According to a news story, the Pope recently (May or June 1999) kissed a copy of the Koran in Iraq. Is this true? Doesn't the Pope realize that Islam is the greatest enemy of Christianity?

-- Steve Jackson (stevej100@hotmail.com), June 12, 1999

Answers

I don't think that the pope has been in Iraq? I think that I would prove that first.

-- Br. Rich S.F.O. (repsfo@prodigy.net), June 12, 1999.

The story was posted on The Remnant's site --

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3251/jp2gen.html

-- Steve Jackson (stevej100@hotmail.com), June 13, 1999.

Steve,

I agree wit Br. Rich in that it is news to me our Pontiff was in Irag. That would have made headlines I think. Peace - Jean B.

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), June 14, 1999.

Yes, the Pope did kiss the Koran. I do not believe he was in Iraq though. This story was posted by Z-net, which goes through EWTN, which links to the Remnant. He said he kissed it out of respect. This is another ecumenical gesture where I throw up my hands and hope he knows way more than I (and all the previous popes) on why he is doing these things.

-- Brian Mershon (bcmersh@juno.com), June 14, 1999.

Can anybody come up with an actual link or article on this? I searched the Vatican and EWTN Web sites as well as an Internet-wide search on Dogpile and Yahoo! and came up with nothing. I'm from Missouri; show me.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), June 14, 1999.

The Pope once stated:

"In today's world, it is more important than ever that men and women of faith, assisted by God's grace, should strive for true holiness. Self-centered tendencies . . . threaten to turn mankind from the path of goodness and holiness which God has intended for all of us. The countless number of good people around the world -- Christians, Muslims, and others -- who quietly lead lives of authentic obedience, praise, and thanksgiving to God and selfless service of their neighbor, offer humanity a genuine alternative, 'God's way,' to a world which would otherwise would be destroyed in self-seeking, hatred, and struggle." [To Participants in the Symposium on Holiness in Christianity and in Islam, 5/9/85 in John Paul II and Interreligious Dialogue, eds. Sherwin and Kasimow.]

According to the Pope, Islam equals "God's way"!

-- Steve Jackson (stevej100@hotmail.com), June 14, 1999.

Not quite that simple, Steve. If you read all of what the Pope has to say about ecumenism and Christ you will find him state quite clearly that Christ is the only way to God. However, the Scriptures also say what the Pope just said in the quote above:

"I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right" (Acts 10:34-5).

As C.S. Lewis has well said about those who have never had the opportunity to hear of Christ, we know that men and women are only saved through Christ. We do not know that one has to explicitly know Christ in order to be saved through Him.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), June 15, 1999.

Yes, Dave, God is no respecter of person. A "nation . . . that feareth him" is one that believes in Christ. However, Moslems -- through their rejection of Christ -- do not fear God. In Romans 1, Paul describes unbelievers: "Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit . . . ." Romans 1:30.

Therefore, when the Pope says that Moslems who knowingly reject Christ are following "God's way," he rejects what Paul says. In fact, the Pope went so far as to say that Moslems are "brothers in God"! What's the Biblical justification for this?

You "conservative" Catholics who think JP II is the greatest thing since sliced bread ought to read the series of books, Pope John Paul II's Theological Journey to the Prayer Meeting of Religions in Assisi by Johannes Dormann, a Catholic priest. He shows how JP II rejects the teachings of previous popes concerning non-Christian religions.

-- Steve Jackson (stevej100@hotmail.com), June 16, 1999.

<< Therefore, when the Pope says that Moslems who knowingly reject Christ are following "God's way," he rejects what Paul says. >>

The operative word there is "knowingly." Of course, one who knowingly rejects Christ is damned. And indeed, Vatican II says that one who knowingly rejects the Catholic Church is damned because that is a crucial part of God's revelation and intended avenue for salvation. But that word "knowingly" is all important. It all boils down to whether a person has sufficient culpability.

Where many so-called "traditionalist" Catholics, along with many evangelical and fundamentalist Protestants, err IMO is that they think that everybody who doesn't hold to the fullness of the Catholic Faith does so in bad faith and can't possibly be invincibly ignorant. I would say that is false; my own experience as a Catholic convert is that I was indeed invincibly ignorant of the claims of the Catholic Church, having been fed lies about the Church from the time I was knee high to a grasshopper.

You are a "traditionalist" Catholic, right?

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), June 17, 1999.

