0
   

Muslim leaders write to Pope asking interfaith understanding

 
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2007 11:46 am
Steve,

History shows that religious organizations are divergent and prone to splinter movements, not convergent. Islam's own internicene slaughter between Sunni and Shia is an extreme present day example of this. The "letter" is merely a politically palliative reaction to the vilification of Islam which its extremists have imposed upon its moderates. For the average muslim, "the brotherhood of man" means a muslim brotherhood.(period).
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2007 12:07 pm
That's nothing compared to the combined sisterhood from the 'Dr. Bach flowers/Dr. Kneipp bath oil syndicate'! :wink:
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Oct, 2007 02:43 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
The Guardian:

Quote:
[...]
"We say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them-so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes," it says.
[...]

Great! So we agree (shakes hands). Yes, we agree. Oh by the way, your cow walked across my property the other day. That wasn't your property that was my property. No it wasn't. Yes it was. I had it first. No, I had it first... (and off we go again).
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2007 03:07 am
fresco wrote:
Steve,

History shows that religious organizations are divergent and prone to splinter movements, not convergent. Islam's own internicene slaughter between Sunni and Shia is an extreme present day example of this. The "letter" is merely a politically palliative reaction to the vilification of Islam which its extremists have imposed upon its moderates. For the average muslim, "the brotherhood of man" means a muslim brotherhood.(period).
I agree. Sometimes I feel I should apologise for my strident remarks on religion. But a second later I'm reminded of the divisive nature of most religious creeds. Their constant bickering about what cannot be known, and their positively wicked abuse of the young and the gullible.

Sometimes I think well each to his own, live and let live, one shouldnt criticise someone's deeply held religious belief...its rude if nothing else. But then the religious fanatics dont think that way at all. They abuse children they give a moral justification (doing gods will) for committing heinous crimes, and promise rewards in the hereafter. They are constantly interfering with my life.

They killed someone from here by turning young lads into jihadist suicide bombers. Others want to change the law to put people like me in gaol "for incitement to religious hatred". Well I'm sorry its gone too far, any religion is at root just a set of ideas, and some ideas are truly hateful. If "moderate" Muslims or religious people are upset by criticism of their creed, they have only their creed and the fanatics it attracts to blame, not me for pointing out the obvious.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2007 03:10 am
Steve 41oo wrote:
If "moderate" Muslims or religious people are upset by criticism of their creed, they have only their creed and the fanatics it attracts to blame, not me for pointing out the obvious.


Haven't I heard such before? Those young girls who dress that must be raped? Those Jews, Socialists, Roma ... who behave that they must be thrown in concentration camps?

Well, what's said in today's Daily Express
Quote:
It is blindingly obvious that our small and overcrowded island has not been able to assimilate some of the immigrant communities that have been here for several decades, let alone new ones.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2007 03:22 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
If "moderate" Muslims or religious people are upset by criticism of their creed, they have only their creed and the fanatics it attracts to blame, not me for pointing out the obvious.


Haven't I heard such before? Those young girls who dress that must be raped? Those Jews, Socialists, Roma ... who behave that they must be thrown in concentration camps?
Thats a good point. And we all know where it leads. But no one is talking about banning Islam. I'm only reserving my right to criticise it...for the real harm I think it does. The real fascists are on the other side who would gaol or kill people like me Sad
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2007 03:31 am
Well, it might truely be that living for nearly 60 years under such laws and honestly supporting them, I'm fascinated by those "fascist" ideas.
0 Replies
 
stlstrike3
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 09:20 am
Steve 41oo wrote:
fresco wrote:
Steve,

History shows that religious organizations are divergent and prone to splinter movements, not convergent. Islam's own internicene slaughter between Sunni and Shia is an extreme present day example of this. The "letter" is merely a politically palliative reaction to the vilification of Islam which its extremists have imposed upon its moderates. For the average muslim, "the brotherhood of man" means a muslim brotherhood.(period).
I agree. Sometimes I feel I should apologise for my strident remarks on religion.

Sometimes I think well each to his own, live and let live, one shouldnt criticise someone's deeply held religious belief...its rude if nothing else. But then the religious fanatics dont think that way at all.

Muslims or religious people are upset by criticism of their creed, they have only their creed and the fanatics it attracts to blame, not me for pointing out the obvious.


Steve, I'm absolutely with you on this one.

I am perfectly content to let religious people believe whatever they want and practice however they want... but the religious refuse to return the favor. They seek to meddle in the affairs of the common person. Christians want to crash through the American church-state wall and legislate their dogma. Islamists want to light the United States up with nukes strapped to their chests to get the 72 virgins in heaven.

