PDA

View Full Version : Muhammad and His Quran: Blood and Lies at the Root of Islam (E-Book)



btw which ones Pink?
29-08-2013, 17:33
Muhammad and His Quran: Blood and Lies at the Root of Islam (E-Book) by Mohammad Asghar free download.

The history of Mohamed starting at his birth.

Mohammad Asghar's fine book, "Muhammad and His Quran: Blood and Lies at the Root of Islam", is being released for free downloading.

It's unfortunate that such a fine piece of work did not get a publisher, which would have helped wider circulation of the essential, invaluable manuscript.

Can be read here. (Its over 400 pages so bring lunch)

http://www.islam-watch.org/MAsghar/Muhammad-His-Quran-Mohammad-Asghar.pdf

btw which ones Pink?
29-08-2013, 17:59
Contents
THE HAUNTING ……………………………………………………………. 1
Interpeting the Quran ………………………………………………………… 10
I. THE OUTCAST: MUHAMMAD IN MECCA……………………………..18
An Accidental Conception? ………………………………………………….. 18
The Spring and the Rock …………………………………………………….. 24
Was Muhammad Switched?.............................................................................. 28
The Orphan’s Ordeals ………………………………………………………... 32
The Caravan Trader……………………………………………………………34
Muhammad and the Pagan World ……………………………………………. 45
The Indispensable Lady ……………………………………………………… 49
The Angel in the Cave ……………………………………………………….. 61
Preacher in the Hills …………………………………………………………..70
Muhammad Channels Satan………………………………………………….. 77
The Abyssinian Adventure ……………………………………………………79
The Conversion of Omar………………………………………………………83
Clampdown ……………………………………………………………………88
Rebuff at Taif ………………………………………………………………….93
The Night of the Seven Heavens ………………………………………………96

II. THE TYRANT: MUHAMMAD IN MEDINA …………………………...102

cont........



The Haunting

Because Muhammad’s favorite wife lost a necklace, Muslim women can rarely prove
rape. Because Muhammad grew up poor, Muslims conquered a larger empire than
Alexander the Great. Because the Prophet needed an excuse for a dalliance, Palestinians
launched the second intifada.
Muhammad haunts us, in ways that often defy comprehension.
His Quran is the world’s most poorly understood book. Its commands seem universal
and urgent, and one in five people on earth treats it as a guide to life. Yet the Prophet’s
spur-of-the-moment needs led to key precepts, and they only make sense in the context of
his career. This book shows how it is less a guide to life than a record of gambits in
Muhammad’s stunning rise.

JanC
29-08-2013, 18:44
Much as I like to pile on when it comes to dismantling religion, when the site Islam-watch calls something of an unknown author "a fine piece of work" some red flags go up. It's not that this makes the book and its conclusions invalid in itself but I wouldn't rush into this for no other reason than that it complies with what you already think.

Benedikt
30-08-2013, 01:03
[QUOTE=btw which ones Pink?;1209827]Muhammad and His Quran: Blood and Lies at the Root of Islam (E-Book) by Mohammad Asghar free download.

The history of Mohamed starting at his birth.


and having some traveling to do i down loaded it on a flash key. and 400 pages will keep me busy for a while indeed.

rusmeister
31-08-2013, 19:17
The most essential things in reading such books is identifying the worldview of the writer, and being able to find and distinguish what is true from what is false even in a writer whose worldview is inimical to you.

I prefer to find the writers that are clearly smarter than me (that I can see think circles around me), and stick to them. There's not enough time in our lives to read everything.

Suuryaa
31-08-2013, 20:21
"Let the different faiths exist, let them flourish, let the glory of God be sung in all languages in a variety of tunes. That should be the ideal. Respect the differences between the faiths and recognize them as valid so far as they do not extinguish the flame of unity.

Should each person live the ideals propounded by the founders of his religion, unaffected by greed or hate, then the world will be a happy and peaceful habitation for man.

In spiritual terms all of mankind belongs to one and the same cl**** race, and religion.

The followers of each religion call upon One God who is omnipresent and listens to their prayers, be they from any race or whatever language they speak; but it is the same God who confers happiness on all of mankind. No religion has a separate God showering grace only on those who profess to abide by that faith.

Honor all religions. Each is a pathway to God. That is the right way of life.

Devotion has to be unintermittent, uninterrupted, like the flow of oil from one vessel to another."

btw which ones Pink?
01-09-2013, 03:52
The most essential things in reading such books is identifying the worldview of the writer, and being able to find and distinguish what is true from what is false even in a writer whose worldview is inimical to you.

I prefer to find the writers that are clearly smarter than me (that I can see think circles around me), and stick to them. There's not enough time in our lives to read everything.

How are you going to know if he is smarter than you if you havent read it? I'd already wager that he knows one hell of a lot more than you in the subject of Mohamed. And I'd wager that I do also!

You can find much of this explained in the work of Ibn Ishaq "The Life of Mohamed" dating from about 760AD. Only even then you still have read up on what Ibn Hisham, a student of Ibn Ishaq, said that he left out, when he reconstructed the biography after it was destroyed, from fragments and notes that he had collected.

I wont bother posting any links because I know you are not interested in truth yet

btw which ones Pink?
01-09-2013, 04:02
The followers of each religion call upon One God who is omnipresent and listens to their prayers, be they from any race or whatever language they speak; but it is the same God who confers happiness on all of mankind. No religion has a separate God showering grace only on those who profess to abide by that faith.

Honor all religions. Each is a pathway to God. That is the right way of life.



That's your opinion, one of many! The fact that many diagree with the above statement is proof in itself that the satement is false. For example...People don't agree that Mohamed's god is the same as "Yahwey" as revealed to Moses in Tora and Bible. Or that there are many paths to God. Now that's just a fact! What your statement actually is ...is wishful thinking.

You may as well say that priests throwing sacrificed humans with their hearts cut out down the temple steps is a pathway to God also!

btw which ones Pink?
01-09-2013, 04:06
Much as I like to pile on when it comes to dismantling religion, when the site Islam-watch calls something of an unknown author "a fine piece of work" some red flags go up. It's not that this makes the book and its conclusions invalid in itself but I wouldn't rush into this for no other reason than that it complies with what you already think.

I'm sorry...I'll try to get "Sky News" or "CNN" to review the author for you.

rusmeister
01-09-2013, 06:57
How are you going to know if he is smarter than you if you havent read it? I'd already wager that he knows one hell of a lot more than you in the subject of Mohamed. And I'd wager that I do also!

You can find much of this explained in the work of Ibn Ishaq "The Life of Mohamed" dating from about 760AD. Only even then you still have read up on what Ibn Hisham, a student of Ibn Ishaq, said that he left out, when he reconstructed the biography after it was destroyed, from fragments and notes that he had collected.

I wont bother posting any links because I know you are not interested in truth yet

I know there are plenty of people who know details of subjects that I will never know. I mean in terms of ability to think in general, someone who takes things I think I DO know and shows me that he knows better. That I do not find so often. But I do. Chesterton makes me look like a child. I see the greatness of Lewis, who (nevertheless) stands in Chesterton's shadow as I do in Lewis's; they are both my superiors, and not only in general ability to think. Anthony Bloom shows me how my spirituality has not yet grown, where it needs to grow towards.

So it is not the person who tells you something you don't know that I find interesting. Practically any human being can do that. It is the person who shows me how to think better about what I DO know. And that you don't find in any book, just as you don't find $100 bills lying on every street corner.

JanC
01-09-2013, 07:03
I'm sorry...I'll try to get "Sky News" or "CNN" to review the author for you.

I don't need a review, I couldnt even find his credentials. Probably a Google conspiracy.

rusmeister
01-09-2013, 07:09
"Let the different faiths exist, let them flourish, let the glory of God be sung in all languages in a variety of tunes. That should be the ideal. Respect the differences between the faiths and recognize them as valid so far as they do not extinguish the flame of unity.

Should each person live the ideals propounded by the founders of his religion, unaffected by greed or hate, then the world will be a happy and peaceful habitation for man.

In spiritual terms all of mankind belongs to one and the same cl**** race, and religion.

The followers of each religion call upon One God who is omnipresent and listens to their prayers, be they from any race or whatever language they speak; but it is the same God who confers happiness on all of mankind. No religion has a separate God showering grace only on those who profess to abide by that faith.

Honor all religions. Each is a pathway to God. That is the right way of life.

Devotion has to be unintermittent, uninterrupted, like the flow of oil from one vessel to another."
This is generally false; it is a lie which you have come to believe; a quite seductive one that appears to offer peace and joy on relatively easy terms. It says that it doesn't matter what you believe; that all beliefs are essentially the same, as if the externals, the forms were different but the essence the same.

Untrue. It is the forms which are largely the same and the essence which is wildly different. Every religion has candles, rituals, vestments, hymns. But karma really does produce castes, and the children of God produce the brotherhood of man. The Hindu God is radically different from the Christian God, as are Baal, Moloch and Tanet. The God of Islam is terribly alone; the Christian God is a community. One says that I should strive for nothingness; become one with everything, which is the eradication of personality (which is the aspect of death most terrible), the other says that my personality is to be eternally unique and will live forever as such.

A thorough exposition of this idea - with a special comparison of Christianity and Buddhism:
http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/orthodoxy/ch8.html

Suuryaa
01-09-2013, 11:59
This is generally false; it is a lie which you have come to believe; a quite seductive one that appears to offer peace and joy on relatively easy terms. It says that it doesn't matter what you believe; that all beliefs are essentially the same, as if the externals, the forms were different but the essence the same.

Untrue. It is the forms which are largely the same and the essence which is wildly different. Every religion has candles, rituals, vestments, hymns. But karma really does produce castes, and the children of God produce the brotherhood of man. The Hindu God is radically different from the Christian God, as are Baal, Moloch and Tanet. The God of Islam is terribly alone; the Christian God is a community. One says that I should strive for nothingness; become one with everything, which is the eradication of personality (which is the aspect of death most terrible), the other says that my personality is to be eternally unique and will live forever as such.

A thorough exposition of this idea - with a special comparison of Christianity and Buddhism:
http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/orthodoxy/ch8.html

This is not what was meant there. "The followers of each religion call upon One God". Different religions see God differently due to people who profess them having cultural and other differences. But it's the same God!

Suuryaa
01-09-2013, 12:00
You may as well say that priests throwing sacrificed humans with their hearts cut out down the temple steps

In which religion is this?

btw which ones Pink?
01-09-2013, 12:48
Mayans ane Aztecs. In mespotamoa there was baby sacrifice to Molech or Baal...you know!

btw which ones Pink?
01-09-2013, 13:23
But it's the same God!

Its clearly not the same god. Mohamed claimed this but the Jews of his day didnt see it that way and neither did the Christians and they scoffed at Mohamed. This enraged Mohamed to the point where he made war against them, which basically proved their point.

It wasnt cultural differences that caused this. It is scriptural differences. The teachings of Mohamed about his new god are the antithesis to the God of Abraham.