If you read the numerous selections in the book I cited collecting the Pope's statements to non-Christians, you will see that he does not make a distinction between those who "knowingly" reject Christianity and those who are ignorant of Christianity. He speaks very broadly about how these "religions" lead people to God, even if the religion is polytheistic (Hinduism) or agonstic (some forms of Buddhism).

By the way, can you find a statement by the Pope telling Jews that they have an obligation to believe in Christ and that Christians have an obligation to preach the Gospel to the Jews?

I am a Confessional Lutheran.

-- Steve Jackson (stevej100@hotmail.com), June 17, 1999.

I'm relieved that you're Lutheran! "Traditionalist" Catholics get my blood pressure up. But I do understand their motivation, if not their reasoning.

I do not have ready access to the volume you cited. I suspect that there may be some out-of-context citation involved, but that's just a suspicion. I think one has to take all of his statements as a whole; I remember hearing, for example, that there was quite an uproar in Sri Lanka over statements the Pope made in Crossing the Threshold of Hope about Buddhism. So there are certainly balancing statements.

That being said, I personally am uncomfortable with some of the Holy Father's actions. I think he goes too far. That's my prerogative to think so and of course it does not pertain in the least to papal infallibility. What I was responding above was a more general question -- Can those who have not heard of Christ or unknowingly reject Him still attain eternal salvation? -- to which the answer is certain, Yes.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), June 18, 1999.

The volume I cited is newly published and available at Amazon.com. The book contains over 50 pages of the Pope's statements about non- Christian religions, some of them a few pagees in length. So unless they are mistranslated or bogus, I see no reason to think that they are out-of-context.

It is truly astounding the Pope's view of non-Christian religions. For example, he stated to Hindus: "I hold in esteem [!] your concern for inner peace and for the peace of the world, based not on purely mechanistic or materialistic political considerations, but on self- purification, unselfishness, love and sympathy for all. May the minds of all people be imbued with such love and understanding." [p. 46.] No mention is made of Hinduism's polytheism, which marrs their "understanding."

At times, JP II seems to believe that man's problem is not a lack of Christianity, but a lack of "religion." "Dear brothers and sisters [N.B.] of these religions and of every religion: so many people today experience inner emptiness even amid material prosperity because they overlook the great questions of life . . . These profoundly spiritual questions, which are shared to some degree by all religions, also draw us together in a common concern for man's earthly welfare, especially world peace." [Id.] There is no recognition here that mankind's moral problems find their root in man's false religions.

I don't deny that the Pope sometimes says things that are a bit more balanced, but the general tenor is one of cooperation and unity, not of the truth of Christianity. Christians are called to preach the Gospel in and out of season. We should not try to offend people; but the Gospel is offensive to those whose minds are darkened by sin. [Romans 1.]

-- Steve Jackson (stevej100@hotmail.com), June 18, 1999.

Well Steve, if those are examples of the "worst" of his quotations then I'll still have to disagree with you. I think those are clearly examples of trying to affirm what is true in a belief system -- that is a worthy effort. John Paul II clearly tries to woo people by seeking common ground and affirming all that he can affirm in their belief system.

I try to do that when I do evangelism too. It seems like you want the pope either 1) say nothing positive about any other religious system or 2) always add a "but" to any positive statement he makes about other systems. Would you agree with that?

I would point out again that he very clearly adds the "buts", just not in the very same sentence or paragraph during which he is addressing another religious group. As I said, for example, he got in hot water with Buddhists for his remarks about their religion (my books are packed right now or I would look up the citation in Crossing the Threshold of Hope). The Holy Father clearly states the absolute need to follow Christ unconditionally in numerous speeches and homilies he gives on a weekly basis. So I guess I still can't follow you here, at least based on what you've cited.

It's a matter of style and approach, but unless you're infallible (;-D) I'm not sure you can definitively say that your approach is correct and his is wrong.

I'm enjoying the exchange.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), June 19, 1999.

I expect the Pope to teach the "whole truth," not just the part that our touchy-feely pluralistic age wants to hear. The fact is the Pope speaks before non-Christians and DOES NOT TELL THEM THEY ARE IN JEPOARDY IF THEY REFUSE TO BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST. This is a disgrace.

