Democracy and Christianity

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

The freedom of religion is considered by many as a fondation of democracy. I think that this is due to a too simplistic concept of democracy. A true democracy cannot limit itself to list formally the rights of citizens. A true democracy must be able to protect citizens and give them a life in peace, without the constant menace of terroristic attacks. Modern technologies give terrorists the possibility to realize terrible attacks and the only way western societies can protect their citizens is prevention. This means that a true democracy must identify and banish all those ideologies and religions which instigate to violence and therefore represent the foundation of terroristic associations. The koran esplicitly and repeatedly orders to fight with every means ( and even torture !) unbelievers and curses christians and jews. Violence is an intrinsic feature of islam because it is originated by the words of the founder of islam. While Christ taugh us to love our enemy, Muhammad ordered muslins to fight against all unbelievers. This is the reason why the cohabitation between christians and moslems always represents an unstable balance, destined to degenerate in a bloody struggle. We must consider that each moslem can read some of the many verses which order to fight against unbelievers and choose to become a new terrorist. We cannot know whether or when this spring goes off, but we know that there is a non-negligible probability that this may happen, which is proved by the existence of several hundreds of millions of moslems who hate western societies and applaud Bin Laden and jihiad. Islam must be banished and moslems’ immigration must be firmly forbidden. All muslim immigrants must be expelled. All islamic institutions and mosques must be closed. Immigrants have no right to live in our countries. They are only our guests and we have the right and the duty to send them back to their countries when their presence represents a danger for our country. Wars will not save us from terrorism. The future of history depends on the capacity of christians to become aware of their historical role as defenders of the true freedom, rejecting too simplicistic concepts such as the one of an unconditioned freedom of religion. God has given us the power to change the world through our laws and constitutions ; we must then revise them in order to defend our freedom to believe in Christ.

Here are some verses from the koran: 9:5 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. 9:29 Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with w illing submission, and feel themselves subdued. 9.30 The Jews call 'Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. God's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! 47:4 Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burd ens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been God's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of God,- He will never let their deeds be lost. 4:56 Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire: as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty: for God is Exalted in Power, Wise. 8:12 Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them." 8:13 This because they contended against God and His Apostle: If any contend against God and His Apostle, God is strict in punishment. 8:14 Thus (will it be said): "Taste ye then of the (punishment): for those who resist God, is the penalty of the Fire." 8:15 O ye who believe! when ye meet the Unbelievers in hostile array, never turn your backs to them. 8:16 If any do turn his back to them on such a day - unless it be in a stratagem of war, or to retreat to a troop (of his own)- he draws on himself the wrath of God, and his abode is Hell,- an evil refuge (indeed)! 8:17 It is not ye who slew them; it was God: when thou threwest (a handful of dust), it was not thy act, but God's: in order that He might test the Believers by a gracious trial from Himself: for God is He Who heareth and knoweth (all things). 8:65 O Apostle! rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding. 9.073 O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed. 9.123 O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that God is with those who fear Him. 48.22 If the Unbelievers should fight you, they would certainly turn their backs; then would they find neither protector nor helper. 48.029 Muhammad is the apostle of God; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other. 66.9 O Prophet! Strive hard against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge (indeed). 83.34 But on this Day the Believers will laugh at the Unbelievers. 4.95 Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of God with their goods and their persons. God hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath God promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,- 5.054 O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily God guideth not a people unjust. Many other verses can be given. You can check these verse in every muslin sites, such as http://info.uah.edu/msa/quran.html

Consider that Muhammad and his followers have always applied these instigations to violence against unbelievers (christians and jews are considered obviously unbelievers) and this has always been the only way islam spread in the world during the first centuries. in fact Syria, Egypt ,North Africa were all predominantly christian countries before the islamic invasion. The fact that there are many millions of muslins who applaud Bin Laden and his terroristic attacks is a further evidence of this violent nature of islam. The islamic terrorist is not an isolated person, but he is the direct product of islam. The fact that pratically all islamic countries are antidemocratic is a further evidence of the antidemocratic nature of islam. Muhammad was an antichrist and islam is a satanic religion.

1 Cor 5:13 Put away the evil one from among yourselves!

We are responsible of our choices and also of our laws. We must not allow that an evil, satanic, antichristian and antidemocratic religion such as islam to be accepted in our countries. Islam must be banished.



-- phil (lib@lib.us), November 21, 2001

Answers

...and of course, you're going to expel all Muslims under force of arms, right Phil? Sorry, but the Crusades were a thousand years ago. Too bad you missed the parade.

(:raig

-- Craig Miller (cmiller@ssd.com), November 21, 2001.


The public authority has the right and the duty to protect citizens and to make people keep the laws. Those who refused to keep the laws are punished for example with prison. In case islam were banished and all muslins immigrants would be ordered to leave, those who refused to leave, would be obliged by the public authority to leave. Anarchy is antithetical to democracy.

-- phil (lib@lib.us), November 21, 2001.

Jmj

Hello, Phil.
You first appeared on the scene of this forum about six weeks ago, and the message you presented was essentially the same as what you have posted above.

My first reaction to you was that you were a trouble-maker, an extremist, a bigot against Islam, and someone who was either ignorant or a liar.
Since I had always believed that there was an essential decency in Islam and that the Koran contained nothing really monstrous or likely to incite crime or sin (except injustice toward women), I pressed you very hard with every argument I could muster. Again and again, you calmly responded to my complaints with reasonable replies, quotations from the Koran, etc..

Since that time, I have had the opportunity to read more of the Koran, to learn more about the history of Islam, to read contemporary articles about Muslims (including some by Muslims), to read interviews of a Muslim terrorist, and to carry on conversations with Muslims here.
I want to apologize to you for disbelieving you in the beginning and giving you such a hard time. I have gradually become more and more convinced that your basic contentions are, for the most part, correct. Islam is deeply dangerous, and I would rather live in a nation that has no Muslims at all. Unlike you, I am not convinced that Islam is satanic/anti-christ in origin -- e.g., that the devil dictated the Koran to Moe-hammed. It may be merely the product of a man with a foolish imagination or of a man seeking power and money. But, regardless of the origin, the result is devastatingly bad to mankind.

Previously, I (and I think others) asked you, Phil, the name of your religion/church. You ignored every such request, and I consider that rude on your part. Please do not let me down again. I can see that you are a Christian, but I believe that you are not a Catholic. What is the name of the church where you regularly worship, if any?

As a Catholic, I agree with the praises that the Fathers (Catholic bishops) of the Second Vatican Council bestowed upon devout Muslims for their positive beliefs and actions -- frequent prayer, belief in the one true God, desire to know and follow his will, giving honor to Jesus and Mary, belief in final judgment and immortality, almsgiving, and fasting. Phil, do you agree that, though some of them are in an imperfect form, these are basically good points in Islam -- things that they have copied from Judaism and/or Christianity? If only they didn't stop with these few good points! Instead of continuing with a fuller imitation of Christianity, Moe-hammed turned off the narrow path and mixed in lots of erroneous doctrine and flawed morality.