I suggest you read the book. Much of it is taken from writings that are as old as the Koran.

rusmeister
01-09-2013, 17:34
This is not what was meant there. "The followers of each religion call upon One God". Different religions see God differently due to people who profess them having cultural and other differences. But it's the same God!

Suuryaa, it is EXACTLY what is meant there. Anyone reading your words now AND Chesterton's text will see that he is talking about what you are saying right now. It is precisely what he shows to be false.

So I have to agree with btw here, though I really don't like his style; he's right, in general, on this one.

One of my favorite parts, which touches on true difference between the God of the Christians and Allah of Islam:

But there is nothing in the least liberal or akin to reform in the substitution of pure monotheism for the Trinity. The complex God of the Athanasian Creed may be an enigma for the intellect; but He is far less likely to gather the mystery and cruelty of a Sultan than the lonely god of Omar or Mahomet. The god who is a mere awful unity is not only a king but an Eastern king. The heart of humanity, especially of European humanity, is certainly much more satisfied by the strange hints and symbols that gather round the Trinitarian idea, the image of a council at which mercy pleads as well as justice, the conception of a sort of liberty and variety existing even in the inmost chamber of the world. For Western religion has always felt keenly the idea "it is not well for man to be alone." The social instinct asserted itself everywhere as when the Eastern idea of hermits was practically expelled by the Western idea of monks. So even asceticism became brotherly; and the Trappists were sociable even when they were silent. If this love of a living complexity be our test, it is certainly healthier to have the Trinitarian religion than the Unitarian. For to us Trinitarians (if I may say it with reverence) -- to us God Himself is a society. It is indeed a fathomless mystery of theology, and even if I were theologian enough to deal with it directly, it would not be relevant to do so here. Suffice it to say here that this triple enigma is as comforting as wine and open as an English fireside; that this thing that bewilders the intellect utterly quiets the heart: but out of the desert, from the dry places and, the dreadful suns, come the cruel children of the lonely God; the real Unitarians who with scimitar in hand have laid waste the world. For it is not well for God to be alone.

penka
01-09-2013, 18:05
The God of the Old and the New Testament is not the same God judging by the text.

The trouble is, man interpreted and written down all the original messages, stipulating everything and adding at leisure. And this man was not a woman.

rusmeister
01-09-2013, 19:40
The God of the Old and the New Testament is not the same God judging by the text.

The trouble is, man interpreted and written down all the original messages, stipulating everything and adding at leisure. And this man was not a woman.

I think that you CAN'T judge by the text, not you alone, the individual, without guidance.

As to the "adding at leisure", I think it a tremendous point that the writers were more often than not under persecution, with no leisure, and ready to die rather than deny what they claimed to be the truth. It makes zero psychological sense to choose death to defend something you know to be untrue. Occam's Razor says that that can't be the case.
That makes me skeptical of committed skepticism.

Suuryaa
01-09-2013, 21:14
Its clearly not the same god. Mohamed claimed this but the Jews of his day didnt see it that way and neither did the Christians and they scoffed at Mohamed. This enraged Mohamed to the point where he made war against them, which basically proved their point.

It wasnt cultural differences that caused this. It is scriptural differences. The teachings of Mohamed about his new god are the antithesis to the God of Abraham.

I suggest you read the book. Much of it is taken from writings that are as old as the Koran.

The same God described by different people who perceived Him differently. The message to them was also the same. But their limited understanding and worldview in some areas did not let them comprehend this message fully.

yakspeare
02-09-2013, 04:03
Allah and the G-D of the Jews are one and the same, indeed middle eastern Jews also use the name Allah. It is why Jews can pray in a mosque but not in a church, the christian concept of G-d is vastly different and against the Torah and Jewish religious texts.

G-d not good to be alone so he has himself as company? Apart from the angelic host and us,how is he alone? And why would loneliness plague the almighty, Rus is ascribing human qualities to a deity.

JanC
02-09-2013, 05:46
I think it a tremendous point that the writers were more often than not under persecution, with no leisure, and ready to die rather than deny what they claimed to be the truth. It makes zero psychological sense to choose death to defend something you know to be untrue. Occam's Razor says that that can't be the case.
That makes me skeptical of committed skepticism.

I don't think even skeptics are claiming that early believers did not actually believe. It's just that belief has little bearing on reality. Would you like a list of imaginary things people have given their life for over the years? Not to mention the ones who actually went ahead and offed themselves in weird cults and sects because the end was supposed to be nigh.

Some people will die defending their lord whether he is of earth or imagined. People also die for their principles sometimes...that wouldn't prove their principles were right. People have flown themselves along with a few hundred others into buildings for that matter.

It's a tremendously short sighted point.

But on topic of "the trinity" I think the Jews and Muslims are making more sense than Christians. They are sticking more to the original script whereas the holy trinity was something that simply got voted on between humans, without unanimous agreement, hundreds of years after Christ.

btw which ones Pink?
02-09-2013, 06:23
Allah and the G-D of the Jews are one and the same, indeed middle eastern Jews also use the name Allah.

I think JanC summed it up correctly "Belief has no bearing on reality"!!

Just because the Allah is used does not mean that Yahweh and Allah are the same. They are cleary not, to anyone who knows Yahweh.

Mohammedans since the time of Mo have tried to ingratiate themsleves into the Scriptures with no avail. And the only people that believe their claims oddly enough are those who happen to be ignorant on the subject matter.

The word Allah was also used in connection, in Mecca during Mo's day, with the Moon god who was the main pagan diety. Therefore, simply saying that because The word is now used by a few Christians that "Yahwey is Allah are the same" is pretty much inane dont you think?

rusmeister
02-09-2013, 06:29
I don't think even skeptics are claiming that early believers did not actually believe. It's just that belief has little bearing on reality. Would you like a list of imaginary things people have given their life for over the years? Not to mention the ones who actually went ahead and offed themselves in weird cults and sects because the end was supposed to be nigh.

Some people will die defending their lord whether he is of earth or imagined. People also die for their principles sometimes...that wouldn't prove their principles were right. People have flown themselves along with a few hundred others into buildings for that matter.

It's a tremendously short sighted point.

But on topic of "the trinity" I think the Jews and Muslims are making more sense than Christians. They are sticking more to the original script whereas the holy trinity was something that simply got voted on between humans, without unanimous agreement, hundreds of years after Christ.

Au contraire.
You believe a great many things, and do in fact hold that those beliefs have a huge bearing on reality, above all what you see and hear with your own eyes and ears.

If you saw a guy actually and undoubtedly killed, officially executed and even a doctor saying, "He's dead, Jim, I mean, Jan" and then actually saw him walking around, talked to him and touched his execution wounds, then you would not think it a matter of your imagination. You would be forced to admit that an incredible thing must be accepted. Yak really believes that he actually hurt himself and was inexplicably and immediately healed with a multitude of witnesses. Ask him if that could possibly be his imagination.

But it is really enough to say that you believe you have actually seen and heard things (everything in your life) and think it actually true, and not your imagination. You believe in that so strongly that you invoke science as a sure authority that can tell us truth. You do not see that all of life is an incredible miracle, that it really might not be, and yet IS.

Not knowing the history of the doctrine of the Trinity, I can see how you hold such a simplistic view. It's just like creationists knowing nothing about evolutionary theory can hold simplistic views about the appearance of life on earth. You "know" and never inquire.
(I'll note that I am NOT a creationist in your understanding of the term, one of the many misunderstandings you never ask about.)

rusmeister
02-09-2013, 06:49
G-d not good to be alone so he has himself as company? Apart from the angelic host and us,how is he alone? And why would loneliness plague the almighty, Rus is ascribing human qualities to a deity.

Precisely in the sense that each individual is alone inside his own head, and sometimes actually finds himself. This is never true of the Trinitarian God, even in the unimaginable eternity before anything was ever created. The Son existed before all things, and is eternally begotten, not made. It is an admitted mystery, and we have something of the problem described by CS Lewis of two-dimensional square beings trying to grasp the three-dimensional concept of a cube.

As to loneliness plaguing God as He is, I claim nothing of the sort. You completely misunderstand Chesterton's point, which is that a man-made God is precisely the one that is not mystery, that you CAN wrap your head around, and that the human idea of the purely monolithic God really does produce the murderous radicalism that ever renews itself in Islam despite the existence of peaceful adherents, and that we do not find in Christianity. Generally speaking, there are no Christian suicide bombers crying "Glory to God in the highest!" as they blow themselves and a dozen victims up. (I can imagine here people rushing to find exceptions and treat them as a rule, like the perennial rule of Jihad we DO find in Islam). It is that false understanding of a lone monolithic God that actually can and regularly does produce this murderousness. It is not good for God to (so) be alone.

btw which ones Pink?
02-09-2013, 07:06
G-D of the Jews.

There is also no scriptural authority write "G-D" instead of "God"!

In the King James edition where you today read LORD you should be reading "Yahweh"

Jack17
02-09-2013, 07:30
Precisely in the sense that each individual is alone inside his own head, and sometimes actually finds himself. This is never true of the Trinitarian God, even in the unimaginable eternity before anything was ever created. The Son existed before all things, and is eternally begotten, not made. It is an admitted mystery, and we have something of the problem described by CS Lewis of two-dimensional square beings trying to grasp the three-dimensional concept of a cube.

As to loneliness plaguing God as He is, I claim nothing of the sort. You completely misunderstand Chesterton's point, which is that a man-made God is precisely the one that is not mystery, that you CAN wrap your head around, and that the human idea of the purely monolithic God really does produce the murderous radicalism that ever renews itself in Islam despite the existence of peaceful adherents, and that we do not find in Christianity. Generally speaking, there are no Christian suicide bombers crying "Glory to God in the highest!" as they blow themselves and a dozen victims up. (I can imagine here people rushing to find exceptions and treat them as a rule, like the perennial rule of Jihad we DO find in Islam). It is that false understanding of a lone monolithic God that actually can and regularly does produce this murderousness. It is not good for God to (so) be alone.
In hoc signo vinces

Suuryaa
02-09-2013, 10:14
Mayans ane Aztecs. In mespotamoa there was baby sacrifice to Molech or Baal...you know!

Right :). I meant the more widespread religions, like Christianity, Hinduism, etc. THEY don't have such things.

Suuryaa
02-09-2013, 10:52
Some examples of unity of religions and their acceptance of each other.

Orthodox theologian Losskiy was against Eastern religions saying that there's no truth in them. Then his acquaintance wrote out 8 quotes from a Hindu religious text (the Upanishads) and showed them to Losskiy. He looked at the quotes for 2 minutes and said 8 names of Orthodox Fathers. Then he was told that the quotes were from the Upanishads. This made Losskiy change his position.