According to an essay by a Moslem writer in the book I have mentioned, the Pope stated that Moslems were his "brothers in God." So, the Moslems who are burning churches in Kosovo are his brothers? The Turks who killed a million and a half Christian Armenians are his brothers? The New Testament never refers to non-Christians as the spiritual brothers of Christians. There is no Biblical basis for stating -- as the Pope does -- that Christianity, Judaism and Islam are "Abrahamic religions" or "worship the same God."

The book states -- and I would like to see futher confiration -- that the Pope has never said that Christians are to preach the Gospel to Jews. If this is so, then he considers Judaism (in spite of the vile things it teaches about our Lord in the Talmud) as a valid religion.

I repeat my challenge: Please find a statement from the Pope that Christians have to preach the Gospel to the Jews.

If John Paul II is infallible, then popes who condemmed ecumenicalism were not.

-- Steve Jackson (stevej100@hotmail.com), June 19, 1999.

Steve, does the quotation you are asking for need to refer explicitly to jews, muslims, hindus, etc. etc.?

is *all men* sufficient?

The Vatican II documents many times speak about the obligation of catholics, bishops, priests and lay persons to preach the gospel to all men.

here is an example:

DECREE ON THE MISSION ACTIVITY OF THE CHURCH Ad Gentes

Promulgated by His Holiness, Pope Paul VI On December 7, 1965

PREFACE

1. Divinely sent to the nations of the world to be unto them "a universal sacrament of salvation,"[1] the Church, driven by the inner necessity of her own catholicity, and obeying the mandate of her Founder (cf. Mark 16:16), strives ever to proclaim the Gospel to all men. The Apostles thems

ENRIQUE

-- ENRIQUE ORTIZ (eaortiz@yahoo.com), June 19, 1999.

I would prefer to see a quote indicating that Christians have a responsibility to preach the Gospel to the Jews. I say this because:

1. Byron Sherwin states that there was reference to a "mission to the Jews" in an early draft of Nostra Aetata. However, the Jewish "Rabbi" Abraham Heschel convinced Paul VI to delete this reference. [p. 161.]

2. According to Mahmoud Ayoub, the Pope has made statements of the necessity to convert Moslems, but has not made such statements with respect to the Jews. [p. 177.]

3. Prominent Catholics, such as Cardinal O'Connor, have stated that Catholics should not attempt to convert Jews.

The above leads me to believe that is now the "quasi-official" teaching of the RC Church that the call to convert the world to Christ does not include Jews.

-- Steve Jackson (stevej100@hotmail.com), June 19, 1999.

<>

Learned Hindus will tell you that there is only one God, which manifests itself in many ways. Each of these "gods", they will tell you, is no more than a manifestation of the One True God. Hmmm.... Sounds a lot like what I often hear from Trinitarians about the three persons of the Trinity being manifestations of the one God. As to the Pope kissing a Qur'an, I saw a photo of it but am not sure that the thing isn't a doctored photo. There are a lot of those going around.

-- D. Charles Pyle, 32°, K.T. (MasterMason@linkline.com), January 16, 2002.

Jmj

You have come to the wrong forum, Mr. Pyle (Thirty-second degree, Order of Knighthood, Freemasons [anti-Catholics of the lowest caliber]).

You wrote: "Learned Hindus will tell you that there is only one God, which manifests itself in many ways. ... Sounds a lot like what I often hear from Trinitarians about the three persons of the Trinity being manifestations of the one God."

Well, sir, you did get the first part right. [A site on Hinduism states: "Hinduism believes in one God -- Brahman. Brahman is that infinite, undivided, unchanging reality behind all that we experience, behind the entire universe. Deities, or gods and goddesses, represent the highest manifestation of Brahman that humans can comprehend. An avatar or divine incarnation of God is the highest manifestation in human form. Hinduism believes that God manifests in human form from time to time throughout history to reestablish righteousness."]

But you got the second part (the attack on us Christians [Trinitarians]) terribly wrong. We do not believe (nor profess belief) in a variety of "manifestations" of the one God. That kind of heretical thinking blossomed in the third century and was repeatedly condemned by the popes until it died out shortly afterward. The heresy went under several names -- monarchianism, sabellianism, patripassianism, and especially Modalism. It taught falsely that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not distinct divine Persons but are only three different modes of being or self-manifestations of a single Person.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 16, 2002.

Thanks, John. Good clarification. I never saw or heard about he Koran being kissed by our Holy Father. Maybe he did.