As you and I have both stated on this forum, the Koran has no central focal point explaining/interpreting it (pope or council of bishops), so that makes the situation even worse than the basic Moe-hammedan errors. Now every individual Muslim can twist the Koran's words to fit his desires, and this had led to internecine strife (Muslim against Muslim) as well as injustice and violence against Jews and Christians.

So, yes, I agree with you that it would be better for Islam to disappear and for no Muslims to be present in our nations. But ... will such a thing ever happen? Probably not, because there is now a watered-down strain of Islam [I call it "Islam Lite"] which succeeds in tempting many Christians in the Americas and Europe to believe that Islam can co-exist peacefully with the only religions God founded, Judaism and Christianity. And so, politicians will probably never do anything actively to outlaw Islam or to eject Muslims (citizens or visitors).

God bless you.
John
PS: Don't forget, Phil! What is the name of your congregation?

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 21, 2001.


Over the past 5 -10 years I have gotten to know and befrinded a number of Muslims from the small but growing community of immigrants in Portland.

What you are suggesting is not going to happen so it might be best for your own mental health to begin to take a turn toward more rational fears.

These people whom I've gotten to know live kind, loving lives and deserve respect for their efforts.

Would you agree that all Christians think, act, pray and live their lives the same way. Of course not. What kind of thinking gets you to the idea that we'd treat all Muslims as some kind of criminal?

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), November 21, 2001.


Chris C.,
You did not direct your comments to anyone by name. I think that they were for Phil, but in case they were directed toward me, I will reply in part.

"What you are suggesting is not going to happen so it might be best for your own mental health to begin to take a turn toward more rational fears."
In my opinion, the fears and dismay expressed above seem quite rational to me. You consider them irrational, but that does not make you right -- which is why you should not make the statement as though it were a matter of fact. Moreover, having well-explained concerns about Islam does not harm "mental health." In fact, discussing such concerns, instead of bottling them up, can help our health very much.

"These people whom I've gotten to know live kind, loving lives and deserve respect for their efforts."
I agree. But that does not make Islam a legitimate religion. These people are decent in spite of Islam, not because of it. They need to be baptized most of all. You and I should long for them to be Catholics. Then their goodness could really blossom.

"What kind of thinking gets you to the idea that we'd treat all Muslims as some kind of criminal?"
Criminal? I certainly didn't argue such a thing. I don't think that Phil did either.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 21, 2001.



John,

"We are responsible of our choices and also of our laws. We must not allow that an evil, satanic, antichristian and antidemocratic religion such as islam to be accepted in our countries. Islam must be banished."

Sounds as if he'd (phil)treat them as less than criminals actually.

I consider my friend's religion legitimate as well as their cultural heritage. They have a right and a freedom to practice that religion as they wish without persecution.

By your own admission, your studies have brought you closer to phil's way of thinking. Finestkind. I think the guy is cruel and dangerous. Likely he'd have been the first to lock up Japanese after Pearl Harbor.

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), November 21, 2001.


>>>Since that time, I have had the opportunity to read more of the Koran, to learn more about the history of Islam, to read contemporary articles about Muslims (including some by Muslims), to read interviews of a Muslim terrorist, and to carry on conversations with Muslims here. I want to apologize to you for disbelieving you in the beginning and giving you such a hard time. I have gradually become more and more convinced that your basic contentions are, for the most part, correct. Islam is deeply dangerous, and I would rather live in a nation that has no Muslims at all.

Dear John,

I am very happy to hear that. In fact I think that the reason why God has allowed so many people to be murdered in the WTC attack is to make christians understand the dangerous nature of islam and that an unconditioned freedom of religion is an evil choice. The fact that you now have changed your opinion about islam proves that the sacrifice of so many christians has not been useless.

>>>Unlike you, I am not convinced that Islam is satanic/anti-christ in origin -- e.g., that the devil dictated the Koran to Moe-hammed.

Actually, I do not think that the devil "dictated" the koran to Muhammad; this is not what I mean when I say that islam is a satanic religion. What I mean is that the koran was inspired by Satan and represents a satanic design to induce people to fight against christians and the christian faith. Muhammad was probably only a man seeking power and money, but satan used him for his evil plans.

>>>>Previously, I (and I think others) asked you, Phil, the name of your religion/church. You ignored every such request, and I consider that rude on your part.

I am sorry to hear that. I never meant to be rude. Anyway, I have always been catholic since my birth.

>>>As a Catholic, I agree with the praises that the Fathers (Catholic bishops) of the Second Vatican Council bestowed upon devout Muslims for their positive beliefs and actions -- frequent prayer, belief in the one true God, desire to know and follow his will, giving honor to Jesus and Mary, belief in final judgment and immortality, almsgiving, and fasting. Phil, do you agree that, though some of them are in an imperfect form, these are basically good points in Islam -- things that they have copied from Judaism and/or Christianity?

I disagree. Also islamic terrorists fast and pray. Fasting and prayers do not represent a sufficient evidence of a true faith in the true God. Even if the koran uses the same words of the Bible, it gives to these words very different meanings. For example, many moslems believe that the prize they will have in heaven is that they will have sex with 50 virgins for eternity. This is certainly a concept of heaven completely different with respect to the catholic concept of heaven. The point is in fact to understand the meaning of the words and the concepts related to these words. The koran teaches that God is merciful, but the concept of God described in the koran is in striking contraddiction with the catholic concept of divine Mercy. The god of the koran in fact is mercifull only towards moslems, and orders to kill and even torture unbelievers. This is certainly not my concept of divine mercy.

>>>>So, yes, I agree with you that it would be better for Islam to disappear and for no Muslims to be present in our nations. But ... will such a thing ever happen? Probably not, because there is now a watered-down strain of Islam [I call it "Islam Lite"] which succeeds in tempting many Christians in the Americas and Europe to believe that Islam can co-exist peacefully with the only religions God founded, Judaism and Christianity. And so, politicians will probably never do anything actively to outlaw Islam or to eject Muslims (citizens or visitors).

I can say that I pray every day and I ask God to make people understand that our laws must be changed and islam must be banish. The christian faith must be the center of our State and of our laws. I am confident that God will answer my prayers.

God bless you,

Phil



-- phil (lib@lib.us), November 22, 2001.


Phil, Don't be holding your breath on that law changing thing. They are doing a pretty good job in reducing liberties in the name of security and safety as it is. What you are praying for is an overhaul of the Constitution. Democracy would be turned on it's ear.

We'd need to find a big crate so we could ship the greeting statue of New York harbor back to France.

Your prayers must include requests for grand miracles. I'd say just short of a second coming.

Chris

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), November 22, 2001.


Hi, Chris C.