(Митрополит Сурожский Антоний (1914-2003): «...Я вам приводил уже разговор, состоявшийся у меня много лет назад с одним из замечательных богословов, который был человеком молитвы и молчания, и то, что он говорил, исходило из его сердца и опыта, - с В. Н. Лосским. Мы беседовали о языческих верованиях, и он сказал: «Вне христианства настоящего знания Бога нет». Я был слишком молод, чтобы спорить с ним, но не мог принять его утверждение, поэтому пошел домой (мы жили через дорогу), выписал восемь отрывков из Упанишад, древних индийских писаний, принес их ему и, да простит меня Господь за вранье, сказал: «Когда я читаю Отцов, то выписываю цитаты, которые меня особенно поразили, и всегда указываю имя автора, но вот восемь отрывков, где я забыл указать автора. Не могли бы вы посмотреть?» Он посмотрел и за несколько минут под каждой из цитат из Упанишад поставил имена величайших святых: Григория Богослова, Василия Великого, Иоанна Златоуста, Симеона Нового Богослова. И когда он закончил, я сказал: «Да, но все это из Упанишад». Он посмотрел на меня и ответил: «Мне придется пересмотреть свои взгляды заново...»

(* Владимир Николаевич Лосский (1903—1958) — известный православный богослов, сын русского философа Н. О. Лосского.)

Muslims welcome Pope Francis

The World Muslim Congress, a think tank, and the Foundation for Pluralism congratulate the new Pope, Pope Francis.

“I hope he heralds a new beginning for building a better world. In behalf of the people of faith or no faith, and my faith Islam, I welcome the Pope and make ourselves available to jump at his call for creating a peace in the world, where no human has to live in fear of the others, let the world be the new kingdom of heaven where we all feel safe and secure with each other. Amen”

There are a few deeply rooted conflicts among the Muslim-Christian, and Jewish-Christian communities that are the root cause of much of the conflict in the world, they have been simmering within the hearts and minds of the Christians, Muslims and Jews, and flare up now and then in difficult expressions.

The world needs a powerful personality to urge Muslims and Christians to accept the otherness of the other without the temptation to correct the other. It needs a strong personality that can absolve Jews from the myths ascribed to them. It needs a pope who is a blessed peacemaker and extends his embrace to the Pagans, Hindus and all others who do not worship or worship God in their own way. We are all children of God and honoring each other is honoring the creator.

We pray that Pope Francis ushers us into a new era of dialogue and respect for each other, Amen.

http://theghousediary.blogspot.ru/2013/03/muslims-welcome-pope-francis.html

Vatican congratulates Hindus for 'Diwali' festival

It's a religious festival that represents the victory of truth, family reconciliation and adoration of God. The celebration, which is also known as the 'festival of light' actually marks the beginning of the Hindu New Year. This year it began on November 5th and lasted a total of three days.

The Vatican says it appreciates this festival because the celebration highlights that education begins within the family, since it's in the family that one first learns about peace, truth, justice, love and freedom.
http://www.romereports.com/palio/promoting-peace-and-co-existence-vatican-congratulates-hindus-for-diwali-festival-english-8213.html#.UiQx0uU6v3E

Meeting of Patriarch Kirill and mufti Talgat Tadjuddin where Kirill gave the Muslims two awards.
http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/955254.html

The leaders of the four most numerous religions in Russia, Orthodoxy, Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism, work together in the Interreligious Council of Russia. (Межрелигиозный совет России (МСР) — общественный орган, объединяющий в себе лидеров четырех ведущих религиозных традиций России — православия, ислама, иудаизма и буддизма.

МСР был образован 23 декабря 1998 года на встрече глав и представителей Московской патриархии, Совета муфтиев России, Центрального духовного управления мусульман России и европейских стран СНГ, Конгресса еврейских религиозных организаций и объединений в России и Буддийской традиционной сангхи России.

Инициатива создания исходила от Русской Православной Церкви. Целью деятельности МСР является координация совместных действий и противодействие использованию религиозных чувств для разжигания межэтнических конфликтов, утверждение в обществе традиционных духовных ценностей, согласия и стабильности, диалог с государственной властью России и других стран. Высшим органом МСР является Президиум, формируемый Учредителями, постоянно действующим исполнительным органом — Секретариат.) http://kremlin.ru/terms/М

Their meeting with the President http://simvol-veri.ru/xp/stenogramma-besedi-v.-putina-s-predstavitelyami-pravoslaviya-islama-iudaizma-buddizma-katolicizma-i-protestantizma.html

These are only a few examples out of many!

rusmeister
02-09-2013, 10:56
In hoc signo vinces

Indeed. You have to go back to the beginning of the fourth century and find a pagan ruler to even get that. It just reinforces the point. You could just as easily have referred to the Crusades (not an Orthodox thing) as another general historical exception, though it is certainlya defensible one, and limited in scope to restoring the Holy Lands (taken by violent invadion by said Muslims), and not conquering the world, but it would still not make the rule that the constant call for Jihad really does.

yakspeare
02-09-2013, 11:20
Indeed. You have to go back to the beginning of the fourth century and find a pagan ruler to even get that. It just reinforces the point. You could just as easily have referred to the Crusades (not an Orthodox thing) as another general historical exception, though it is certainlya defensible one, and limited in scope to restoring the Holy Lands (taken by violent invadion by said Muslims), and not conquering the world, but it would still not make the rule that the constant call for Jihad really does.

and yet many in the Holy land actually welcomed the muslim invaders because they kicked out the much harsher byzantians.

rusmeister
02-09-2013, 13:19
and yet many in the Holy land actually welcomed the muslim invaders because they kicked out the much harsher byzantians.
Ah, the paintbrush, seeking ways to minimize the significance of the main fact - that Islam was the invader and Christendom the thing invaded. It is that magnification and even distortion of small facts and the reduction of the much bigger fact that makes the paintbrush obvious.
(Here comes the long post with the hundred claims of modern historians and pseudo-historians to try to fog the main fact...)

yakspeare
02-09-2013, 13:48
Ah, the paintbrush, seeking ways to minimize the significance of the main fact - that Islam was the invader and Christendom the thing invaded. It is that magnification and even distortion of small facts and the reduction of the much bigger fact that makes the paintbrush obvious.
(Here comes the long post with the hundred claims of modern historians and pseudo-historians to try to fog the main fact...)

Er how is Christendom the thing invaded? Christendom=Roman/Byzantine empire...Rome also invaded. Destroyed the Jewish temple etc. It is Jewish land with no acceptable counter claim by christendom. Christendom-that persecuted and murdered Jews.

btw which ones Pink?
02-09-2013, 15:20
These are only a few examples out of many!

There is no doubt that religious leaders are pushing for an acceptance of all religions eg; Chrislam and Interfaith movements, but they can only do so by changing the precepts of their own religions. Something that no human has the authority to do in Christianity and Judaism, for to do so creates a whole new false religion.

Christians are particularly suspect of such attempts because Biblical prophecy sates that such an attempt will be made by the Antichrist who will cause those Christians who cling to the original teachings of Jesus to be "beheaded" and bring the world to the point of destruction.

So it will never work!

The teachings of Mohamed and Jesus are mutually opposed.

Suuryaa
02-09-2013, 15:36
There is no doubt that religious leaders are pushing for an acceptance of all religions eg; Chrislam and Interfaith movements, but they can only do so by changing the precepts of their own religions. Something that no human has the authority to do in Christianity and Judaism, for to do so creates a whole new false religion.

Christians are particularly suspect of such attempts because Biblical prophecy sates that such an attempt will be made by the Antichrist who will cause those Christians who cling to the original teachings of Jesus to be "beheaded" and bring the world to the point of destruction.

So it will never work!

The teachings of Mohamed and Jesus are mutually opposed.

Why the need to change the religions? I rather prefer "unity in diversity". Religions stay as they are, but they agree that they have some common principles, like non-violence, friendship, compassion, love, peace of mind. And seeing that they have quite many things in common, different religions can base their cooperation on this fact.

btw which ones Pink?
02-09-2013, 15:48
Why the need to change the religions? I rather prefer "unity in diversity". Religions stay as they are, but they agree that they have some common principles, like non-violence, friendship, compassion, love, peace of mind. And seeing that they have quite many things in common, different religions can base their cooperation on this fact.

Well you see there is one religion in that bunch that is unlike all other religions that well never agree to non-violence - Islam.
Islam has so much inbuilt violence that many Moslems will never fit in. And that is the whole point of me posting this thread suggesting that people read the book.

Sure some mullahs may say they will go along with it, but lying to advance their religion, "Taqiyya" is a precept of Islam set by Mohamed himself. (The most perfect man according to them) So you would never know what their true motives were. It would be a tough sell.

Suuryaa
02-09-2013, 16:01
Well you see there is one religion in that bunch that is unlike all other religions that well never agree to non-violence - Islam.
Islam has so much inbuilt violence that many Moslems will never fit in. And that is the whole point of me posting this thread suggesting that people read the book.

Sure some mullahs may say they will go along with it, but lying to advance their religion, "Taqiyya" is a precept of Islam set by Mohamed himself. (The most perfect man according to them) So you would never know what their true motives were. It would be a tough sell.

Still I hope for the best. I have two examples where Islam is quite peaceful: Tatarstan, region of Russia, and Turkey.

rusmeister
02-09-2013, 17:08
Some examples of unity of religions and their acceptance of each other.

Orthodox theologian Losskiy was against Eastern religions saying that there's no truth in them. Then his acquaintance wrote out 8 quotes from a Hindu religious text (the Upanishads) and showed them to Losskiy. He looked at the quotes for 2 minutes and said 8 names of Orthodox Fathers. Then he was told that the quotes were from the Upanishads. This made Losskiy change his position.

(Митрополит Сурожский Антоний (1914-2003): «...Я вам приводил уже разговор, состоявшийся у меня много лет назад с одним из замечательных богословов, который был человеком молитвы и молчания, и то, что он говорил, исходило из его сердца и опыта, - с В. Н. Лосским. Мы беседовали о языческих верованиях, и он сказал: «Вне христианства настоящего знания Бога нет». Я был слишком молод, чтобы спорить с ним, но не мог принять его утверждение, поэтому пошел домой (мы жили через дорогу), выписал восемь отрывков из Упанишад, древних индийских писаний, принес их ему и, да простит меня Господь за вранье, сказал: «Когда я читаю Отцов, то выписываю цитаты, которые меня особенно поразили, и всегда указываю имя автора, но вот восемь отрывков, где я забыл указать автора. Не могли бы вы посмотреть?» Он посмотрел и за несколько минут под каждой из цитат из Упанишад поставил имена величайших святых: Григория Богослова, Василия Великого, Иоанна Златоуста, Симеона Нового Богослова. И когда он закончил, я сказал: «Да, но все это из Упанишад». Он посмотрел на меня и ответил: «Мне придется пересмотреть свои взгляды заново...»

(* Владимир Николаевич Лосский (1903—1958) — известный православный богослов, сын русского философа Н. О. Лосского.)

Muslims welcome Pope Francis

The World Muslim Congress, a think tank, and the Foundation for Pluralism congratulate the new Pope, Pope Francis.