A kiss is still a kiss, says the song. The Koran is sacred to some people; and the kiss may have been a sign of humility and brotherhood. If the Pope went too far, let him confess his sin as the occasion calls for. It isn't really relevant after all, since John Paul is acknowledged to be the Shepherd of all Jesus Christ's people. There shall be ONE fold, and ONE shepherd. It's the Will of God.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 16, 2002.

Joel, The question is, Why are you here? Why don't you leave?

-- David S (asdzxc8176@aol.com), January 31, 2002.

I agree, Joel doesn't deserve our time to respond. To respond to one of Joel's statements requires superhuman intervention, it is like trying to reasseble an orange out of orange juice.

Matthew 7:6 "Do not give what is holy to dogs, or throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot, and turn and tear you to pieces.

This speaks of Joel.

-- Mike H (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), January 31, 2002.

Mike H.,

Excellent Scripture quote. Thank you.

-- Glenn (glenn@excite.com), January 31, 2002.

Proverbs 12:15 ... The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man listens to advice.
Proverbs 14:03 ... Leave the presence of a fool, for there you do not meet words of knowledge.
Proverbs 15:02 ... The tongue of the wise dispenses knowledge, but the mouths of fools pour out folly.
Proverbs 18:02,05,07 ... A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion. ... It is not good to be partial to a wicked man, or to deprive a righteous man of justice. ... A fool's mouth is his ruin, and his lips are a snare to himself.

-- (@@@.@), February 01, 2002.

Thus, Joel snared himself.

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), February 01, 2002.

I must clarify the Muslim position. Muslims do not reject Christ. They do not fornicate, adulterate, sodomize, idolize, nor do they break any of the Commandments Of Torah.

They simply believe in One God, who is undivisible. They believe in One Christ, who is Not the Son Of God, but is Anoited by God to lead the final Caliphate Of God, and unite All Nations.

They believe that God has no sons nor daughters, He is eternal, omnipresence, omnipotent, and without bounds, all Good. God does not do evil save to those that do evil.

To them belief in God is fatalistic, thus their belief is more true than ours. They are willing to die for their belief in God, are we?

-- Henry Macleod (henrymacleod@yahoo.com), April 08, 2002.

"Muslims do not reject Christ."

To further clarify, Islam believes that Jesus was a prophet. Islam believes that it is blasphemy to believe that Jesus is the Son (begotten) of God. Islam denies Jesus' divinity. His divinity is something clearly asserted in the New Testament.

While I do think that Islam has a litany of praiseworthy practices, and a long list of common beliefs with Jews and Christians, I wouldn't consider the rejection of Jesus' divinity a minor difference.

$0.02

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 08, 2002.

And Muslims clearly treat women as slaves. Why? It is not my problem. It is theirs to deny. Why would I want to understand a religion that denies the rights of women? I have better things to do with my life than to worship GOD in such a false manner. Women are equal to men. NOT slaves.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), April 08, 2002.

Fred writes:

"And Muslims clearly treat women as slaves. Why? It is not my problem. It is theirs to deny. Why would I want to understand a religion that denies the rights of women?"

Please be respectful of Islam, Fred. We may disagree with some of Islam's doctrines; but it is more appropriate to assign blame to the culture of some Middle Eastern countries. Islam consists of both religious men and women.

Some Muslim countries' cultures disrespect their women by denying them education and other basic human rights. Many "Christian" countries' cultures disrespect women by objectifying women's bodies (look at just about any music video or television commercial) and destroying the virtue of motherhood by sacrificing their unborn children to earthly gods of materialism.

Muslims see the errors of excessive liberalism, just as clearly as we see the errors of excessive "fundamentalism." It's just easier to see the errors of another.

Matthew 7:3 - "Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? "

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 08, 2002.

Dear Mr. MacLeod,
I for one am very willing to die for God. Does this make me superior to muslims. NO.

But the knowledge of God's Holy Gospel, the revlation of His Son Jesus Christ is superior to Islamic faith. Because it's true; He has sustained it in truth by His infinite power, raising up His Son to eternal life. We follow the risen Son of God.

Speaking of the Islamic propensity to die for their faith:

They seem to wish to die not really as martyrs, but as wholesale assassins on suicide missions.

When Christians die for Christ, they don't explode in the marketplace, taking the lives of many innocent people with them. The martyrs of our faith laid down their lives for love of God. They accepted death in the arenas of Imperial Rome, and on countless missions to hostile lands. You do them a disservice if you think a muslim fanatic is a martyr dying for his faith.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 08, 2002.