It irks me to hear the term "radical" or "fundamentalist" before a religion. We need to stop talking about these people as if they're some perversion of the "real" Christianity or Islam. They are people who simply believe what their holy books actually say.

Sam Harris of "End of Faith" saves his most potent venom for the "moderates" of their faith. He asserts the world would be a better place if everyone was moderate, but reminds us that this just simply isn't the case. It is the moderates that tell us that we can't attack the irrational belief system that motivates the suicide bombings, the lashing of homosexuals, the oppression of women... moderates will only allow us to condemn the actions themselves. Hate the believer, not the belief, as it were. What they don't realize is that innate human decency has overridden parts of their dogma, and that this is the reason they can take the stand that they do. If only they'd let their innate human rationalism do the rest, and cure them of their faith all together.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 09:34 am
thanks stlstrike3

May sauce be upon him
0 Replies
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 11:06 am
stlstrike3 wrote:
It irks me to hear the term "radical" or "fundamentalist" before a religion. We need to stop talking about these people as if they're some perversion of the "real" Christianity or Islam. They are people who simply believe what their holy books actually say.


oh honestly, no they're not. they're people that want to tell everyone what they have to believe.

i don't just mean in the case of islamics telling christians to convert, or christians telling jews. i mean that christians and islamics take judaism and turn it into something else- that's fine in my opinion. religion begs to be remixed into something more useful. the problem is when you call the remix sacred, and condemn the original as pagan, sinful, earthly, and insufficient before god. and then fundamentalist christians force their *interpretation* on other christians, and fundamentalist islamics on other islamics, that's the danger of fundamentalism, not being allowed to practice your own religion because other members *of your own religion* won't allow it!

a "literal" interpretation is an "interpretation," too. you can take the bible literally if you want to, but it's a lot more bloody than if it's read the way people read it from the beginning- mostly as a group of allegorical symbols pointing to something else. fundamentalism isn't wiser, it's more superficial, but worse, it's the condemnation of people that read scriptures in a way that is balanced or sane. that's why "fundamentalism" is a dirty word, and it's a dirty word that fundamentalists deserve to be saddled with.

fundamentalism is the destruction of religion- the word religion itself means to "reconnect." there's no such thing as a literal translation- only two people arguing about meaning, that always happens. the difference is that with fundamentalism, calling the person you disagree with "evil" is something that your god smiles on, as he does when you destroy the infidels. thanks, but no thanks- i'm not putting a gold star on that effort.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Oct, 2007 01:53 am
Quote:
Pope to meet top religious leaders in Naples
(AFP)

21 October 2007

ROME - Pope Benedict XVI was to meet in Naples on Sunday with leaders of several of the world's main religions on the sidelines of an inter-faith peace summit.

The pope is making a pastoral visit to the impoverished southern Italian city at the same time as the summit organised by the Sant'Egidio community, in what the lay Catholic association called a "happy coincidence."

The pontiff will lunch with the heads of the delegations to the summit including Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew I, the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, Israel's chief rabbi Yona Metzger and the imam of the United Arab Emirates, Ibrahim Ezzeddin
[...]
Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi will attend the luncheon and help inaugurate the three-day Sant'Egidio summit, which has the theme "A World Without Violence: Faiths and Cultures in Dialogue" and will include some 200 speakers.[...]
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Oct, 2007 02:39 am
Contrast the "logic" of that with Krishnamurti's opening remarks in his address to the UN. (1985).

Quote:
I am supposed to talk on World Peace beyond the 40th anniversary of the United Nations.

Mankind, man, has lived on this earth over fifty thousand years, and perhaps much longer, or for less duration. During all this long evolution man has not found peace on earth - 'pacem in terris' has been preached long before Christianity, by the ancient Hindus and the Buddhists.

And during all this time man has lived in conflict, not only conflict with his neighbour but with people of his own community, with his own society, with his own family, he has fought, struggled against man for the last five thousand years, and perhaps more. Historically there have been wars practically every year. And we are still at war.


I believe there are forty wars going on at the present time. And the religious hierarchy, not only the Catholics but the other groups have talked about 'pacem in terris', peace on earth, goodwill among men. It has never come about - to have peace on earth. And they have talked about peace when you die and go to heaven and you have peace there.

One wonders, if one is at all serious, why man kills another human being - in the name of god, in the name of peace, in the name of some ideology, or for his country - whatever that may mean - or for the king and the queen, and all the rest of that business. Probably we all know this: that man has never lived on this earth, which is being slowly destroyed, and why man cannot live at peace with another human being.

Why there are separate nations, which is after all a glorified tribalism. And religions, whether it be Christianity, Hinduism, or Buddhism, they are also at war with each other. Nations are at war, groups are at war, ideologies, whether it is the Russian, or the American, or any other category of ideologies, they are all at war with each other, conflict.