You seem to have the unfortunate tendencies of jumping to unwarranted conclusions and blowing things out of proportion. If someone posts something with which you disagree, you seem to fear the worst and you make an exaggerated response. I'm pretty sure that these traits flow an extremely deep liberal prejudice. You seem to want almost absolute, total freedom for people to do nearly anything they want to do. Advocating something short of that seems to you to be censorship, repression, etc.. That's no way for any person to think, especially not a Catholic. We have to stand up and try to stop evil from happening.
Chris, it seems as though you read and react immediately, without thinking carefully about what people write, to see if it has any merit. From your latest posts, above, let me give you a couple of examples of this, in the hopes that you will proceed a bit differently in future.

You wrote: "I consider my friend's religion legitimate as well as their cultural heritage. They have a right and a freedom to practice that religion as they wish without persecution."
I think that Phil would say that, according to current laws, they do have such a freedom. But he advocates the peaceful "amending of the Amendment," by Congress and the states. The Amendment would then withhold giving "freedom of religion" to dangerous ideologies [e.g., Islam] that call themselves "religions," but have proved themselves to be potentially violent tools for taking over political power (threatening the destruction of Jews and Christians, destroying buildings and innocent people). I think that he means that, after passage of such a new law, those who wish to follow the Islamic philosophy would be free to leave the country to do so.

Chris, you also wrote: "By your own admission, your studies have brought you closer to phil's way of thinking. Finestkind. I think the guy is cruel and dangerous. Likely he'd have been the first to lock up Japanese after Pearl Harbor."
I reject your word "admission" -- as though I were acknowledging that I had done something wrong ["admission of guilt"]. I have done a good thing that all of us should have done long ago -- become better informed about Islam.
I don't know what you mean by "Finestkind." I have never see that "word" before.
Phil is not "cruel and dangerous." He is trying to seek a solution to a terrible problem, so that he and the rest of us can be safer. You are wrong about what Phil's attitude would have been toward the Japanese. You jumped to the wrong conclusion. He has already explained (on an earlier thread) that he is only talking about ultra-dangerous ideologies, such as Islam, not about races and ethnic groups. Thus, I think that he has no problem with, for example, Arab Christians and Iranian Jews, including recent immigrants, now living in the U.S..

Chris C., you stated: "They [presumably, the GWB administration] are doing a pretty good job in reducing liberties in the name of security and safety as it is. What you are praying for is an overhaul of the Constitution. Democracy would be turned on its ear. We'd need to find a big crate so we could ship the greeting statue of New York harbor back to France."
These are good examples of your problem of wild exaggeration. My liberty has not been reduced in any way. You are overreacting to the fact that some aliens (who have never been guaranteed the same freedoms that we have) are now being treated more carefully. Phil never asked for "an overhaul of the Constitution," but perhaps just a clarification of one Amendment. It is silly exaggeration to say that "democracy would be turned on its ear, etc.." I feel sure that Phil would love to have the Statue of Liberty continue to welcome immigrants, but those folks would have to be people whom we could trust, not potential terrorists.

In short, Chris C., please lighten up and get wisely conservative for a change -- and for the benefit of every law-abiding citizen.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 22, 2001.


Jmj

Hello, Phil.

Last time, I wrote these words to you (and I'm going to emphasize an important phrase):
"As a Catholic, I agree with the praises that the Fathers (Catholic bishops) of the Second Vatican Council bestowed upon devout Muslims for their positive beliefs and actions -- frequent prayer, belief in the one true God, desire to know and follow his will, giving honor to Jesus and Mary, belief in final judgment and immortality, almsgiving, and fasting. Phil, do you agree that, though some of them are in an imperfect form, these are basically good points in Islam -- things that they have copied from Judaism and/or Christianity?"

I was deeply dissatisfied with your reply. I think that you slipped up because you failed to note the phrase that I have now emphasized, above. In other words, neither I nor the bishops are claiming that Muslims did/believed in these praiseworthy things in a perfect way, with proper motivations, etc.. The point is that, objectively speaking, the several listed actions/beliefs are basically good and holy -- and they tend toward drawing Muslims closer to Christianity than they would be if those listed actions were totally absent. Let me go through the list and explain more carefully:
-- frequent prayer ... The bishops are saying that it is better for a Muslims to try to talk to God than to attempt no contact with him at all.
-- belief in the one true God ... The bishops are saying that is better for a Muslim to believe in Yahweh ("I am") than to believe in satan or in polytheism or pantheism or atheism.
-- desire to know and follow his will ... It is better that they seek this than to ignore the divine will and follow their own. [Unfortunately, they seem to be unable to discern God's will most of the time!]
-- giving honor to Jesus and Mary ... It is better that they honor these two people, even if in adequately, than not to honor them at all.
-- belief in final judgment and immortality ... It is better that they believe these things than to believe in automatic heaven, reincarnation, or annihilation of body and soul at death.
-- almsgiving and fasting ... It is better that they perform these actions than to neglect them altogether.

I hope that you will not fight me on this, because it would be a sign that you reject the Vatican II statement of the pope and bishops about certain Muslim beliefs and practices. I hope you realize that I am not fond of Catholics who try to say that they know better than the Magisterium.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 22, 2001.



John,

Blowing things out of proportion, you say.

Throwing out all people of a particular religion, and I'm blowing things out of proportion. That's beautiful.

Chris

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), November 22, 2001.


>>>>In other words, neither I nor the bishops are claiming that Muslims did/believed in these praiseworthy things in a perfect way, with proper motivations, etc.. The point is that, objectively speaking, the several listed actions/beliefs are basically good and holy -- and they tend toward drawing Muslims closer to Christianity than they would be if those listed actions were totally absent.

I certainly agree that the actions you have listed are FORMALLY good. I certainly agree that "it is better for a Muslims to try to talk to God than to attempt no contact with him at all" but the point is that if a moslem has a wrong concept of God, his prayers are not really directed to the true God. For example, islamic terrorists pray all the night before committing their attacks, and they pray for the success of their attacks. Do you think that such a prayer is directed to God or to satan? The fact that moslems profess to believe in the God of Abraham does not mean that they really believe in the God of Abraham. Also the pharisees professed to believe in the God of Abraham, but Jesus cursed them many times. The pharisees rejected Jesus and killed Him; this proves that even if they professed to believe in the God of Abraham, they did not really believe in the God of Abraham; this is the reason why Jesus called them hypocrites.

I do not think that my position is in contraddiction with the position of Bishops. Recently I have also heard some bishops speaking about the necessity of a revision of the immigration laws for the exclusion of muslins. I also know that in some towns some bishops have firmly opposed to the construction of new mosques.

I do not want to attack Vatican II statements about moslems. I had only the impression that you were reading too much into those statements. Most probably I misunderstood your meaning and this was only a wrong impression.

God bless you,

Marco.

-- phil (lib@lib.us), November 23, 2001.


Marco/Phil,

(Perhaps you are Frank's Italian friend of about a year ago? Ah, well.)

I am glad to read that you do not intentionally wish to disagree with the Fathers of Vatican II. But I think then that you must be UNintentionally disagreeing with them. There are still some errors in your thinking about this subject. Let me explain ...