Hello, Mateo.

I am writing to say that I disagree very strongly with some things you have written above about Islam. (Since I have found myself agreeing with you on almost everything here at the forum, I never thought that I could disagree with you on anything so much as this.)

I realize that your family roots are in an Eastern Catholic rite -- and that some people of your ethnic roots are probably Muslims -- so I imagine that this fact has an influence on how you feel and think and what you write on the subject. However, your rich background does not automatically make your statements correct. I believe that they are not correct.

You asked someone, "Please be respectful of Islam ...
For many years, I maintained a sort of neutral respect toward Islam, since I knew very little about it. However, early last year (several months before the September attacks), our forum began to be visited by several Moslems. This prompted me to become better educated about their religion's history, "scripture," divisions, adherents, and so forth.

Having become thus better informed, I found it necessary to divest myself of that former "neutral respect" for Islam. I found it not to be a single "religion," but to be a conglomerate of man-made belief systems -- conceived in deception and teaching many falsehoods. I concluded that they were belief systems that are not worthy of my respect. On the other hand, I do respect, as human beings, all Moslems. And I have high respect for most of the practitioners in certain factions of Islam. Finally, I pay honor to certain virtuous practices followed by most Moslems (e.g., prayer, fasting, pilgrimate). In doing the latter, I am doing what the Fathers of Vatican II did in "Nostra aetate." They did not express admiration or respect for Islam as a religion -- because they could not truthfully do so -- but stated instead: "The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems", and they listed those Moslem beliefs and practices that could be considered admirable (because revealed/ordained by God and shared in by Catholicism).

You stated: "We may disagree with some of Islam's doctrines; but it is more appropriate to assign blame to the culture of some Middle Eastern countries. Islam consists of both religious men and women."

I disagree. "Islam" does not consist of people, but of doctrines and practices. Some of the doctrines are false, some even dangerously so. Some of the practices must be rejected as sinful by Catholics. It is true, though, that many men and women who desire to be virtuous and to do God's will have (unfortunately) been born into, or have converted to, one of the factions/belief systems that make up Islam. (I keep referring to factions, because, being founded by man and not God, Islam is similar to Protestantism -- fragmented.)

You continued: "Some Muslim countries' cultures disrespect their women by denying them education and other basic human rights. Many 'Christian' countries' cultures disrespect women by objectifying women's bodies (look at just about any music video or television commercial) and destroying the virtue of motherhood by sacrificing their unborn children to earthly gods of materialism."

You are seeking to draw a parallel or analogy here, Mateo, but it does not hold up under scrutiny.
The disrespect shown to women and others in "some Muslim countries" is not based on culture and extraneous factors, but on the local factional interpretation of Islam and its writings. It is a religiously based (and allegedly religiously justified) disrespect.
This is utterly different from the disrespect shown to women and others in "Christian" countries, in which the disrepect arises from the ignorance of, and hatred for, religion that is found in our secularized culture.
So, in the one case, we must blame the false religion (Islam) and the law (sharia) derived from it, but in the other we must blame irreligion (rejection of Christian tenets).

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 13, 2002.

John,

Thank you for responding. I'd like to clarify some of your statements. Your words are in bold. Sorry for the book!

"I realize that your family roots are in an Eastern Catholic rite -- and that some people of your ethnic roots are probably Muslims -- so I imagine that this fact has an influence on how you feel and think and what you write on the subject. However, your rich background does not automatically make your statements correct. I believe that they are not correct."

I have no relatives who are Muslims. Taken alone, my ethnic background would probably be the easiest way to alienate me from Muslims, and certainly we should feel anger for what Muslims have put the Near East through. I agree with your statement: my background does not make me "automatically" correct.

"You asked someone, "Please be respectful of Islam ... For many years, I maintained a sort of neutral respect toward Islam, since I knew very little about it. However, early last year (several months before the September attacks), our forum began to be visited by several Moslems. This prompted me to become better educated about their religion's history, "scripture," divisions, adherents, and so forth."

I asked Fred to not characterize a Islam as a religion that treats women as slaves. Islam, at the very least, deserves to be respected to the extent that we don't simply through false accusations at it. John, I think that you yourself are "respectful" toward Islam, in that you don't accuse it of something that is not true. This is the respect that I am speaking of--not too much to ask!

I know you aren't inferring this, but I would like to mention that typical netizens of any background (including Islam) seldom represent typical views!