“I hope he heralds a new beginning for building a better world. In behalf of the people of faith or no faith, and my faith Islam, I welcome the Pope and make ourselves available to jump at his call for creating a peace in the world, where no human has to live in fear of the others, let the world be the new kingdom of heaven where we all feel safe and secure with each other. Amen”

There are a few deeply rooted conflicts among the Muslim-Christian, and Jewish-Christian communities that are the root cause of much of the conflict in the world, they have been simmering within the hearts and minds of the Christians, Muslims and Jews, and flare up now and then in difficult expressions.

The world needs a powerful personality to urge Muslims and Christians to accept the otherness of the other without the temptation to correct the other. It needs a strong personality that can absolve Jews from the myths ascribed to them. It needs a pope who is a blessed peacemaker and extends his embrace to the Pagans, Hindus and all others who do not worship or worship God in their own way. We are all children of God and honoring each other is honoring the creator.

We pray that Pope Francis ushers us into a new era of dialogue and respect for each other, Amen.

http://theghousediary.blogspot.ru/2013/03/muslims-welcome-pope-francis.html

Vatican congratulates Hindus for 'Diwali' festival

It's a religious festival that represents the victory of truth, family reconciliation and adoration of God. The celebration, which is also known as the 'festival of light' actually marks the beginning of the Hindu New Year. This year it began on November 5th and lasted a total of three days.

The Vatican says it appreciates this festival because the celebration highlights that education begins within the family, since it's in the family that one first learns about peace, truth, justice, love and freedom.
http://www.romereports.com/palio/promoting-peace-and-co-existence-vatican-congratulates-hindus-for-diwali-festival-english-8213.html#.UiQx0uU6v3E

Meeting of Patriarch Kirill and mufti Talgat Tadjuddin where Kirill gave the Muslims two awards.
http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/955254.html

The leaders of the four most numerous religions in Russia, Orthodoxy, Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism, work together in the Interreligious Council of Russia. (Межрелигиозный совет России (МСР) — общественный орган, объединяющий в себе лидеров четырех ведущих религиозных традиций России — православия, ислама, иудаизма и буддизма.

МСР был образован 23 декабря 1998 года на встрече глав и представителей Московской патриархии, Совета муфтиев России, Центрального духовного управления мусульман России и европейских стран СНГ, Конгресса еврейских религиозных организаций и объединений в России и Буддийской традиционной сангхи России.

Инициатива создания исходила от Русской Православной Церкви. Целью деятельности МСР является координация совместных действий и противодействие использованию религиозных чувств для разжигания межэтнических конфликтов, утверждение в обществе традиционных духовных ценностей, согласия и стабильности, диалог с государственной властью России и других стран. Высшим органом МСР является Президиум, формируемый Учредителями, постоянно действующим исполнительным органом — Секретариат.) http://kremlin.ru/terms/М

Their meeting with the President http://simvol-veri.ru/xp/stenogramma-besedi-v.-putina-s-predstavitelyami-pravoslaviya-islama-iudaizma-buddizma-katolicizma-i-protestantizma.html

These are only a few examples out of many!

Hey, Surryaa, you're jumping from something I did say (that the God worshiped is NOT the same) to something I don't say at all (that other religions do not contain truth).

You don't need to argue the latter. We already agree. (And I have heard the precise same story of the Upanishads and the Fathers in reverse.) I know that Buddhism teaches truth regarding the need to master our passions, Islam is right in teaching the value of charity as one of its five Pillars, and even atheists have some truth in believing that there IS truth that can be known.

It is an entirely different kettle of fish. It doesn't even touch the point that they are nevertheless not worshiping the same God.

Put more clearly, there is only one God, but various religions are in error regarding what they teach and how they understand that Reality, and the idea that they are all equally correct (or even equally in error) is false, and it can certainly be shown that the different ideas result in different philosophies that are contradictory and mutually exclusive, despite the points on which they agree.

rusmeister
02-09-2013, 17:16
Er how is Christendom the thing invaded? Christendom=Roman/Byzantine empire...Rome also invaded. Destroyed the Jewish temple etc. It is Jewish land with no acceptable counter claim by christendom. Christendom-that persecuted and murdered Jews.

This one is too easy, Yak. The Jews WERE invaded - by Pagan Rome. By the time Christians came to power the Jews were scattered, long gone. The Christians did NOT similarly invade nations in the name of spreading the Faith, as Muslims actually did, nor were the lands that Islam invaded Jewish any longer (and a majority of those lands never HAD been Jewish).
(and the main point is that while you can find an exception to anything, I am speaking of a general and overwhelming rule where Islam does habitually produce Jihad, holy war, and Christianity does not.)

yakspeare
02-09-2013, 18:00
This one is too easy, Yak. The Jews WERE invaded - by Pagan Rome. By the time Christians came to power the Jews were scattered, long gone. The Christians did NOT similarly invade nations in the name of spreading the Faith, as Muslims actually did, nor were the lands that Islam invaded Jewish any longer (and a majority of those lands never HAD been Jewish).
(and the main point is that while you can find an exception to anything, I am speaking of a general and overwhelming rule where Islam does habitually produce Jihad, holy war, and Christianity does not.)

Er no the Jews and Samaritans certainly weren't all gone. Many Palestinians are actually descended from Jews and Samaritans. Jews were forcefully baptised throughout the Empire.

In 614CE Persians worked alongside local Jews to throw off the Byzantine yoke, led by Benjamin of Tiberius. In 628 Byzantine retook Jerusalem with a massacre and forced conversions of Jews.

yakspeare
02-09-2013, 18:05
Er my Latin isn't as good as Jack's but:

In hoc signo vinces

yakspeare
02-09-2013, 18:12
During an early stage of the Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602-628, the Sassanid Persian ruler, Khosrau II, decided as a tactical move to establish a military alliance with the Jewish population of the Sassanid Empire, with a promise to re-establish Jewish rule over the Land of Israel (Palaestina province of Byzantine Empire at that time).[1] Following his pact with Nehemiah ben Hushiel, son of the Jewish Exilarch, a joint Sassanid-Jewish army, commanded by Shahrbaraz, arrived to Palaestina and conquered Caesaria. The Jewish and Persian force was joined by Benjamin of Tiberias, who enlisted and armed additional Jewish soldiers from Tiberias, Nazareth and the mountain cities of Galilee and together they marched on Jerusalem. Later, they were joined by the Jews of the southern parts of the country; and supported by a band of Arabs, the united forces took Jerusalem in July 614 AD.

Suuryaa
02-09-2013, 18:19
Put more clearly, there is only one God, but various religions are in error regarding what they teach and how they understand that Reality, and the idea that they are all equally correct (or even equally in error) is false, and it can certainly be shown that the different ideas result in different philosophies that are contradictory and mutually exclusive, despite the points on which they agree.

I know about saints in all the religions I've come across. By saints I mean those who have had direct realisation of God, or if we use other terms, it's revelation, enlightenment, Fana, satori. This proves that it's possible to come to God in all those religions.

robertmf
02-09-2013, 18:24
I know about saints in all the religions I've come across. By saints I mean those who have had direct realisation of God, or if we use other terms, it's revelation, enlightenment, Fana, satori. This proves that it's possible to come to God in all those religions.

LSD or mescaline will do the same - without God or religion present.

The Doors of Perception - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

JanC
02-09-2013, 19:04
If you saw a guy actually and undoubtedly killed, officially executed and even a doctor saying, "He's dead, Jim, I mean, Jan" and then actually saw him walking around, talked to him and touched his execution wounds, then you would not think it a matter of your imagination. You would be forced to admit that an incredible thing must be accepted.

If I saw all that it would be an incredible thing indeed. Not necessarily supernatural mind you, but quite extraordinary. Plenty of questions would be asked. You are the one who jumps to the "supernatural" explanation post haste and has no desire for critical investigation lest it not confirm your initial biased conviction. In any case, you are presenting a hypothetical scenario, let's keep our feet on the ground for now.

There are certainly stories. But hearing a story or ancient myth isn't the same as witnessing one personally. If we take the crucifiction/resurrection story, we are talking about something written down several decades after the supposed event, not by anyone who claims to have actually seen it himself. And there is the nagging fact that ever since we became fairly adept at recording and verifying things nothing supernatural has happened on a scale of things described in the Bible. Somehow there is an inverse relationship between the strength of popular superstition and observed miracles. Probably a coincidence.

Rus, the world is FULL of myths and miracles. In all religions and outside of them. Do you believe all of them? Or only some? What's the difference between them? You are incredibly biased towards the stuff you were programmed with as a kid, nothing wrong with that, but it's clear as night and day to just about everyone.

What you apparently also haven't grasped yet is that even IF there would be strong evidence for something monentarily suspending the laws of physics, it would do absolutely nothing to strengthen your case to believe in the personal Christian God. If you believe the Christian miracles are (sometimes) real then you cannot dismiss Hindu miracles to name one. Everyone is busy attributing the supernatural to their default deity. Odds are if there is one, it is nothing like any of the Gods humans already believe in.



You believe in that so strongly that you invoke science as a sure authority that can tell us truth.

Not at all. Science is limited, it just has a proven track record of being able to accurately determine reality. No more no less. Intuitive thinking has a track record of inaccurately predicting reality. Try to argue about that. I care about what is real more than what makes me feel the most cheeful. If you want to know what is real you need science, simple.


Not knowing the history of the doctrine of the Trinity, I can see how you hold such a simplistic view.

All the intricacies of the process will not change the fact that it was voted into dogma by humans in the 4th century. It's a matter of arguing over interpretations, something which is not agreed upon by followers of this god to this day.



(I'll note that I am NOT a creationist in your understanding of the term, one of the many misunderstandings you never ask about.)

I believe I may have asked on occasion, but I cannot recall you asking me what precisely my understanding of the term creationist is?

rusmeister
02-09-2013, 22:15
I know about saints in all the religions I've come across. By saints I mean those who have had direct realisation of God, or if we use other terms, it's revelation, enlightenment, Fana, satori. This proves that it's possible to come to God in all those religions.

Well, I'd say we have different definitions of the word "saint", and so, are not talking about the same thing. Thus, it proves nothing.

rusmeister
02-09-2013, 22:19
Er no the Jews and Samaritans certainly weren't all gone. Many Palestinians are actually descended from Jews and Samaritans. Jews were forcefully baptised throughout the Empire.

In 614CE Persians worked alongside local Jews to throw off the Byzantine yoke, led by Benjamin of Tiberius. In 628 Byzantine retook Jerusalem with a massacre and forced conversions of Jews.

Comment j'ai dit:

(and the main point is that while you can find an exception to anything, I am speaking of a general and overwhelming rule where Islam does habitually produce Jihad, holy war, and Christianity does not.)

Jack17
02-09-2013, 23:30
a pagan ruler

Constantine I "a pagan ruler?" I thought he was a Christian Saint and the Roman Emperor who made Christianity the official religion of Rome?