You wrote: "I certainly agree that 'it is better for a Muslims to try to talk to God than to attempt no contact with him at all' but the point is that if a moslem has a wrong concept of God, his prayers are not really directed to the true God."
I am certain that the Catholic bishops would disagree with you. Although they do not know God as a Trinity, they know the same God that you and I and Jews know. They simply call him by a different name (Allah, Yahweh). Therefore their prayers ARE directed to the true God and are heard by him.

You continued: "For example, islamic terrorists pray all the night before committing their attacks, and they pray for the success of their attacks. Do you think that such a prayer is directed to God or to satan?"
I am 100% certain that the bishops would say that these misguided prayers are directed to God. Even we Christians sometimes offer foolish prayers. God always answers prayers. He answers, "NO," to violent Muslim terrorists. It is not necessary for us to think that the prayers are offered to satan. That is foolishness. The Muslims do not have satan in their minds while making these prayers.

You continued: "The fact that moslems profess to believe in the God of Abraham does not mean that they really believe in the God of Abraham."
I am sure that our bishops would disagree with you. The Muslims DO believe in the God of Abraham, whom they consider a great ancestor.

"Also the pharisees professed to believe in the God of Abraham, but Jesus cursed them many times."
Come on, Phil! He cursed their evil actions, and warned them that they could be damned. One cannot argue from these facts that the Pharisees failed to believe in the God of Abraham. In fact, there are Catholic theologians today who say that the reason Jesus was so hard on the Pharisees is that he himself was a Pharisee. He followed their theological trend of thought, as opposed to the anti-resurrectional beliefs of the Sadducees.

"The pharisees rejected Jesus and killed Him; this proves that even if they professed to believe in the God of Abraham, they did not really believe in the God of Abraham; this is the reason why Jesus called them hypocrites."
You need to be more careful, Phil. It is not right to say that "the pharisees rejected Jesus and killed him." Only SOME of the Pharisees did that. Others accepted him and loved him. The fact that many rejected him does NOT "prove" that they did not really believe in the God of Abraham. They believed in him, but often did not "live out" their beliefs. That is where the hypocrisy entered into the picture.

By the way, Phil, in North America, there are no bishops speaking out in favor of "revis[ing] immigration laws to the exclusion of Muslims." So I can only guess that you are writing from Italy, because I know that the problem of "muslimization" is huge in some parts of Europe (e.g., Italy, Germany). In certain nations, the native ethnic groups of Europe have been contracepting/aborting themselves into oblivion for about forty years. To make up for the lack of young people and "lower classes" that always did the hard work, these countries have been taking in vast numbers of "guest workers" (from Turkey and other Muslim nations), many of whom have stayed and become citizens. What Islam could not conquer through war several centuries ago, it is conquering through immigration. Mosques have sprung up everywhere. Some towns are more than 50% Muslim. And one could argue that this has been merited by the Europeans, because they have prevented the conception of millions of babies and killed off half the unborn who somehow managed to be conceived. Now they fear that Muslims will take over their governmental bodies, declare Christianity forbidden, destroy the great cathedrals, tear down the Louvre, etc.. Apparently the fear is incredibly great, if it could actually cause some Catholic bishops to speak up against the immigration of more Muslims. That's amazing. I have to guess that it is only a few bishops.

God bless you.
John


-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 23, 2001.


Chris C.,
I'm very disappointed by your reply.
I showed how several of the things you had previously written were exagerrated and unwarranted. It was very clear.
Instead of admitting to those errors and apologizing to Phil and me, you tried to justify your own "blowing things out of proportion" by a sarcastic line that mocks Phil's basic point of view.
Please try to be more noble.
JFG
PS: I never said that I could agree with a plan to force Muslims to leave the U.S.. That would seem to be inhumane and unjust.

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 23, 2001.

>>>>You wrote: "I certainly agree that 'it is better for a Muslims to try to talk to God than to attempt no contact with him at all' but the point is that if a moslem has a wrong concept of God, his prayers are not really directed to the true God." I am certain that the Catholic bishops would disagree with you.

This is only your opinion. In order to prove your point you should be able to quote a verse of the cathechism supporting your thesis, but I am sure that you cannot do that.

>>>>Although they do not know God as a Trinity, they know the same God that you and I and Jews know.

You are completetly wrong here. In fact, no man knows perfectly God. Our knowledge of God is always imperfect, but some persons reach a deeper knowledge of God than others. This means that a saint does not know God in the same way an islamic terrorist does. The islamic terorrist has a concept of God which is more similar to my concept of satan than to my concept of God.

>>>>They simply call him by a different name (Allah, Yahweh).

Absolutely false. They have also a very different concept of God. Islamic terrorists think that God is pleased with their criminal actions, which proves that they have a very different idea of God. In fact it is satan who is pleased with their actions.

>>>Therefore their prayers ARE directed to the true God and are heard by him.

False again. Their prayers are directed to their idea of god, and this idea is more similar to the idea of satan.

>>>>You continued: "For example, islamic terrorists pray all the night before committing their attacks, and they pray for the success of their attacks. Do you think that such a prayer is directed to God or to satan?" I am 100% certain that the bishops would say that these misguided prayers are directed to God.

You must understand that you are not the Pope and so the only way you have to support your opinions is to quote some verse of the cathechism. You cannot go on saying that you are sure of what all bishops would say.

>>>Even we Christians sometimes offer foolish prayers. God always answers prayers. He answers, "NO," to violent Muslim terrorists. It is not necessary for us to think that the prayers are offered to satan.

I have never said that this is necessary. Actually, I think that this point is irrilevant for the present discussion.

>>>The Muslims do not have satan in their minds while making these prayers.

I think that islamic terrorists have a concept more similar to satan than to God in their minds while making their prayers.

>>>>You continued: "The fact that moslems profess to believe in the God of Abraham does not mean that they really believe in the God of Abraham." I am sure that our bishops would disagree with you. The Muslims DO believe in the God of Abraham, whom they consider a great ancestor.

Quote a verse of the cathechism to support your thesis. Meanwhile I quote a verse form John's Gospel to support mine:

8:38 I speak that which I have seen in the presence of my Father: and you do that which you have heard from your father. 8:39 They answered and said to him, Abraham is our father. Jesus said to them, If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham. 8:40 But now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth, which I have heard from God: this Abraham did not do. 8:41 You do the deeds of your father. Then they said to him, We are not illegitimate children; we have one Father, even God. 8:42 Jesus said to them, If God were your Father, you would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; for I did not come of my own accord, but he sent me. 8:43 Why do you not understand my speech? it is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father.

In these verses Jesus is speaking to some pharisees who professed to have faith in the God of Abraham, but Jesus says to them that they are children of the devil and that they want to do the desires of the devil. These verses clearly show that the fact that a person professes to have faith in the God of Abraham does not mean that he really has faith in the God of Abraham.

>>>>>>"The pharisees rejected Jesus and killed Him; this proves that even if they professed to believe in the God of Abraham, they did not really believe in the God of Abraham; this is the reason why Jesus called them hypocrites." You need to be more careful, Phil. It is not right to say that "the pharisees rejected Jesus and killed him." Only SOME of the Pharisees did that.

