church has already issued apologies on that subject, so every time they critisice another religion do they have to mention the Church's wrondoings in the past (of which they did not commit and are not part of their core teachings)?
If it is a scholarly paper, then a balance of presentation is certainly in order. His paper lacked
that balance as well as a condemnation of the emperor's position. The purpose of the paper was
not to apologize, but to demonstrate that religion and violence do not mix (remember?). That
both sides have engaged in it is very material, yet he only points out the flaws in Islam (and
does so by citing that Islam's only innovation is evil and inhumanity).
Obviously, you feel that this is a fair position, otherwise you, too, would be calling for an
apology.
Yes. That was the context in which the Emperor was talking in.
Was the Emperor right? Are you suggesting that for the first 600+ years of Islam, evil and
inhumanity was their only contribution? If you aren't, then how can you excuse the Pope's lack
of condemnation for the Emperor's position?
You can't be serious. "Turning the cheek" does not mean that one just ignores people harming others with violence. That was the Church's sin during the Holocaust. The Church realizes that it has a responsibility to identify social injustice in its global community (and that includes religious violence)
I am absolutely serious, but you have misapplied Jesus's teaching. The Christian is called
to turn the other cheek when he is being slapped. The Christian is similarly called to fight
for those others who cannot fend for themselves.
How is this relevant?
It means that, even if nutcases are blowing up churches, the Christian has a duty not act sinfully
towards them. That is, righteous anger does not give a person license to be insulting. Pope
John Paul II demonstrated this when he forgave his would-be assassin; he treated the person who
tried to murder him with compassion. So, too, are all Christians -- even as their churches are
being blown up, Christians must still treat their enemies with love, which means not being insulting.
I'm not saying it's easy or even possible to execute all the time. However, I hold the Pope to the
highest moral standards, which means if he is insulting to even the most hateful, nasty, and evil
person in the universe, I expect him to seek forgiveness from that person.
Again, the Pope was not interested in condemning Muslims. The Pope is merely illustrating the relationship between religion and violence and how this is unreasonable. If Muslim's are not violent, why are they offended when it clearly doesn't apply? Their reaction clearly verifies his concern.
You keep that the Pope was illustrating the 'relationship between religion and violence.' If he
were doing so from a scholarly standpoint, then he had a duty to explore both religions in question.
What the Pope did was illustrate the relationship between Islam and violence by quoting a
Crusader (that is, someone who advocated violence on behalf of religion).
And which Beatitudes in particular?
Did you read the last part of my post, because I cited a Beatitude from St Luke.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI did say that. I did not say that it was elemental to salvation (which is what you said).
I did say that. I did not say that it was elemental to salvation (which is what you said).
Your claim that one can be a Christian and not be forgiving/seeking forgiveness is so perversely
unOrthodox that it hardly merits comment.
Jesus makes explicit reference to the act of forgiveness multiple times in His ministry. That you
might deem thi ...[text shortened]... entail forgiving/asking for forgiveness when Jesus seems so very much bent on it.
Nemesio
Somehow you will need to reconcile your list with people such as the malefactor, who didn't have the opportunity to complete the items of the list. Is he not a "Christian?" Will he not be in Heaven?
The orthodox position is that salvation makes one a believer, not works. Works (fruit) are indication of growth, not of salvation--- and certainly not a precusor to salvation. After all, what of your list is not exhibited by, say, a buddhist?
Originally posted by NemesioYou know, LH, it's a major freaking copout to say that the official translations on the Vatican website are generally poorly translated. It either means: the Church doesn't care enough about its faithful to provide an accurate translation (for surely, there can be no shortage of money to pay for it) or it is seeking to mislead its faithful.
Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b](1) The Vatican generally has a poor record of translating stuff.
You know, LH, it's a major freaking copout to say that the official translations on the
Vatican website are generally poorly translated. It either means: the Church doesn't
care enough about its faithful to provide an accurate translatio ...[text shortened]... nk the Pope should be different than 'people who do things...?'
Nemesio[/b]
Neither. You really seem prepared to give the Vatican the benefit of the doubt here.
First, the Vatican isn't exactly swimming in money.
Second, translating Vatican documents is a tricky process. It requires not only people who are well-versed in multiple languages, but also those that are sufficiently theologically and philosophically trained. Documents come out of the Vatican practically on a daily basis. Which documents would you put your best translators on? Official documents that bind the faithful, or after-dinner speeches given to a select audience?
A good number of the 1bn-plus Catholic faithful worldwide do not have access to the Internet. There are more pressing needs than translations for the media and Vatican-hobbyists. When a document affects the faithful, more attention will be paid to the translation and also communication with their local bishops to ensure the right message gets across (and even then national bishops' conferences can muck things up like some of the English-speaking countries have).