Anyway, the "signo" was the Greek symbol for Christ. Christianity has had many warrior kings; it's hardly been a pacifist religion: let's see, Constantine I, Richard I, Julius II, Kaiser Wilhelm, to name only a few throughout history.

yakspeare
03-09-2013, 03:44
Constantine I "a pagan ruler?" I thought he was a Christian Saint and the Roman Emperor who made Christianity the official religion of Rome?

Anyway, the "signo" was the Greek symbol for Christ. Christianity has had many warrior kings; it's hardly been a pacifist religion: let's see, Constantine I, Richard I, Julius II, Kaiser Wilhelm, to name only a few throughout history.

Let's not forget the exploits of the the froggy joan of arc..

yakspeare
03-09-2013, 03:45
Or ivan grozny marching on Kazan with relics of shards of the true cross in front of his army...

btw which ones Pink?
03-09-2013, 04:15
Constantine I "a pagan ruler?" I thought he was a Christian Saint and the Roman Emperor who made Christianity the official religion of Rome?

Anyway, the "signo" was the Greek symbol for Christ. Christianity has had many warrior kings; it's hardly been a pacifist religion: let's see, Constantine I, Richard I, Julius II, Kaiser Wilhelm, to name only a few throughout history.

Constantine - the kind of "christian" who murdered his own son and his wife.

Jack17
03-09-2013, 04:58
Constantine - the kind of "christian" who murdered his own son and his wife.
Those minor transgressions are overlooked in light of his efforts which made Christianity a world religion.

yakspeare
03-09-2013, 05:00
Those minor transgressions are overlooked in light of his efforts which made Christianity a world religion.

Yupz and they made a saint of him, thus endorsing his methods.

rusmeister
03-09-2013, 05:35
Thanks, guys. You all make my point. What you express displays a very sketchy knowledge that is, shall we say, incomplete. It actually IS ignorant of the known circumstances of Constantine's life.

You don't seem to know that Constantine did not convert until on his deathbed, and with an Arian priest, at that. Yes, he was still granted sainthood for the good things he did, but in some respects it is exactly in the same way that the thief on the cross achieved sainthood. He was thoroughly pagan in the formation of his outlook, and quite opportunist in his use of the Christian religion, though the bishops he gathered for the Council of Nicea were certainly not.

The Christian Church in history, which was (officially) divided in 1054 and whose valid expression was not maintained in Rome (a process which took centuries before and after to complete) has been BOTH warrior AND pacifist. What it has NOT been has been a mindless invader of other countries in the name of its religion. Honestly, you guys practically refuse to make such obvious distinctions, and it is cleary a matter of your will to so refuse, not your intellect. I specifically say this and you deliberately ignore it. You just grab at different, and quite tangential straws to try to distract from a clear point, rather than deal with the point. This is evasion of truth, not dealing with it.

Then there is the fallacy which seems to be a general cornerstone with some of you, that treats all exceptions as rules, an inability to distinguish (as with Ivan the Terrible, who the Church understandably did not grant sainthood to). Finally, there is a willingness to contradict yourselves (as with Joan of Arc, who was responding to invaders in her own land). Even the Conquistadores, evident opportunists, extensive as their efforts were, were a brief flash in the pan during the Spanish hegemony. And in the modern era you simply cannot produce exhibits of conquest or even assault in the name of the Cross, but we can find the cry of "Allahu akbar!" across the centuries to 9/11 and beyond.

So by all means, name as many as you please. You will still not be able to show a pattern of the initial aggression of Jihad that really is a hallmark of Islamic history. What is an exception in and failure of Christianity is a real tendency in Islam.

Suuryaa
03-09-2013, 11:16
LSD or mescaline will do the same - without God or religion present.

The Doors of Perception - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Doors_of_Perception)


To say this, you should have met both a saint and a person on LSD and compared their behaviour. Have you done that?

Jack17
03-09-2013, 12:04
Thanks, guys. You all make my point. What you express displays a very sketchy knowledge that is, shall we say, incomplete. It actually IS ignorant of the known circumstances of Constantine's life.

You don't seem to know that Constantine did not convert until on his deathbed, and with an Arian priest, at that. Yes, he was still granted sainthood for the good things he did, but in some respects it is exactly in the same way that the thief on the cross achieved sainthood. He was thoroughly pagan in the formation of his outlook, and quite opportunist in his use of the Christian religion, though the bishops he gathered for the Council of Nicea were certainly not.

The Christian Church in history, which was (officially) divided in 1054 and whose valid expression was not maintained in Rome (a process which took centuries before and after to complete) has been BOTH warrior AND pacifist. What it has NOT been has been a mindless invader of other countries in the name of its religion. Honestly, you guys practically refuse to make such obvious distinctions, and it is cleary a matter of your will to so refuse, not your intellect. I specifically say this and you deliberately ignore it. You just grab at different, and quite tangential straws to try to distract from a clear point, rather than deal with the point. This is evasion of truth, not dealing with it.

Then there is the fallacy which seems to be a general cornerstone with some of you, that treats all exceptions as rules, an inability to distinguish (as with Ivan the Terrible, who the Church understandably did not grant sainthood to). Finally, there is a willingness to contradict yourselves (as with Joan of Arc, who was responding to invaders in her own land). Even the Conquistadores, evident opportunists, extensive as their efforts were, were a brief flash in the pan during the Spanish hegemony. And in the modern era you simply cannot produce exhibits of conquest or even assault in the name of the Cross, but we can find the cry of "Allahu akbar!" across the centuries to 9/11 and beyond.

So by all means, name as many as you please. You will still not be able to show a pattern of the initial aggression of Jihad that really is a hallmark of Islamic history. What is an exception in and failure of Christianity is a real tendency in Islam.
Rus, you have an incredible ability to speak out of both sides of your mouth at once. Constantine I was the first Christian ruler. He was only a Pagan until he became a Christian; much like you were a Baptist until you became a Russian Orthodox.

btw which ones Pink?
03-09-2013, 12:05
Rus, you have an incredible ability to speak out of both sides of your mouth at once. Constantine I was the first Christian ruler. He was only a Pagan until he became a Christian; much like you were a Baptist until you became a Russian Orthodox.

I dont think yu actually read what Rus wrote.

Jack17
03-09-2013, 12:10
I don't think you read what either Rus or I wrote. He wrote (and I quoted) Constantine I was a Pagan ruler. No one with any formal education, and I realize that may exclude you, would call the man who Christianized the Western world a "Pagan ruler."

You know, you've done more than anyone in the 5 years I've been reading this site to bring down the level of discourse to a grammar school level. At least Flakey Snowballer and Willey were entertaining and Rus is an obfuscator and equivocator nonpareil. I think your moronic avatar and moniker say all anyone needs to know about you.

btw which ones Pink?
03-09-2013, 12:22
I don't think you read what either Rus or I wrote. He wrote (and I quoted) Constantine I was a Pagan ruler. No one with any formal education, and I realize that may exclude you, would call the man who Christianized the Western world a "Pagan ruler."

He acted like a pagan not a Christian - that's really all the counts. He was not responsible in the smallest for spreading Christianity across the globe anyway.

Christianity had already spread before he was born. In fact Christianity spread in spite of Constantine and the new catholic sect from Rome.

When the catholics reached Ireland and Scotland they didnt bring Christianity they brought Catholisicm to Christians who were already there and eventually in many instances put to death those who held onto the original Christian teachings.

Jack17
03-09-2013, 12:31
Look, I've never really been sure what a troll is exactly; but I have a good feeling that you are it. Your latest post shows a total ignorance of Western history. "Catholics reached Ireland and Scotland they didn't bring Christianity?"

This is my last post in post in response to you because the only way to deal with a troll is to ignore him. That is what I suggest everyone on this site do with you. Hopefully, you'll go away.

In fact, here's a suggestion, why don't you take your scholarly views over to the other Russian expat web site? The coffee-klatch over there will really value your opinions.

btw which ones Pink?
03-09-2013, 12:54
You have a limited grasp on the history of the first Christians
http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/index.php/the-persecution-of-christians-in-britain-part-1/

rusmeister
03-09-2013, 19:10
I don't think you read what either Rus or I wrote. He wrote (and I quoted) Constantine I was a Pagan ruler. No one with any formal education, and I realize that may exclude you, would call the man who Christianized the Western world a "Pagan ruler."

You know, you've done more than anyone in the 5 years I've been reading this site to bring down the level of discourse to a grammar school level. At least Flakey Snowballer and Willey were entertaining and Rus is an obfuscator and equivocator nonpareil. I think your moronic avatar and moniker say all anyone needs to know about you.

Jack, I agree with you both that his avatar is annoying as it does give the impression of a doofus, when I am sure that whatever he is, he is not quite that, AND his distinction of Catholicism from Christianity is not only wrong, it is ahistorical. There can be no reasonable doubt that the institution that was legalized that HAD been illegal and persecuted was the historical institution that both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches trace back to; it was one and the same.

But he IS right that Constantine generally acted like a pagan and NOT a Christian, and it is certain that Constantine, though he SUPPORTED Christians from early on, did not BECOME Christian until the end of his life, and these are provable facts that you seem to be trying to deny; thus, his comment that he thought you didn't read what I said is legitimate; I think the same thing.

Jack17
03-09-2013, 20:39
Jack, I agree with you both that his avatar is annoying as it does give the impression of a doofus, when I am sure that whatever he is, he is not quite that, AND his distinction of Catholicism from Christianity is not only wrong, it is ahistorical. There can be no reasonable doubt that the institution that was legalized that HAD been illegal and persecuted was the historical institution that both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches trace back to; it was one and the same.

But he IS right that Constantine generally acted like a pagan and NOT a Christian, and it is certain that Constantine, though he SUPPORTED Christians from early on, did not BECOME Christian until the end of his life, and these are provable facts that you seem to be trying to deny; thus, his comment that he thought you didn't read what I said is legitimate; I think the same thing.
Sorry Rus, I take a different historical view of Constantine which is more in line with the importance ascribed to him by most professional historians of the period. As for his paganism, well, where do you think we get all the vestments that both Roman and Russian priests wear? Certainly the idolatry of Ikona and statues doesn't come from the Jews who were the originators of Christianity. No, there is much that is pagan in modern Christian worship and it is derived directly from Constantine's court. The only truly "orthodox" Christian service was The Last Supper which was a Seder Service performed by devout Jews. Once Constantine adopted Christianity as his own, any Christian service had more to do with the pagan rites of the official Imperial Roman religion than anything remotely related to Judaism.

However, I'm edified that at least we both agree that, this whoever he is, gives every impression of being a doofus.