"Having become thus better informed, I found it necessary to divest myself of that former "neutral respect" for Islam. I found it not to be a single "religion," but to be a conglomerate of man-made belief systems -- conceived in deception and teaching many falsehoods. I concluded that they were belief systems that are not worthy of my respect. "

Islam 101--Muslims fall under two main divisions--Sunni and Shiite. While there are some outside both groups (such as Druze), most fall under these two divisions. Islam, just as Judaism and Christianity, have fractures. As a Catholic, I see all of the false teachings of Islam that you see.

"On the other hand, I do respect, as human beings, all Moslems. And I have high respect for most of the practitioners in certain factions of Islam. Finally, I pay honor to certain virtuous practices followed by most Moslems (e.g., prayer, fasting, pilgrimate). In doing the latter, I am doing what the Fathers of Vatican II did in "Nostra aetate." They did not express admiration or respect for Islam as a religion -- because they could not truthfully do so -- but stated instead: "The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems", and they listed those Moslem beliefs and practices that could be considered admirable (because revealed/ordained by God and shared in by Catholicism)."

This paragraph accurately describes my position of Islam. I apologize if my statements seem to contradict what you've written about your own position.

I would add this--let's estimate that we've got 1 Billion nominal Muslims and 1 Billion nominally Atheist Communist Chinese: which group shares more with Christianity?

Here's another "Parable of Mateo!":

I run into someone who goes to school with me: we both share a rivalry with another local school--my schoolmate and I stand together, and the other school's students are our adversaries.

We meet with the other school's students and run into students from another state. The school divisions disappear and our former adversaries share a state in common, they are now on "our" side. The others are now our adversaries.

Now, we all travel to another country and meet students from another country. The state borders disappear and our former adversaries share a country in common. They are now on "our" side. Those from the other country are now our adversaries.

I guess at this point we'd all run into Martians and realize that we share our humanity! Well, I don't mean to gloss over divisions--I'm quite sensitive to them! But, Muslims believe in God. And if it were every a question, Muslims call God by the name "Allah"...just as Arab Christians call God "Allah." (Arabic=="The God")

"You stated: "We may disagree with some of Islam's doctrines; but it is more appropriate to assign blame to the culture of some Middle Eastern countries. Islam consists of both religious men and women."

I disagree. "Islam" does not consist of people, but of doctrines and practices. Some of the doctrines are false, some even dangerously so. Some of the practices must be rejected as sinful by Catholics. It is true, though, that many men and women who desire to be virtuous and to do God's will have (unfortunately) been born into, or have converted to, one of the factions/belief systems that make up Islam. (I keep referring to factions, because, being founded by man and not God, Islam is similar to Protestantism -- fragmented.)"

I see your distinction. To correct my own statement, I think I should have said, "Islam's followers include both religious men and women." My point here is to dispel the myth that devout Muslim women don't exist. They are quite common. Western Muslims argue that the "backward anti-women" cultural practices pre-date Islam.

"You continued: "Some Muslim countries' cultures disrespect their women by denying them education and other basic human rights. Many 'Christian' countries' cultures disrespect women by objectifying women's bodies (look at just about any music video or television commercial) and destroying the virtue of motherhood by sacrificing their unborn children to earthly gods of materialism."

"You are seeking to draw a parallel or analogy here, Mateo, but it does not hold up under scrutiny. The disrespect shown to women and others in "some Muslim countries" is not based on culture and extraneous factors, but on the local factional interpretation of Islam and its writings. It is a religiously based (and allegedly religiously justified) disrespect. This is utterly different from the disrespect shown to women and others in "Christian" countries, in which the disrepect arises from the ignorance of, and hatred for, religion that is found in our secularized culture. So, in the one case, we must blame the false religion (Islam) and the law (sharia) derived from it, but in the other we must blame irreligion (rejection of Christian tenets)."

I was specifically referring to Muslim countries where women are treated poorly. I do believe that the poor treatment of women is cultural--it's certainly not universal in Muslim countries. Other clear problems with predomenantly Muslim countries are clearly caused by Islam--for example, the Sharia should only apply to Muslims. When Islam denies Christians the right to live as Christians, this has nothing to do with culture--this is warped Islam. I think we could agree that Muslims have walked away from their own history of more-tolerant behavior toward other religions.