Nationalities give certain security, man needs security and he invests in nationalism, or in a particular ideology or belief. Beliefs, ideologies and so on, have separated man. And organizations cannot possibly bring about peace between man and man because he believes in something, he believes in certain ideologies, he believes in god and others don't."
0 Replies
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Oct, 2007 02:53 am
i don't know which of his points i agree or disagree with, but i wouldn't consider him an authority on anything, let alone logic.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Oct, 2007 03:34 am
tinyg,

You're going to need a lot more than "your own opinion" regarding Krishnamurti, given his documented influence on celebrated intellectuals throughout the 20th century.
0 Replies
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Oct, 2007 11:40 am
oh i was hoping you'd ask. whether you consider the following adequate will be up to your own opinion of it.

of course i'm trying to add perspective, just as you are. if you reject this, it's not like i knew him personally. the part about bohm was interesting:

http://strippingthegurus.com/stgsamplechapters/krishnamurti.asp

i like visionaries, i like peace. i don't like cults and cult leaders, but it's not easy to sort everything out. when i find another side to a story, i try to weigh everything out, just as you will. your conclusion will be your own. perhaps the above is even fabricated. (although if you find it at all interesting, i seem to recall a good-sized bibliography.)
0 Replies
 
Ashers
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Oct, 2007 12:26 pm
I don't have the time just now to read all of that link but I read the start and your mention of cults and leaders, I assume this other side to the story is his involvement with the group as "world teacher" relatively early on in his life. I don't know if the link mentions it, gives any kind of timeline for his life or if you're already aware but I think the point of quoting Krishnamurti in the above context was particularly pertinent given his speech completely disbanding said group, his authority and proclaiming truth, "to be a pathless land", many years ago. Sorry if I've misunderstood you, I'll read the rest of that later!
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Oct, 2007 01:13 pm
tinyg,

I have no illusions about the Krishnamurti "the man", but nor did he !

"The Teachings" are by no means unique to K. They can no doubt be traced to Buddhist (and/or Hindu) origins. What is unique is the emphasis on the pernicious nature of organized religion with respect to "world peace"

Can you imagine the world's "religious leaders" ever debating this point even though every shred of historical evidence screams its veracity ?
That would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. Smile
0 Replies
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 01:00 am
oh i know it's just buddhism, fresco, and great analogy, too.

i don't know how much integrity we all bring to religious or even ethical ideals. we all sin/het/"fall short of a mark of perfection" and the best of us (or even most of us) try to better ourselves when we can. even the krinsh, i suppose...
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Mar, 2008 02:15 am
It was announced now that the Pope will host a summit with Muslim leaders

Quote:
March 5, 2008

VATICAN CITY - Pope Benedict XVI will meet later this year with Muslim religious leaders and scholars as part of a push for dialogue between Catholics and Muslims, the Vatican said Wednesday.
The occasion for the meeting will be a Nov. 4-6 seminar in Rome. Two dozen leaders and scholars from each side will participate in the Catholic-Muslim forum.

Church officials have said such a papal audience would be "historic."
The Vatican is eager to improve relations with moderate Islam. A speech by Benedict in 2006 about Islam and violence angered many in the Muslim world.

A group of Muslim scholars who have called for greater dialogue with Christians wrapped up two days of talks Wednesday at the Holy See, including with Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, to prepare for the audience.

Tauran, who heads the Vatican's council for inter-religious dialogue, has said the planned papal audience could inspire the start of historic dialogue between the faiths.

The group included representatives of 138 Muslim scholars and intellectuals who wrote to Benedict and other Christian leaders last year to encourage Christians and Muslims to develop their common ground of belief in one God.

In a 2006 speech in Germany, Benedict cited a medieval text that characterized some of the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad as "evil and inhuman," particularly "his command to spread by the sword the faith."

The pope later said he was "deeply sorry" about the reactions his remarks sparked and stressed that they did not reflect his own opinions.

Muslim participants at this week's meetings included the editor of a magazine base in Jordan and officials of foundations or scholarly organizations, including in Britain and Turkey.

The Vatican did not say which representatives would meet with the pope in November.
Source

Report in The Guardian
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Mar, 2008 04:00 am
I'm sure it will be a very courteous and scholarly meeting. And no doubt some fine words will emerge at the end. But everyone knows, and this includes the Pope and the Muslim leaders, that Islam and Christianity are quite contradictory and irreconcilable. I dont understand what they have to talk about. I'm not suggesting they fight about it, but perhaps they could play football for the True Way Trophy.

(Of course Benedict is getting a bit too old to play, but he would make a great team mascot)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/24/2022 at 03:37:18