Ok. I apologize. I meant SOME of the pharisees.

>>>By the way, Phil, in North America, there are no bishops speaking out in favor of "revis[ing] immigration laws to the exclusion of Muslims."

And then? I have never said that they were american bishops. Are maybe european bishops not true bishops? Should we consider only american bishops as true bishops?

>>>>Apparently the fear is incredibly great, if it could actually cause some Catholic bishops to speak up against the immigration of more Muslims. That's amazing.

That's amazing for you but not for me.

>>>I have to guess that it is only a few bishops.

You should consider that in past centuries ALL bishops firmly opposed islamic immigration.

In conclusion, I think that you reading too much in the Vatican II statements about moslems. Your interpretations of those statements are not necessary and are to be considered personal opinions of yours. Anyway, if you should quote some verses from the cathechism suporting your interpretations, I will consider them. I

God bless you,

Phil.

-- phil (lib@lib.us), November 23, 2001.



Jmj

Hello, Phil/Marco.

In my first response to you, above, I admitted to you that I had been wrong about certain facts concerning Islam and the Koran when you and I discussed those things several weeks ago.
After reading this message of mine, I hope that you will have the courage to admit that you have been very wrong in the series of comments you have just made to me, in your last two messages. It is not enough to admit just one simple error of fact -- about "some of the Pharisees -- as you have done. A major section of your thinking about Muslims, their God, prayer, etc. is totally wrong -- contrary to the teachings of Vatican II and our current Pope. Now I can understand why you have had such extreme hostility toward Islam. When you overcome your current errors, you will see that it will be prudent to down your rhetoric and your unrealistic demands on society/government.

Now, I am not going to pick apart your last series of comments to me in detail. And I am not going to provide you the quotations from the Catechism that you demanded, because that is an unreasonable demand. The Catechism is written to tell us about our beliefs and practices -- not about Muslim beliefs. Instead, I am going to quote passages to you from three Catholic sources:
(1) The Vatican II document on interreligious dialogue (Nostra aetate)
(2) The current pope's comments in "Crossing the Threshold of Hope"
(3) Some documents of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, issued in the past decade -- addressed to Muslims on Ramadan in each of several years.
(Phil, you apparently missed it when I posted these (and much more) in a thread in August. Too bad. If you had read them then, your whole outlook would have been different on September 11 and beyond.)

[from "Nostra aetate" of Vatican II]:
3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, [Cf. St. Gregory VII, letter XXI to Anzir (Nacir), King of Mauritania] who has spoken to men. They take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God.
[CASE CLOSED, Phil, but I will continue anyway ... JFG]

[N.A. #3 resumed] Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting. ...

[From "Crossing the Threshold of Hope":]
A very different discussion [from Buddhism, in the previous chapter], obviously, is the one that leads us to the synagogues and mosques, where those who worship the One God assemble. ... As a result of their monotheism, believers in Allah are particularly close to us. ... the religiosity of Muslims deserves respect. It is impossible not to admire, for example, their fidelity to prayer. The image of believers in Allah who, without caring about time or place, fall to their knees and immerse themselves in prayer remains a model for all those who invoke the true God, in particular for those Christians who, having deserted their magnificent cathedrals, pray only a little or not at all. ...

[From the Pontifical Council -- greetings to Muslims for Ramadan in several years:]
(In the year 2001)
Together with the other religious practices which accompany it, such as prayer and alms-giving, Ramadan is a time for assessing relationships with God and with one's fellow human beings, a time for turning back to God and towards one’s brothers and sisters. Fasting is one of the ways in which we give worship to God, come to the help of the poor and strengthen family ties and the bonds of friendship. Fasting is a form of education, for it reveals to us our own weakness and opens us up to God, so that we may be open to others. Though the fast you observe has its own characteristics and discipline, fasting is a practice which is also common to Christianity and to other religions. This month provides a propitious moment therefore for us to remind ourselves of "the spiritual bonds which unite us," to use the words of Pope John Paul II.
[According to your comments, Phil, NO bonds unite us to Islam. You can see that you are wrong, because you contradict the pope. JFG]
(In the year 2000)
With regard to Jesus, as in other fields, we are called as Christians and Muslims to know and respect the religious convictions of the other, to discover that which unites us and what makes us different. ... We think that all people, but especially Muslims, can share with us the values that we have received from Jesus: total obedience to the will of God witness, given to the truth, humility in behaviour, control of one's speech, justice in one’s actions, mercy shown in deeds, love towards all, pardon granted for wrong done, maintaining peace with all brothers and sisters.
(In the year 1999)
God loves all human beings, excluding no one. He is the source of all love in the family, in society, in the world. It is from God that we learn to love one another in a gratuitous manner, without expecting any reward here below. God is the Merciful One. He is close to his servants. He hears their prayers. So we can say that belief in God impels us to an attitude of good will towards our brothers and sisters. There are many ways of showing love, expressions of our faithfulness to the Merciful One: almsgiving - the alms on the occasion of ‘Id al-Fitr have special importance for you -, care for orphans, the aged, the sick, for strangers, as also the commitment to promote human dignity and in favour of human rights, commitment to development, to the fight against many evils of our societies such as illiteracy, the influence of drugs, the abuse of minors, violence against women. Pardon, reconciliation, reopening dialogues that have broken down, the promotion of peace, education in respect for others - all these are different ways of expressing love. There exists, between our two religions, a considerable degree of agreement with regard to effectively showing mercy to one’s neighbor. Is there not here a wide field for collaboration between Christians and Muslims which needs to be developed?
(In the year 1998)
Together with other believers, we Christians and Muslims, are "God seekers". The Book of Psalms, the Zabűr, describes this human endeavour as a search for the Face of God: "My heart has said of you, 'Seek his face'. Lord, I do seek your face; do not hide your face from me." (Ps 26:8-9). All the good actions which the believer tries to perform, such as prayer, fasting and alms-giving, come under the sign of this search for God. They are an expression of a continuous conversion to God. We can say that the search for God is also a sign of hope. During our earthly pilgrimage to eternity, al-dâr al-âkhira, it is belief in God which enlightens, guides and strengthens us, while hope creates in us a desire and expectation for the good things to come, God's reward if we have lived a life of faith and of love for God and our fellow human beings.
(in the year 1997)
It is faith, that trusting and obedient submission to God, which has motivated your fast during the month of Ramadan. Muslims and Christians, we define ourselves as "believers" and, together with Jews, we see in Abraham a model for our faith. ... Following the example of Abraham, Jews, Christians and Muslims strive to give to God the place in their lives which is His due as Fount and Origin, Master and Guide, and Ultimate Destiny of all beings.

[END OF QUOTATIONS]

Phil, please don't let me down again. Any honest Catholic who reads the quoted passages, above, will conclude that they support various things which I mentioned in earlier messages but which you rejected. I hope that you are one of those "honest Catholics," Phil, and that you will admit that you were wrong. The Church clearly believes that Catholics and Muslims worship the same God. The Church clearly admires certain religious practices or pieties of Muslims.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 23, 2001.