If one looks at Islam in places like Sudan and Nigeria, I think that tribal-hatred has caused terrible persecution--including massive massacres--under the guise of religion. I would support my belief that this is racially/tribally motivated with the following: it's clear that some tribes who share a common "religion" massacre each other in Africa. It's also not a secret that many of the conflicts in the Middle East are Muslim vs. Muslim.

1. Iraq fought Iran for years (both countries are majority Shiite Muslim).

2. Iraq (Muslim) persecuted its Kurdish population (Muslim), just as Iraq funded Turkish Kurds.

3. Turks (Muslim) persecuted its Kurdish population (Muslim), just as Turkey funded Iraqi Kurds.

4. Afghani "warlords' fought eachother--I'm sure that they were all Muslims.

I hope that this post more clearly reflects my position, as I don't think my views on this subject are too radical!

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 14, 2002.

Jmj

Thanks, Mateo, for your many clarifications. Though we still are not fully in agreement, we are not as far apart as I thought we were. (And, yes, you are not "too radical" for me!)

Previously, I stated this about Islam: "I found it not to be a single 'religion,' but to be a conglomerate of man-made belief systems -- conceived in deception and teaching many falsehoods. I concluded that they were belief systems that are not worthy of my respect."
To this, you replied: "Islam 101 -- Muslims fall under two main divisions -- Sunni and Shiite. While there are some outside both groups (such as Druze), most fall under these two divisions."

Yes, I was aware of that, but you included a key word in your statement -- "main." Sunni and Shiite are the "main" divisions, but within these there are other, major divisions, and I believe that this helps to explain some of the interislamic warfare you mentioned later. I hope that you will gradually become aware of the splintering of Islam that makes me not think of it as one religion. Besides making the basic error of creating a false religion from scratch, a major error made by Mohammed was not to create a worldwide Moslem pope and episcopacy (magisterium), system of councils, and catechism. The result of this blunder was the lack of an islamic magisterium, the same flaw that torments Protestantism.

From this, the Sunnis and Shiites have both been broken into pieces, such that the Koran and other old writings are interpreted one way by Sunni nation #1 (or ethnic group #1), another way by Sunni nation/group #2, a third way by Sunni nation/group #3, a fourth way by Shiite nation/group #1, a fifth way by Shiite nation/group #2, and so on.
Think of "Islam" as practiced by the Afghani Taliban ... versus "Islam" as practiced by the "moderates" in Morocco ... versus the weak "Islam" practiced in the U.S.A.. I just can't believe someone if he tries to tell me that the three peoples were practicing the same religion! They are different religions, and I consider it an error for people to lump them all into "Islam."

Here is an analogy ... The Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons call the Bible "God's word." They fool some people into thinking that they are Christians, but we know better. They are separate religions.
In like manner, the various factions typically named "Islam" call the Koran "God's word." They fool most people into thinking that they are all Moslems, but we have to know better. They are separate religions, because their beliefs and practices are different.

This is the key concept that I would wish to share with you, as it has an effect on understanding all the other things we are talking about here.

Some "western" Christians have tended to think that the Shiites are the most to be feared. That was an effect of the Iranian hostage crisis of 1980 and attacks by certain terrorists in Lebanon. But look! Now we see that a certain "faction of a faction" of the Sunnis -- i.e., the insane Al Qaeda sub-faction within the horrible Wahabi faction (Saudi-based) within the Sunni super-faction (!!!) of "Islam" -- has perpetrated the 09/11 acts of war. [Some will not want to admit it, but that violence was related to religion (Bin-Ladenism vs. Christianity and Judaism).]

Mateo, you posed an interesting question: "[L]et's estimate that we've got 1 Billion nominal Muslims and 1 Billion nominally Atheist Communist Chinese: which group shares more with Christianity?"
First, I would say (in keeping with the above) that I cannot lump together a group of separate (sub-)factions and call them "one billion Moslems." Next, I would say that I have more in common with some of the "Islamic" (sub-)factions, but not all. I would say that I may have more in common with the Chinese (respect for human life and rights) than with some distorted "Islamic" (sub-)factions, such as the Taliban, the Sudanese, etc..