Benedikt
03-09-2013, 21:42
However, I'm edified that at least we both agree that, this whoever he is, gives every impression of being a doofus.[/QUOTE]


http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/Constantine.htm
makes for a little bit a different explanation who Constantine really was.

rusmeister
03-09-2013, 22:16
However, I'm edified that at least we both agree that, this whoever he is, gives every impression of being a doofus.


http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/Constantine.htm
makes for a little bit a different explanation who Constantine really was.[/QUOTE]

Anyone who buys this version is no more Catholic than Jan is.

I took it with an extra large grain of salt, though there is a little truth in it. Usually is in all lies that anyone takes seriously.

rusmeister
03-09-2013, 22:46
Sorry Rus, I take a different historical view of Constantine which is more in line with the importance ascribed to him by most professional historians of the period. As for his paganism, well, where do you think we get all the vestments that both Roman and Russian priests wear? Certainly the idolatry of Ikona and statues doesn't come from the Jews who were the originators of Christianity. No, there is much that is pagan in modern Christian worship and it is derived directly from Constantine's court. The only truly "orthodox" Christian service was The Last Supper which was a Seder Service performed by devout Jews. Once Constantine adopted Christianity as his own, any Christian service had more to do with the pagan rites of the official Imperial Roman religion than anything remotely related to Judaism.

However, I'm edified that at least we both agree that, this whoever he is, gives every impression of being a doofus.

Well, you place a lot more faith in (certain) professional historians than I do. I know of others that deny your views completely. I'll start with Hilaire Belloc, whom you evidently have no familiarity with.

As to pagan things being found in Christianity, absolutely! You might as well say that legs are of pagan origin. The Christian Church did not create man, or invent morality. It affirmed all that was good and true in paganism.

Your knowledge of the history of Christian worship does not impress. Sorry, Jack, not buying it. I've listened to a ton of said history in the past year - I go for nearly an hour of exercise most days, and I listen to podcasts from AFR; I would recommend Fr Tom Hopko's series on bishops; the man is the former dean of St Vladimir's seminary and no light-weight.

rusmeister
03-09-2013, 22:52
Mayans ane Aztecs. In mespotamoa there was baby sacrifice to Molech or Baal...you know!

ThIs was actually a point in Chesterton's "The Everlasting Man" that was a slap in the face for me. While I knew that abstractly, I had the vague idea most of us were taught that the Punic Wars were merely for dominance like any other Roman War; they never made sense of "Carthage must be destroyed". Chesterton pointed out the religion factor excluded from publuc education - and BOOM! It all made sense, in a flash. From the fanaticism of crossing the Alps with elephants to razing rather than absorbing Carthage, Chesterton turned history for me from a bunch of disconnected facts to a picture that made sense.

Jack17
03-09-2013, 23:44
Well, you place a lot more faith in (certain) professional historians than I do. I know of others that deny your views completely. I'll start with Hilaire Belloc, whom you evidently have no familiarity with.

As to pagan things being found in Christianity, absolutely! You might as well say that legs are of pagan origin. The Christian Church did not create man, or invent morality. It affirmed all that was good and true in paganism.

Your knowledge of the history of Christian worship does not impress. Sorry, Jack, not buying it. I've listened to a ton of said history in the past year - I go for nearly an hour of exercise most days, and I listen to podcasts from AFR; I would recommend Fr Tom Hopko's series on bishops; the man is the former dean of St Vladimir's seminary and no light-weight.
Rus, reading your posts is like reading undergraduate term papers, lots of pomposity and officious sounding language, but no substance.

Why don't you make a concrete statement regarding the disparity between the Last Supper and Christian worship since Constantine I, rather than disparaging comments about what you perceive to be my lack of knowledge. What gives you the authority to judge my knowledge on Christian worship anyway? Do you have a Doctor of Divinity Degree from the Harvard Divinity School - or any seminary? You listen to "podcasts" but you don't speak from any solid educational background - it shows. With posts like this, you just come across as a pompous wind bag. If you have any knowledge, let's see it; then everyone can judge just how "expert" you are - in short, put up or shut up rather than just tossing insults from a glass house without credentials.

MickeyTong
04-09-2013, 00:15
ThIs was actually a point in Chesterton's "The Everlasting Man" that was a slap in the face for me. While I knew that abstractly, I had the vague idea most of us were taught that the Punic Wars were merely for dominance like any other Roman War; they never made sense of "Carthage must be destroyed". Chesterton pointed out the religion factor excluded from publuc education - and BOOM! It all made sense, in a flash. From the fanaticism of crossing the Alps with elephants to razing rather than absorbing Carthage, Chesterton turned history for me from a bunch of disconnected facts to a picture that made sense.

So it was a "humanitarian intervention" to save the Carthaginians from their monstrous rulers? "We had to destroy them to save them....."

btw which ones Pink?
04-09-2013, 03:35
Rus, reading your posts is like reading undergraduate term papers, lots of pomposity and officious sounding language, but no substance.

Why don't you make a concrete statement regarding the disparity between the Last Supper and Christian worship since Constantine I, rather than disparaging comments about what you perceive to be my lack of knowledge. What gives you the authority to judge my knowledge on Christian worship anyway? Do you have a Doctor of Divinity Degree from the Harvard Divinity School - or any seminary?

Sounds to me like you have put your faith in the "establishment" when it is the establishment that is responsible for the corruption we fight against! I would put no faith in any seminary degree, particularly from Harvard. God doesn't belong in the big boys club and usually chooses servants from the undercl**** the outcasts, just to slap it to the faces of the haughty.

However I do agree with your view of paganism in the Roman Church - but that only agrees with my position that the catholism they espoused is not exactly Christian and God's true church was in the hearts and minds of people scattered.

btw which ones Pink?
04-09-2013, 04:14
So it was a "humanitarian intervention" to save the Carthaginians from their monstrous rulers? "We had to destroy them to save them....."

Kinda like Obama's "Love" Bombs for Syria!

rusmeister
04-09-2013, 04:49
Rus, reading your posts is like reading undergraduate term papers, lots of pomposity and officious sounding language, but no substance.

Why don't you make a concrete statement regarding the disparity between the Last Supper and Christian worship since Constantine I, rather than disparaging comments about what you perceive to be my lack of knowledge. What gives you the authority to judge my knowledge on Christian worship anyway? Do you have a Doctor of Divinity Degree from the Harvard Divinity School - or any seminary? You listen to "podcasts" but you don't speak from any solid educational background - it shows. With posts like this, you just come across as a pompous wind bag. If you have any knowledge, let's see it; then everyone can judge just how "expert" you are - in short, put up or shut up rather than just tossing insults from a glass house without credentials.
No problem.
WHAT disparity???
I suppose we should all gather in a second-storey room (in Jerusalem, as there is also spatial disparity) wearing 1st century clothing and sandals, men having all grown beards, gathered arround a particular table that your historians assure us is ofthe type used in the period (though some disparity may be inevitable).

You do not ever ask what the REASONS for the things done during the Eucharist, though there ARE good reasons; you speak as if there were NO reason (other than some kind of nefarious mind control).

I could take the words from your post and reverse them, apply them to you; that IS what seems to be the case to me. But personal insult is not my style.

You are not an expert on Christian worship in one critical aspect - you do not practice worship, and any knowledge obtained would have to be from going to Google or Wikipedia, or some frothing anti-Christian site. One does not need to be a seminarian to learn about worship; in fact, without actually worshipping any abstract seminarian knowledge is of little help. It is in DOING things and asking WHY that one learns. It is when they you HEAR them telling the catechumens to depart that you first ask and begin to learn what that's all about and how that practice developed and why. But you've never heard it, and doubtless had no idea that they do any such thing until I told you just now. (Since you evidently have no plans to actually begin learning about these things I'm not going to write lengthy expositions of liturgical history for you here; a person has to WANT to know; they have to ASK. And in complex things, to actually inquire; do real footwork.)

So there's a credential that's hard to beat. Experience beats the heck out of a $50 online diploma.

rusmeister
04-09-2013, 04:57
So it was a "humanitarian intervention" to save the Carthaginians from their monstrous rulers? "We had to destroy them to save them....."

Au contraire, Mickey. Do you really know nothing about the Carthaginian religion? I didn't, not really, until Chesterton forced me to think, look things up for myself, and confirm them.
It was the PEOPLE themselves delivering up their own babies to the fire (not all of them, obviously). Look up Moloch and Tanet some time and try a comparison with the Roman gods. CS Lewis was an Oxford professor, an atheist logician when he read "The Everlasting Man" - and stopped being an atheist as a result (it was a few more years before he came to Christianity).

I'd recommend TEM to you, but it's dangerous for the honest atheist who wishes to preserve his atheism. ;)

rusmeister
04-09-2013, 05:11
Sounds to me like you have put your faith in the "establishment" when it is the establishment that is responsible for the corruption we fight against! I would put no faith in any seminary degree, particularly from Harvard. God doesn't belong in the big boys club and usually chooses servants from the undercl**** the outcasts, just to slap it to the faces of the haughty.

However I do agree with your view of paganism in the Roman Church - but that only agrees with my position that the catholism they espoused is not exactly Christian and God's true church was in the hearts and minds of people scattered.

I think you are mostly right - but I think your idea of "catholicism" as distinct from Christianity is unsupportable. Such ideas are usually founded on the vague idea that "people 'just' made things up", with no exposition or inquiry on what dogma is and what its purpose is. (and please note, I'm not Catholic, so there are points I might agree with you on). Put another way, I agree on paganism in the ancient Church (which was by NO means only Roman), but that only agrees with my position that God's true Church (the earthly incarnation of it) was preserved in the Orthodox Church.

The hearts and minds of people outside the Church are most certainly scattered - it is the thousands of squabbling and disunited denominations that have little in common in doctrine beyond the nebulous name "Christian". That is why God's true Church could not possibly be preserved in a few scattered individuals who only continually break up and divide from each other. Individuals all fail. A purely abstract Church, that is just "out there", must always result in just that. The Church, as a physical institution that can really tell individuals where they must stop being so individual, that is, simply divided, remains, and the incredible thing is this unity of doctrine (in a physical institution without any Pope or single central headquarters) that can be approached and examined) preserved across the globe over two millennia.

Jack17
04-09-2013, 06:22
No problem.
WHAT disparity???
I suppose we should all gather in a second-storey room (in Jerusalem, as there is also spatial disparity) wearing 1st century clothing and sandals, men having all grown beards, gathered arround a particular table that your historians assure us is ofthe type used in the period (though some disparity may be inevitable).

You do not ever ask what the REASONS for the things done during the Eucharist, though there ARE good reasons; you speak as if there were NO reason (other than some kind of nefarious mind control).

I could take the words from your post and reverse them, apply them to you; that IS what seems to be the case to me. But personal insult is not my style.

You are not an expert on Christian worship in one critical aspect - you do not practice worship, and any knowledge obtained would have to be from going to Google or Wikipedia, or some frothing anti-Christian site. One does not need to be a seminarian to learn about worship; in fact, without actually worshipping any abstract seminarian knowledge is of little help. It is in DOING things and asking WHY that one learns. It is when they you HEAR them telling the catechumens to depart that you first ask and begin to learn what that's all about and how that practice developed and why. But you've never heard it, and doubtless had no idea that they do any such thing until I told you just now. (Since you evidently have no plans to actually begin learning about these things I'm not going to write lengthy expositions of liturgical history for you here; a person has to WANT to know; they have to ASK. And in complex things, to actually inquire; do real footwork.)