John,

Naturally you'd be disappointed with my answer. Instead of believing that there was something wrong with me by not agreeing with you and phil that we should kick out all who are Muslim I turned it back to you. And I did it with very few words. I'm sure it rattles you a bit.

This is about you and phil agreeing that we should kick out Muslims it is not about me and my liberalism.

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@mainr.rr.com), November 23, 2001.


Phil's words on tossing them out

"Islam must be banished and moslems’ immigration must be firmly forbidden. All muslim immigrants must be expelled. All islamic institutions and mosques must be closed. Immigrants have no right to live in our countries. They are only our guests and we have the right and the duty to send them back to their countries when their presence represents a danger for our country.

We are responsible of our choices and also of our laws. We must not allow that an evil, satanic, antichristian and antidemocratic religion such as islam to be accepted in our countries. Islam must be banished

The public authority has the right and the duty to protect citizens and to make people keep the laws. Those who refused to keep the laws are punished for example with prison. In case islam were banished and all muslins immigrants would be ordered to leave, those who refused to leave, would be obliged by the public authority to leave.

Phils words that would make a shambles of the constitution and democracy

I can say that I pray every day and I ask God to make people understand that our laws must be changed and islam must be banish. The christian faith must be the center of our State and of our laws. I am confident that God will answer my prayers God has given us the power to change the world through our laws and constitutions ; we must then revise them in order to defend our freedom to believe in Christ.

John's writing in agreement and defense of Phil

I have gradually become more and more convinced that your basic contentions are, for the most part, correct. Islam is deeply dangerous, and I would rather live in a nation that has no Muslims at all.

So, yes, I agree with you that it would be better for Islam to disappear and for no Muslims to be present in our nations.

I think that he (Phil)means that, after passage of such a new law, those who wish to follow the Islamic philosophy would be free to leave the country to do so. Phil never asked for "an overhaul of the Constitution," but perhaps just a clarification of one Amendment. It is silly exaggeration to say that "democracy would be turned on its ear, etc..

But he advocates the peaceful "amending of the Amendment," by Congress and the states. The Amendment would then withhold giving "freedom of religion" to dangerous ideologies [e.g., Islam] that call themselves "religions," but have proved themselves to be potentially violent tools for taking over political power (threatening the destruction of Jews and Christians, destroying buildings and innocent people). I think that he means that, after passage of such a new law, those who wish to follow the Islamic philosophy would be free to leave the country to do so.

He is trying to seek a solution to a terrible problem, so that he and the rest of us can be safer.

I feel sure that Phil would love to have the Statue of Liberty continue to welcome immigrants, but those folks would have to be people whom we could trust, not potential terrorists.

And you think that I need to apologize for getting a little excited?

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), November 23, 2001.


Jmj

CC: The apology you owe would be for multiple cases of exaggeration and jumping to wrong conclusions -- not for "getting a little excited."
You were shown to have been wrong (and offensively wrong), but still haven't admitted it.

Now you have compounded the damage previously done by attributing to me an agreement with each thing that Phil advocates. This is yet another case of jumping to false conclusions, since I disagree strongly with certain of Phil's points.
In the lines you just quoted from me, the point I was trying to make to Phil was that he had convinced me of the perils linked to Islam and the evil statements embedded in the Koran. I did not tell him that I agreed with all the proposed solutions that have come into his mind as a result of his hatred of Islam.
And do you have a vision problem, CC? Haven't you noticed how I have been arguing anew with Phil to get him to temper his remarks and withdraw certain false theological ideas? Didn't you notice the "PS" in my last message to you? It reads: "I never said that I could agree with a plan to force Muslims to leave the U.S.. That would seem to be inhumane and unjust." [I think that I even see in Phil's words that he would be in favor of booting out only non-citizens. I think that's what he means by repeatedly referring to Muslim "immigrants." I don't think that he favors exiling U.S. citizens who are Muslim.]

Give me a break (and some respect), Chris, and do yourself a favor in the process.

JG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 23, 2001.


John,

Who knows what Phil is thinking? It is what is between the lines that makes for some really interesting concluding and I've done a better job than you have in restraining myself from speaking for him. I'd like to hear more from him on these little ammendments that he'd like to see.

I would venture to speculate that he'd turn democracy over for a religious state, maybe even creating a state as repressive as the one he so dislikes. I don't agree with you about just keeping it to immigrants. When he says to banish Islam I think he may mean from the face of the planet. Furthermore, I believe he is guilty of stereotyping in the worst degree. He believes that any Muslim has the capacity to snap and become a blood thirsty terrorist. That would be like saying because I (CC)am a Christian that I have the capacity to talk like say, Jerry Falldown.

I'd be putting some serious distance between me and this guy.

As they say Downeast, "the boy just ain't fit", which is by the way where the expression "finestkind" originates. The word speaks for itself.

Love, Chris

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), November 23, 2001.


>>>>Now, I am not going to pick apart your last series of comments to me in detail. And I am not going to provide you the quotations from the Catechism that you demanded, because that is an unreasonable demand. The Catechism is written to tell us about our beliefs and practices -- not about Muslim beliefs.

This is exactly the point. The Cathechism teaches that the Church is to be considered inerrant only in "matter of faith an morals". The Church has the authority to interpret the Bible, but NOT the authority to interpret the koran, or buddist texts, etc. The cathechism teaches that catholics are to adhere with religious assent to the teachings of the Church in "matters of faith and morals". Islam is NOT a matter of faith and morals because it is another religion, and therefore a catholic is not to adhere to the statements you have quoted.

[According to your comments, Phil, NO bonds unite us to Islam. You can see that you are wrong, because you contradict the pope. JFG]

You are wrong again.

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.

It seems to me that you consider every word of the Pope as infallible, which is certainly not what the Church teaches.

>>>Phil, please don't let me down again. Any honest Catholic who reads the quoted passages, above, will conclude that they support various things which I mentioned in earlier messages but which you rejected. I hope that you are one of those "honest Catholics," Phil, and that you will admit that you were wrong. The Church clearly believes that Catholics and Muslims worship the same God. The Church clearly admires certain religious practices or pieties of Muslims.

I must say that I will let you down again, because I still think that I am right about islam. A catholic in fact is NOT to adhere to the contents of your quotations because they are not teachings "in matter of faith and morals". Your belief that the Church has the authority to interpret the koran and to teach what muslins believe is only a personal opinion of yours. The Cathechism teaches that catholics are to adhere only to the teachings in matter of faith and morals.

God bless you,

Phil.

-- phil (lib@lib.us), November 24, 2001.


[According to your comments, Phil, NO bonds unite us to Islam. JFG]

I had missed that statement! Actually, I have never said that no bonds unite us to Islam. I have written in one of my previous posts that there are formally some common points between islamic and cristian theologies. My point is that however the concept of divine love and mercy expressed in the koran is radically different from the christian concept of divine love. Since "God is love", this implies a radically different concept of God.

God bless you,

Phil.

-- phil (lib@lib.us), November 24, 2001.