Mateo, you stated: "I think we could agree that Moslems have walked away from their own history of more-tolerant behavior toward other religions."
Hate to disappoint you, but I don't think that we can agree on this yet. Here again, we have to talk about factions. I don't claim that my knowledge of history is exhaustive, but, if there were some truly tolerant, early Moslem factions, I have never heard of them. From my reading, I have to conclude that all factions have been somewhat to extremely intolerant throughout the 1,400 years since Mohammed's time. A daily reader of my "today's saints" threads would notice that many Catholics have been martyred by Moslems in a variety of nations throughout those years. Some factions may not have resorted to killing, but, to my knowledge, they did perpetrate other forms of intolerance (such as forced conversions to "Islam," banning conversion from "Islam," banning Christian worship, etc.).

God bless you.
John
PS: You stated that "Iraq fought Iran for years (both countries are majority Shiite Muslim)." This is true, and would give weight to my point about national theological factions within the Shiite super-faction. Someone might argue, though, that the Sunnis in Iran are only 5% of the population, while they are 41% in Iraq (including the dictator and his cronies) -- making it a Sunni/Shiite fight after all.

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 14, 2002.

It seems to me that you COMMON Christians are the only ones that claim exclusive SALVATION...HOWEVER...

I am Happy to hear that a NEW DOCTRINE from the highest levels of the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH states that MUSLIMS are within the salvation of God as well as other people with good will.

I will include the references below.

It sad to see that you Christians support the Jews so much and their building up of a Terrorist State...When First of all they supposedly killed Jesus...and Second when they hate Jesus ie. think he was a heretic....WHERE AS Muslims love Jesus and respect him and Revere him as the Viceroy of God on Earth.

I see that many posted messages are in regards to women in Islam...If you guys really want to get a good idea of Womens place in Islam there are many articles on Islamic web-sites that will give you great insight like this one:

http://www.themodernreligion.com/index2.html

Also I AM EXTREMELY DISTURBED THAT YOU GUYS THINK that us Muslims are violent against one another and to others... as if to bring alignment with the sayings in the Bible of Ismael's (peace be upon him) decendants....

If you really want to look at the facts of which Followers of Religion are the most violent THEN YOU WILL SEE THAT THE FOLLOWERS OF CHRISTENDOM ARE THE MOST VIOLENT HISTORICALLY....Here is the list of facts:

World War 1

World War 2

Cold War

Terrorism in Northern Ireland which is a direct result of a sectarian conflict between Catholics and Protestants and is often supported by the religious leaders, has probably killed more children and innocent people than Middle East terrorism

look at the crusades, the multiple blessings of wars, warrior popes, support for capital punishment, corporal punishment under the guise of 'spare the rod and spoil the child,' justifications of slavery, world-wide colonialism in the name of conversion to Christianity, the systemic violence of women subjected to men, and more

Black churches have been burned in America and recently some Americans tied a black man with a rope and dragged him by their truck until he died

A NICE ARTCLE CAN BE SCANNED HERE:

http://www.tamil.net/list/2001-10/msg00036.html

And now here are the Statements... Cardinal Arinze: "[A document from the Second Vatican Council] says that God's grant of salvation includes not only Christians, but Jews, Muslims, Hindus and people of good will. That is, a person can be saved, can attain salvation, but on condition that the person is open to God's action. ... "

Robert Ashley, news director at Dallas radio station KHVN-AM (970): "So you can still get to heaven without accepting Jesus?"

Cardinal Arinze: "Expressly, yes."

from:

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/Chosen72/koran.html

-- Umer Siddiqui (siddiqui4ever@hotmail.com), October 17, 2002.

^

-- ^ (^@^.^), October 22, 2002.

Hi Ummer:

I was surprised to learn recently that Muslims believe Jesus was born of a virgin, died and was resurrected! That's fabulous. Actually you guys are more "Christian" than some of the liberal Protestant Christian churches in America that don't adhere to the virgin birth anymore.

I guess, the big difference between us is "the divinity" of Christ. Would that be accurate?

At any rate, there may be misconceptions of Islam perpetrated by our culture and media. But likewise you may have some misconceptions of Christians as well, due to the mass media, exageration, etc. But one thing is for sure, Christians should be known as a people of peace, not war; love not hate.

As to Arinze' statement, please know that the church teaches that people who are just simply "ignorant" of the truth may attain salvation; not people who "willfully" reject Christ as Savior. That's a very fine line.

But why would you reject Christ as Savior? His blood shed on the Cross, his agony, his conquering of death, His defeat of Satan, all make Him the unique Son of God. You may KNOW God personally through the work of His Son! You may KNOW His warmth, His love, His power.

I'm glad you love Him! That's GREAT!

Blessings to you,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), October 22, 2002.