So there's a credential that's hard to beat. Experience beats the heck out of a $50 online diploma.
Where's the beef Rus? Once again, only disparaging comments about me and no informed discussion of the topic at hand, which only convinces me you really have nothing to say.

But to that topic, indeed, why don't we meet with a few close friends and family who are fellow believers to celebrate the Eucharist just as Christ did during the first Eucharistic Feast - and just as Jews do to this day when celebrating Passover? The answer, in part, lies with our old buddy Constantine I, who co-opted the Roman pagan temples during his reign and replaced the bloody sacrifices of pagan ritual with the Christian Eucharistic ceremony which he much preferred. During the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea, he was personally responsible for disassociating that Eucharistic ceremony from the Seder that Christ celebrated because, like most Roman emperors (East and West) he was an anti-Semite who wanted no more to do with Judaism than he did with Paganism.

But I understand that being steeped in Christian ceremony as you are, you are more interested in trading insults than having any intellectual discussion about Constantine or Christianity's transition from a Jewish sect to at first an accepted religion of Rome (the Edict of Milan) then to Rome's official religion.

rusmeister
04-09-2013, 10:33
Where's the beef Rus? Once again, only disparaging comments about me and no informed discussion of the topic at hand, which only convinces me you really have nothing to say.

But to that topic, indeed, why don't we meet with a few close friends and family who are fellow believers to celebrate the Eucharist just as Christ did during the first Eucharistic Feast - and just as Jews do to this day when celebrating Passover? The answer, in part, lies with our old buddy Constantine I, who co-opted the Roman pagan temples during his reign and replaced the bloody sacrifices of pagan ritual with the Christian Eucharistic ceremony which he much preferred. During the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea, he was personally responsible for disassociating that Eucharistic ceremony from the Seder that Christ celebrated because, like most Roman emperors (East and West) he was an anti-Semite who wanted no more to do with Judaism than he did with Paganism.

But I understand that being steeped in Christian ceremony as you are, you are more interested in trading insults than having any intellectual discussion about Constantine or Christianity's transition from a Jewish sect to at first an accepted religion of Rome (the Edict of Milan) then to Rome's official religion.
There you go. You only ask questions to which you yourself already know your answers. You aren't LOOKING for any answers.

As to insults, I'd say

a pompous wind bag

put up or shut up
are ruder and more insulting, attack the person rather than his ideas than anything I say.
I can take it; I just think it would be better to distinguish between the person and his ideas.

I just DID put up. What do YOU know of the institute of the catechumens? What do YOU know of the first three centuries between the book of Acts and Constantine? (which wouldn't include Augustine, by the way). Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch? Polycarp? Or what they said about things like Liturgy and worship, long before Constantine? Any bells ring, or is it a trip to Wikipedia for you?

You just ignore what I point to and keep talking as if I had never said anything. You don't ENGAGE my position, Jack. You just deny it. Denial is easy.

Jack17
04-09-2013, 18:16
There you go. You only ask questions to which you yourself already know your answers. You aren't LOOKING for any answers.

As to insults, I'd say


are ruder and more insulting, attack the person rather than his ideas than anything I say.
I can take it; I just think it would be better to distinguish between the person and his ideas.

I just DID put up. What do YOU know of the institute of the catechumens? What do YOU know of the first three centuries between the book of Acts and Constantine? (which wouldn't include Augustine, by the way). Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch? Polycarp? Or what they said about things like Liturgy and worship, long before Constantine? Any bells ring, or is it a trip to Wikipedia for you?

You just ignore what I point to and keep talking as if I had never said anything. You don't ENGAGE my position, Jack. You just deny it. Denial is easy.
I thought we were talking about Constantine? Switching the subject?

rusmeister
04-09-2013, 20:52
I thought we were talking about Constantine? Switching the subject?

Jack, this is what a reasonable person sees as trolling.

You said this:

But I understand that being steeped in Christian ceremony as you are, you are more interested in trading insults than having any intellectual discussion about Constantine or Christianity's transition from a Jewish sect to at first an accepted religion of Rome (the Edict of Milan) then to Rome's official religion.

Since I am responding to precisely what you have been criticizing and heckling, suggesting that I am "changing the subject" is beyond the pale. The simple fact is that you don't know about the Christians between the apostle Paul to Eusebius, and why Liturgy and worship developed as it did, and how it reflects and reinforces Christian teaching, the Holy Tradition backed by the most important part, Scripture.

It looks like unreasoning and relentless hate of that Tradition, rather than reasonable consideration and inquiry.

Jack17
05-09-2013, 01:24
Jack, this is what a reasonable person sees as trolling.

You said this:
.

Since I am responding to precisely what you have been criticizing and heckling, suggesting that I am "changing the subject" is beyond the pale. The simple fact is that you don't know about the Christians between the apostle Paul to Eusebius, and why Liturgy and worship developed as it did, and how it reflects and reinforces Christian teaching, the Holy Tradition backed by the most important part, Scripture.

It looks like unreasoning and relentless hate of that Tradition, rather than reasonable consideration and inquiry.
Once again, you're only interested in insults. If you've finished insulting my intelligence, why don't you enlighten us on how Christian worship ultimately came to resemble Roman pagan worship. After you've held forth on the period between Paul and Eusebius, I'll chime in on how Constantine influenced the trend.

rusmeister
05-09-2013, 06:56
Once again, you're only interested in insults. If you've finished insulting my intelligence, why don't you enlighten us on how Christian worship ultimately came to resemble Roman pagan worship. After you've held forth on the period between Paul and Eusebius, I'll chime in on how Constantine influenced the trend.

Why don't you print out an entire college course in bite-sized posts on this forum?

Honestly, I have been learning about this for ten years. If you don't know anything about the letters of Ignatius, Clement of Rome or Justin Martyr (direct and immediate descendents of the apostles), for example, then you have no idea that Liturgy as we understand it was being practiced at the end of the first century and that the hierarchy, prescribed in the New Testament, was serious business.

What frustrates me is that you clearly don't WANT to know these things, though they are as historical as any proclamation of Constantine or Abraham Lincoln. Thus, it looks like trolling, and that is what I will continue to think until you start admitting that there is a whole history there, three hundred years, even the pertinent parts (that offer that connection between ancient Jewish worship and Christian worship and the doctrine behind it in the fourth century, held to this day) of which cannot be fit into forum posting any more than a complete course of the Russian language (even a good first year course) can, and here we have the handicap of "students" that don't WANT to learn it (a rather serious impediment).

As to resemblance to pagan worship, it is merely a resemblance to ALL religious worship in its externals. You imply that only ancient pagans worshiped like that. I say most religious worship looks like that, from Buddhist temples to Islamic mosques. All that says is that there is an idea common to religious worship of a supreme being.

Suuryaa
07-09-2013, 17:15
Pope calls for mutual respect between Christians and Muslims
August 12, 2013 12:06am

VATICAN CITY - Pope Francis reached out to Muslims on Sunday to mark the end of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan and called on them and Christians to promote mutual respect.

"I want to send a hello to Muslims around the world, our brothers, who a short time ago celebrated the conclusion of the month of Ramadan," the pontiff said in front of thousands of the faithful gathered for his Angelus blessing in St Peter's Square.

"I hope that Christians and Muslims engage to promote mutual respect, especially through the education of new generations," he said.

It was the pope's second message to Muslim communities recently.

On August 2, Francis sent a text "as an expression of esteem and friendship to all Muslims, especially their religious leaders".

In his text, he also called on both religions to "avoid unjustified or defamatory criticism" of each other.

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/321581/news/world/pope-calls-for-mutual-respect-between-christians-and-muslims

btw which ones Pink?
07-09-2013, 17:21
The pope is an idiot, though. The vatican tries to be the leader of Christianity but they can never be!

penka
07-09-2013, 17:29
Once again, you're only interested in insults. If you've finished insulting my intelligence, why don't you enlighten us on how Christian worship ultimately came to resemble Roman pagan worship. After you've held forth on the period between Paul and Eusebius, I'll chime in on how Constantine influenced the trend.

You just love Rome, don't you?
Iconographically it's more of a mixture between late Hellenism, Late Antiquity and Dura and the Coptic period. Elements of terminology and ideology ditto.

btw which ones Pink?
07-09-2013, 17:55
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/09/armed-muslims-in-nigeria-kill-christians-in-their-homes.html

12,000 Christians slaughtered by Muslims in Nigeria. But would Obama intervene and stop aiding and abetting the jihadists? Not when it's Christians. He won't even designate the genocidal Boko Haram a terrorist group.

Armed Muslims in Nigeria Kill Christians in their Homes Morning Star News, September 6, 2013

Jack17
07-09-2013, 21:07
You just love Rome, don't you?
Iconographically it's more of a mixture between late Hellenism, Late Antiquity and Dura and the Coptic period. Elements of terminology and ideology ditto.
I'd say it was a mixture of all that and more; after all, all roads led there!

rusmeister
08-09-2013, 06:58
The pope is an idiot, though. The vatican tries to be the leader of Christianity but they can never be!

This statement can only be said by someone who has NO idea whatsoever what the Pope actually tries to do or who has none but the most superficial sound-bite knowledge of what the Pope says.

I am not Catholic, but I am not fool enough to disrespect the Pope.

rusmeister
08-09-2013, 07:03
Pope calls for mutual respect between Christians and Muslims
August 12, 2013 12:06am

VATICAN CITY - Pope Francis reached out to Muslims on Sunday to mark the end of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan and called on them and Christians to promote mutual respect.

"I want to send a hello to Muslims around the world, our brothers, who a short time ago celebrated the conclusion of the month of Ramadan," the pontiff said in front of thousands of the faithful gathered for his Angelus blessing in St Peter's Square.

"I hope that Christians and Muslims engage to promote mutual respect, especially through the education of new generations," he said.

It was the pope's second message to Muslim communities recently.

On August 2, Francis sent a text "as an expression of esteem and friendship to all Muslims, especially their religious leaders".

In his text, he also called on both religions to "avoid unjustified or defamatory criticism" of each other.

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/321581/news/world/pope-calls-for-mutual-respect-between-christians-and-muslims

THIS is something we DO agree on.
Intelligent believers who understand our divisions both recognize that the definitions really divide AND the need to respect human beings of other beliefs. (Note - "respect"; NOT "agree with" or "support the ideas of")

The only problem I have in talking with you, Suuryaa, is that you don't seem to recognize the former. But we certainly agree on the latter.

btw which ones Pink?
08-09-2013, 08:31
This statement can only be said by someone who has NO idea whatsoever what the Pope actually tries to do or who has none but the most superficial sound-bite knowledge of what the Pope says.