Jmj

Hello, Marco.

Yes, I won't call you "Phil" any more, because you must be that same old Marco with whom I had so much trouble about nine months ago. Man! This forum really seems to attract people who will stubbornly cling to their theories, no matter how wrong they are and no matter how much evidence one gives them to show that they are mistaken. Is that a characteristic of humans in general, or is it just found in people who have the guts to speak up on Internet forums? I wonder.

My first post on this thread, Marco, revealed my admission that I had been wrong about Islam and the Koran and that you had helped open my eyes to certain things. It is a pity that you seem incapable of imitating me and admitting error when the time comes for such an admission. Apprarently you consider yourself infallible -- Pope Marco?

Now to business ...
If you want to be a dissenter, Marco, I cannot stop you. Among the quotations I put forward last time, the one from Vatican II's "Nostra aetate," at the very least, was an exercise of the universal and ordinary Magisterium of both the bishops and the pope (Paul VI). And here is how "Lumen gentium" [Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] would guide us concerning that passage from "Nostra aetate":
"25 ... Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking ..."

Because of a prejudicial hatred of nearly all aspects of Islam, Marco, you may choose to fool yourself by thinking that the passages I quoted last time do not have to do with "faith and morals," are full of errors, etc.. Yes, you may delude yourself into thinking that you know more about Islam than the popes and bishops. But by doing so you make yourself into a laughing-stock and damage your credibility on all other subjects. It is part of the charisms and responsibilities of the pope and bishops to evaluate Islam and tell us what is good about it. This they have done -- and I think flawlessly. We must be confident in their statements and give them our assent -- a "religious submission of mind and will."

Last time, I said that I would not analyze your previous statements and show how they were wrong, because I preferred to present the Vatican quotations, which I knew would show, in a more general way, that you were far off track. But now you have rejected even the Church's official statements! How amazingly puffed up with pride you are, my good man! Before long, you will be founding your own Protestant denomination! In fact, the reason I pushed and prodded you to tell us the name of your worshipping congregation, on this and earlier threads, was that I was convinced that you were not Catholic! Now finally you have stated that you are Catholic. But, by your actions, you seem to be showing that you are "Catholic in name only," not really trusting the Fathers of Vatican II.
Glancing again at what you have stated in your last two posts, Marco, I was reminded that the single biggest blind spot you have is in what you call the "concept of God." You repeatedly claim that Islam is basically trash and that Muslims' prayers are invalid (and even addressed to satan) because Muslims do not have the proper "concept of God." I believe that the Vatican has clearly taught that you are wrong about this. At least the Vatican has taught that it is sufficient that Muslims have the desire to address the one and only God of Abraham, even if they don't understand his Trinity, his attributes, etc.. In other words, as long as their intentions are pure, Muslims' prayers can be heard and honored by Yahweh.

Marco, I just realized something that also shows your theory to be deeply flawed, if not useless. By your exacting standards, Marco, all the great Jewish patriarchs of the Old Testament really never prayed to God, because they knew nothing of his Trinity and did not yet have revealed to them as much of his nature as Christ revealed while on earth. They didn't have the proper "concept of God"!!! Moreover, if you condemn Islam now, you must also condemn modern Judaism, because (by your theory) even Jews must be praying to satan today. For example, you said, "if a moslem has a wrong concept of God, his prayers are not really directed to the true God." Please tell us, then, Marco. Do you condemn Judaism today and claim that the prayers of Jews, because of their "wrong concept of God," are "not really directed to the true God"? [Of course, that was just a rhetorical question. I don't really want you to condemn Judaism. Instead, as I explained at the top of this message, I hope that you will, at last, humbly admit that you have been terribly mistaken about this subject.]

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 24, 2001.


>>>If you want to be a dissenter, Marco, I cannot stop you. Among the quotations I put forward last time, the one from Vatican II's "Nostra aetate," at the very least, was an exercise of the universal and ordinary Magisterium of both the bishops and the pope (Paul VI). And here is how "Lumen gentium" [Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] would guide us concerning that passage from "Nostra aetate": "25 ... Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent.

These verses prove again my point; islam is NOT a matter of faith and moral. The Magisterium has not the authority to interpret inerrantly the koran, buddistic texts, etc.

>>>>Because of a prejudicial hatred of nearly all aspects of Islam, Marco, you may choose to fool yourself by thinking that the passages I quoted last time do not have to do with "faith and morals," are full of errors, etc.. Yes, you may delude yourself into thinking that you know more about Islam than the popes and bishops. But by doing so you make yourself into a laughing-stock and damage your credibility on all other subjects. It is part of the charisms and responsibilities of the pope and bishops to evaluate Islam and tell us what is good about it.

This is only your opinion, and NOT what the Church teaches. You must understand that the same kind of reasoning induced many people to reject correct scientific theories in the past.

>>>This they have done -- and I think flawlessly.

You may think so, but the Church never said that those statements are to be considered flawless. Anyway, I still think that you are reading too much in those statements. I think that the bishops were only trying to outline common points between the christian and islamic theologies. I do not think that bishops were trying to say that islamic terorrists have a true faith in the true God.

>>>Last time, I said that I would not analyze your previous statements and show how they were wrong, because I preferred to present the Vatican quotations, which I knew would show, in a more general way, that you were far off track. But now you have rejected even the Church's official statements! How amazingly puffed up with pride you are, my good man! Before long, you will be founding your own Protestant denomination! In fact, the reason I pushed and prodded you to tell us the name of your worshipping congregation, on this and earlier threads, was that I was convinced that you were not Catholic! Now finally you have stated that you are Catholic. But, by your actions, you seem to be showing that you are "Catholic in name only," not really trusting the Fathers of Vatican II.

The fact that you consider me "a catholic in name only" is for me irrilevant. It's only your opinion.

>>>>Glancing again at what you have stated in your last two posts, Marco, I was reminded that the single biggest blind spot you have is in what you call the "concept of God." You repeatedly claim that Islam is basically trash and that Muslims' prayers are invalid (and even addressed to satan) because Muslims do not have the proper "concept of God."

NO, I have only said that the prayers of islamic terrorists are directed to satan. Some moslems may eventually have a sufficiently good concept of God, but the concept of God expressed in the koran is radically wrong.

>>>>Marco, I just realized something that also shows your theory to be deeply flawed, if not useless. By your exacting standards, Marco, all the great Jewish patriarchs of the Old Testament really never prayed to God, because they knew nothing of his Trinity and did not yet have revealed to them as much of his nature as Christ revealed while on earth. They didn't have the proper "concept of God"!!!

False. The Jewish patriarchs were not terrorists. They had a sufficiently good concept of God.

>> Moreover, if you condemn Islam now, you must also condemn modern Judaism, because (by your theory) even Jews must be praying to satan today.

False again. The Jews are not terrorists. They may have a sufficently good concept of God.

God bless you,

Phil.

-- phil (lib@lib.us), November 24, 2001.