Or, you just don't like the translation and you conveniently turn to your translation that you expect me to use in lieu of the Vatican's.
No, it's just application of common sense. In the past, I've never seen you have a problem with returning to the original Hebrew or Greek of Biblical verses that have shades of meaning that may be English-specific. Since you're so caught up on the positive shades of "erudite", why didn't you take a look at the German?
If you call someone a scholar, and then turn to his writings which have hateful stuff in them, and then fail to point out that that scholar's viewpoint was hateful, bigoted, spiteful, or whatever, don't you think that it sounds like a tacit endorsement?
With a general audience, yes. With an academic audience, no. If my professor were to read some of the more spiteful stuff written by Nietzsche, I don't expect him to have to point out that they are spiteful. If the lecture warrants it, I might expect him to give some background info or some comments on how those link to the broader views in Nietzsche's work.
Having read the Pope's speech, it's really not very different from how most speakers in an academic setting might structure their speeches. And the speech was given in an academic setting.
When the Pope doesn't apologize, but instead offers a wishy-washy, mealy-mouthed non-apology, doesn't it make him look more political than religious?
He has apologised for the parts that needed an apology -- even offended Muslims can see that. Why can't you?
Don't you think the leader of the Catholic faith ought to have a better track record than 'rarely' or 'never?' Don't you think the Pope should be different than 'people who do things...?'
I'd like him to be; but I'm not surprised if he isn't. I don't expect every Pope to be impeccable or saintly.
Originally posted by lucifershammerLH: He has apologised for the parts that needed an apology -- even offended Muslims can see that.
[b]You know, LH, it's a major freaking copout to say that the official translations on the Vatican website are generally poorly translated. It either means: the Church doesn't care enough about its faithful to provide an accurate translation (for surely, there can be no shortage of money to pay for it) or it is seeking to mislead its faithful.
e isn't. I don't expect every Pope to be impeccable or saintly.[/b]
A blatant untruth; he has not apologized at all and few Muslims who were offended are satisfied by his non-apology unless the reports of the reactions of Muslims throughout the world are false.
EDIT: This link was provided to LH yesterday so he knows better. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14903823/
Originally posted by no1marauderhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5354862.stm
LH: He has apologised for the parts that needed an apology -- even offended Muslims can see that.
A blatant untruth; he has not apologized at all and few Muslims who were offended are satisfied by his non-apology unless the reports of the reactions of Muslims throughout the world are false.
EDIT: This link was provided to LH yesterday so he knows better. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14903823/
Besides Malaysia, groups in Britain and Europe have also accepted the apology.
http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=7262
In Pakistan (where the parliament condemned the statement), joint Christian-Muslim groups are working to understand and translate the speech for local clerics.
EDIT: I didn't say all offended Muslims see that. For some, nothing short of a conversion to Islam will do.
Originally posted by lucifershammerLMAO! From the first article, only the Muslim Council of Britain was satisfied with his comments and even they didn't call it an apology. Did you actually read the comments?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5354862.stm
Besides Malaysia, groups in Britain and Europe have also accepted the apology.
http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=7262
In Pakistan (where the parliament condemned the statement), joint Christian-Muslim groups are working to understand and translate the speech for local clerics.
EDIT all offended Muslims see that. For some, nothing short of a conversion to Islam will do.
As for your edit, you left the impression that some substantial number of Muslims were satisfied with the "apology". This is false and you know it. And as for your last sentence, since they all believe in the "evil" and "inhumane" teachings of Muhummad, I guess we can't expect anything better from such savages.
Originally posted by no1marauderDid you actually read the comments?
LMAO! From the first article, only the Muslim Council of Britain was satisfied with his comments and even they didn't call it an apology. Did you actually read the comments?
As for your edit, you left the impression that some substantial number of Muslims were satisfied with the "apology". This is false and you know it.
"His clarification was welcomed by a number of Muslim groups, including the Council of Muslims in Germany, where he made the speech."
"The Muslim Council of Britain said the Pope's expression of regret was "exactly the reassurance many Muslims were looking for". "
"In Turkey, the most senior Muslim religious figure, Ali Bardakoglu, said the Pope's stated respect for Islam was a civilised position."
Btw, you can also add Indonesia to the "list":
http://www.thejakartapost.com/detailheadlines.asp?fileid=20060920.B09&irec=8
and Italy:
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,20444316-5006506,00.html
The simple truth is that a substantial number of Muslims have accepted the clarification/apology/whatever and that number is growing. This is true and you know it.
And as for your last sentence, since they all believe in the "evil" and "inhumane" teachings of Muhummad, I guess we can't expect anything better from such savages.
Was what I wrote false?