Your question proposes that "...a true democracy must identify and banish all those ideologies and religions which instigate to violence and therefore represent the foundation of terroristic associations." This is meaningless since every religion and ideology implicitly condones violence against any who do not agree with it. Therefore, your "true democracy" is, in acuality, anarchy. As an aside, I believe that a "true democracy" would not condemn one religion while supporting another. I personally believe that all religions should be outlawed since they are inherently violent organizations and serve to divide rather than unite nations. Since I am a realistic person, I accept that this will never happen. However, it would be nice if our government would at least go so far as to eliminate the tax exemptions given to religious organizations.

-- Richard G. (pandragger@aol.com), November 17, 2002.

Well, I'm a Catholic. If the gov't charged my Church taxes, I wouldn't choose to avoid them. We haven't been fat cats for Christ during the Church's history; despite what all non-catholics think. Poverty is an evangelical virtue. As for democracy-- It will pass.

Enjoy it while you can. It's hardly going to leave behind any pyramids so the earth's future inhabitants can say-- ''Such an advanced civilization.''

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 17, 2002.


Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser, 17th Century Germany:

"When everything has been ruined by war, when Catholics are hard- pressed by traitorous co-religionists and heretics, when the Church and her servants are denied there rights, when the monarchies have been overthrown and their rulers murdered, then the hand of Almighty God will work a marvelous change, something seemingly impossible according to human reason... there will rise a valient king anointed by God. He will be a Catholic and a descendant of Louis IX, yet a descendant of an old imperial German family, born in exile. He will rule supreme in temporal matters. The Pope will rule supreme in spiritual matters at the same time. Persecution will cease and justice shall reign. He will root out false doctrines. His dominion will extend from East to West. All nations will adore God their Lord according to Catholic teaching. There will be many wise and just men. People will love justice, and peace will reign over the whole earth, for Divine Power will bind Satan for many years until the coming of the Son of Perdition... After desolation has reached its peak in England, peace will be restored and England will return to the Catholic faith with greater fervour than ever before... The Great Monarch will have the special help of God and be unconquerable..."

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 17, 2002.


born in exile Emerald please tell me youre not of Arian extraction :-)

-- Kaiser Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 18, 2002.

If anyone were to see the way I have run my business, that would answer that question quite nicely. Former business I should say, as of last Monday. I've turned my back on it all. I'm going to be taking on your job, kiwi, best as I can tell at this time.

For the record, I'm mostly German, but also Spanish, Irish, American Indian (Seminole), and a whole bunch of other stuff, but mostly German. Have no fear... my saying is "today, the garage; tomorrow, the entire house". I can barely manage my 4 (5?) subjects as it is; rebellion, dissent and anarchy flourish.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 18, 2002.


More? This is fun.

St. Francis of Paola, Italy, 15th Century:

"By the grace of the Almighty, the Great Monarch will annihilate heretics and unbelievers. He will have a great army, and angels will fight at his side. He will be like the sun among the stars. His influence will spread over the whole earth. All in all, there will be on earth twelve Kings, on Emperor, one Pope and a few Princes. They will all lead holy lives."

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 18, 2002.


Emerald,

Could you please tell me the source of the above text / prophecy ? Thanks in advance.

Peace & Prayers

-- Xavier (xavier_david24@yahoo.com), November 18, 2002.


St. Methodius, 4th Century:

"A day will come when the enemies of Christ will boast of having conquered the whole world. They will say: "Christians cannot escape us now!" But a Great King will arise to fight the enemies of God. He will defeat them, and peace will be given to the world, and the Church will be freed from her anxieties."

-- Emerald (emerald@cox.net), November 18, 2002.


All over the place her on my desk, Xavier. Some books have pre- compiled a lot and are written long ago, but I get them from all different places, not just the net. I typed those in by hand, but I bet they are on the net somewhere.

Bits and pieces from everywhere... some I've looked into deeper than others. I just threw these out, there are tons of them. I keep it down to only Saints, Blesseds and Venerables for the most part. I have some other things no one else has that say the same things.

The most important element is to make sure that nothing contradicts the Deposit of the Faith.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 18, 2002.


Emerald,

You madeup my day :-)

Peace & Prayers

-- Xavier (xavier_david24@yahoo.com), November 18, 2002.


Cool, Xavier.

We are the bride of Christ, awaiting the great wedding day. Our job is to remain spotless and to hold to the promise of engagement. This can only be had through great suffering, anxiety and trials.

It is an exclusive and 'monogomous' relationship, a single hearted desire for the Bridegroom Christ... Doctrine is the name of the game. We must perservere in Doctrine; and in Will... we must submit our will to the Creator at all costs, at all personal expense, all of everything leaving nothing in store. Clearance time; all mammon must go, all affairs with false gods must be purged.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 18, 2002.


Hi Emerald beautiful thoughts on the deposit of faith. Have you considered teaching RE, (is that what you mean?) are you considering teaching, if so what age group?

Sorry to hear about the business... das is kaput? A side line maybe? Finally are you expecting another child?..if you are many many congratulations to you and your wife...wicked! oh blessings obv.

See you

-- Nosey Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 18, 2002.


Emerald,

The link is here http://www.firefromheaven.net/2001/oracles.html

Peace & Prayers

-- Xavier (xavier_david24@yahoo.com), November 18, 2002.


No extra babies kiwi... I would start probably with high school history and/or religion if I do it, and if it is a private school. I have most of a masters in education, but never did that part they require here as a student/teacher, plus I would probably need some more classes, as it was I think '89 when I quit the program. Put a good word in to the One upstairs, for me? I have no idea how I'm going to pull this off.

Hey... Xavier, I haven't seen that site. I skimmed over it and there's a lot of the ones I'm talking about in there. I should have said 'dozens' and not 'hundreds' for accuracy. I'm reading Algreda's Mystical City of God a little here and there about Mary... it is hard to put down sometimes. Some people will take issue with certain ones listed there, such as Nostradamus, which I can appreciate because the character of an insight is greater when attributed to a saint, blessed or venerable. Not to say that the others may not have the gift of insight, but rather what to make of their intentions.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 18, 2002.


Dear Friends,

I am looking for the full text of Pope Gregory VII's letter to Naseer King of the Moors, which is quoted in Nostra Aetate.

I have an extract, found in a book, reproduced today on my site: http://www.geocities.com/prakashjm45/anzir.html

Prax Maskaren

-- Prakash John Mascarenhas (prakashjm45@yahoo.com), April 13, 2003.


Hi Phil.

You are out to make Christians to exist in the same way that our enemies do. They are trying to eradicate us for the same theological reasons.

So, how would we be different from our enemies if we execute the same actions or same justifications?

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 13, 2003.


Jmj

Hello, Prax.
You said that you would like to find the full text of a letter by Pope St. Gregory VII.

If I were you, I would consider obtaining a copy of "The Correspondence of Pope Gregory VII" (translated by Ephraim Emerton). It is available in paperback for $19.50. However, indications seem to be that it is not a brand new book, but one first published in 1932. Therefore, you may be able to find a used copy for less -- or a copy in a library.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 15, 2003.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