I am not Catholic, but I am not fool enough to disrespect the Pope.

Actually you are catholic. There's not enough difference between orthodox and catholic that really matters.

The pope represents the establishment apostate church that God hates.

Benedikt
08-09-2013, 09:01
This statement can only be said by someone who has NO idea whatsoever what the Pope actually tries to do or who has none but the most superficial sound-bite knowledge of what the Pope says.

I am not Catholic, but I am not fool enough to disrespect the Pope.



and -freedom of press-.
people who know nothing, have no idea what they are talking about, making silly statements just for the sake of it. might that be in pictures, songs or speech.
respect,common sense, decency and a right of privacy have been left lying wayside.

rusmeister
08-09-2013, 16:31
Actually you are catholic. There's not enough difference between orthodox and catholic that really matters.

The pope represents the establishment apostate church that God hates.

I rest my case.
You are right on ome things, btw, but if you can't tell what the vital differences are beween us, then you really don't know the thing you are talking about.

I don't think God "hates" any effort to truly find Him, though certainly truth is important and error destructive.

Benedikt
19-09-2013, 16:19
Muhammad and His Quran: Blood and Lies at the Root of Islam (E-Book) by Mohammad Asghar [/B] free download

as i said i will read it and i have done so.
and i think THIS should be made compulsory reading in EVERY home/school/ state/who are believers in this religion.
for sure will change a few things. but suppose fanatism is ingrained so deeply nothing can change their made up minds.
and the world has to suffer for it because of the whimsicallities of one man some 1500 years ago.

Suuryaa
19-09-2013, 20:32
Muhammad and His Quran: Blood and Lies at the Root of Islam (E-Book) by Mohammad Asghar [/B] free download

as i said i will read it and i have done so.
and i think THIS should be made compulsory reading in EVERY home/school/ state/who are believers in this religion.
for sure will change a few things. but suppose fanatism is ingrained so deeply nothing can change their made up minds.
and the world has to suffer for it because of the whimsicallities of one man some 1500 years ago.

What if such a book was written about your own religion?

rusmeister
19-09-2013, 21:03
I have to side with Suuryaa here. A book is only as good as its author. How authoritative is the man?
I think there is plenty to criticize in Islam. But the most effective and convincing criticism is that which recognizes the good as well as the bad in such complex things.

The reason GK Chesterton is so convincing is that he always finds anything that can be praised even in what he tears apart. His enemies in his lifetime could only admire him and wish to be his friend. It's pretty hard to manage that. Can this be said of this Asghar?

I'm going to want a lot more than a single book by a single author to convince me of a thing in 999 cases out of a thousand.

Jack17
19-09-2013, 21:54
As to resemblance to pagan worship, it is merely a resemblance to ALL religious worship in its externals. You imply that only ancient pagans worshiped like that. I say most religious worship looks like that, from Buddhist temples to Islamic mosques. All that says is that there is an idea common to religious worship of a supreme being.

Rus, this statement just demonstrates your ignorance about a Church, which before 1054, was one and the same, East and West. Once again, you just hurl insults and drop names of early Church fathers without saying anything instructive. The resemblance of the formalized services in the non-Protestant Christian Church to the official pagan worship of the Roman Empire is not analogous to "all" pagan worship. Only one of many similarities is the etymology of the modern word "Pontiff." It's derived from the "pontifex maximus" who presided over the college of Roman priests - the predecessor of today's Christian college of cardinals.

As always, your religion is about your ego and convincing the untutored how smart you are.

Benedikt
20-09-2013, 06:29
What if such a book was written about your own religion?


and i am sure it will/would be a revelation. because -an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth- or HE asking Abraham to kill his own son and burn him as offering ( never mind HE stopped it before) is maybe nothing less brutal than Mohammed.
And i wonder how much was left out or -sanitized- in the Bible verses in order not to completely shock the reader/believer.
And again as in the Quran, how much was written by MAN (Popes?) to accompany their greed,sin and debauchery.Pope Borgia comes to mind. and later on Martin Luther.

AND MAYBE IT WAS A COINCIDENCE OR NOT, JUST YESTERDAY I WAS READING IN A GERMAN NEWSPAPER that celibacy (sp?) of priests is/was not a -law- of Jesus but an interpretation of the catholic church.and it will be open to discussions. This comes from the new guy that Pope Francis appointed in the Vatican as -Secretary of State-. And even the new Pope, as we see every day, is opening up and throwing over board already many engrained and -infallible- ideas that the Church
Interesting times ahead for sure in the Vatican and for us Christians. claimed as right for the last 2000 years.

Suuryaa
20-09-2013, 12:42
and i am sure it will/would be a revelation. because -an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth- or HE asking Abraham to kill his own son and burn him as offering ( never mind HE stopped it before) is maybe nothing less brutal than Mohammed.
And i wonder how much was left out or -sanitized- in the Bible verses in order not to completely shock the reader/believer.
And again as in the Quran, how much was written by MAN (Popes?) to accompany their greed,sin and debauchery.Pope Borgia comes to mind. and later on Martin Luther.

AND MAYBE IT WAS A COINCIDENCE OR NOT, JUST YESTERDAY I WAS READING IN A GERMAN NEWSPAPER that celibacy (sp?) of priests is/was not a -law- of Jesus but an interpretation of the catholic church.and it will be open to discussions. This comes from the new guy that Pope Francis appointed in the Vatican as -Secretary of State-. And even the new Pope, as we see every day, is opening up and throwing over board already many engrained and -infallible- ideas that the Church
Interesting times ahead for sure in the Vatican and for us Christians. claimed as right for the last 2000 years.

Thanks for your reply! It's a problem, indeed. We don't know what was proofread and left out from the holy books. I've met theories that say that good things had been left out.

Benedikt
20-09-2013, 12:56
Thanks for your reply! It's a problem, indeed. We don't know what was proofread and left out from the holy books. I've met theories that say that good things had been left out.

Judaism, Christianity and Moslem faith started more or less in the hot -dessert- or what we know today as Middle East. And all three are in my opinion brutal and freightening religions. ( -though shalst not... or thee will burn in hell forever...-)

Why are -Asian- religions not like that? Hinduism, Buddhism, Konfucios or Tao are -peacefull- religions. they,or at least some, teach, do not kill, not even a worm or fly, and definitely no one will burn in hell. I only heard of -Nirvana- no hell where one will be damned forever. Though Kali (an Indian goddess seems frigthening to me...).
But i have to admit, while working many years in Asia I never went deeper into religion there. Suppose being a young single Chef i had other things on my mind.:rolleyes:

rusmeister
20-09-2013, 13:19
Regarding the canonical Bible determined by the Christian Church in the 4th century AD, I think you are both on false trails.

It is essentially complete, as far as it goes, and can be characterized, not as hiw man sees God, but as how God sees man. And adding quantity of good orvevil acts would not change the essence that the evil is, broadly speaking, human and not divine. Most people who seek to attack Christianity speak as if God, rather than man, did all of the evils described. All of their talk about the wickedness in the Bible is merely the wickedness we read about in the news every day.

Benedikt, all "laws of Jesus" are interpreted, not only to BE laws of Jesus (something Jesus never spoke about - He always spoke of THE Law, not "His Laws", and said, regarding that definite Law (in the singular!) that He came to fulfill, not destroy it. Honestly, I don't get how you even identify yourself as Catholic, unless it was through being accidentally baptized as a baby.

All dogma of any organized religion is, naturally and unavoidably, interpreted by its organization. There is no such thing as a law ir dogma that is NOT interpreted. All you are hearing is that the Catholic practice of universal celibacy IS up for discussion - WITHIN the Church, by people who ACCEPT that the Church has a valid Tradition that is holy and needs to be passed on with all care. They are certainly NOT saying that the issue is up for a decision by anybody with an opinion. Celibacy for priests was established for a reason (which I think to be a general Catholic error), and may only be withdrawn if a reason CONSISTENT WITH THE TRADITION OF THE CHURCH indicates that its time is over.

Again, disclaimer, I'm Orthodox, we have married priests, only our episcopate (bishops) and monastics are celibate, so I don't think the Catholic Church right. But I do think I have a much better handle on its understandings, right or wrong, of its teachings and practices than people outside that Church that only want to criticize, not understand it.

Benedikt
20-09-2013, 13:28
Honestly, I don't get how you even identify yourself as Catholic, unless it was through being accidentally baptized as a baby.

so i got baptised. and was raised and brought up a good catholic boy.
and if yo ucheck back my posts, as i have stated the reasons for it, i do believe in HIM but not in the -office- of the church and her earthly representives.
and why should not have EVERYONE have the right to discuss,we are a democracy after all. and the Church for sure is not without fail and infallibel. it is run after all by humans.
And it is with our taxmoney that we keep the church alive, so we have all the right to discuss things and not any longer just accept what is thrown at us from the Vatican or better whar WAS thrown and ordered to us by the Vatican.
people become more eductyed, are asking more questions and are reasoning and not blindly accepting anymore. -You do because I tell you- never worked for me. and never will. Not when i was a cooks apprentice and it does not since many years in the Church.

rusmeister
20-09-2013, 13:34
Judaism, Christianity and Moslem faith started more or less in the hot -dessert- or what we know today as Middle East. And all three are in my opinion brutal and freightening religions. ( -though shalst not... or thee will burn in hell forever...-)

Why are -Asian- religions not like that? Hinduism, Buddhism, Konfucios or Tao are -peacefull- religions. they,or at least some, teach, do not kill, not even a worm or fly, and definitely no one will burn in hell. I only heard of -Nirvana- no hell where one will be damned forever. Though Kali (an Indian goddess seems frigthening to me...).
But i have to admit, while working many years in Asia I never went deeper into religion there. Suppose being a young single Chef i had other things on my mind.:rolleyes:

I think you are a victim of simplistic - and Western juridical - notions of theology.
The basic idea of hell is that of a natural consequence for our own choice to diss God, and make ourselves our own gods. WE are not the source of life; there is no life in us, and so we frantically try to stuff food in our mouths (sometimes prepared by master chefs such as yourself) to keep ourselves alive until we run out of life.
But we Christians think death is caused by sin, by human evil, and it is a consequence that we ALL inherit. Though we are not guilty of Adam's sin, like the child born of an alcoholic mother, we have to live with the consequences. Hell, then, is the end run of our continuously choosing ourselves over God, of seeking life and salvation within ourselves (and so the Buddha sits peacefully, while he is alive, at any rate, with closed eyes), and of determined rebellion against the One Who made us. We don't see it as a place of reprisal made by God, but as a walled-in place whose gates are locked from the inside.

In short, hell isn't something God does to us, it is something we do to ourselves.
And it is the fruit of positive human evil, something it seems you would almost deny, as well as any consequences in eternity for making evil choices.

I found CS Lewis most helpful - chapters from two of his books - Mere Christianity and The Problem of Pain, and the entire book "The Great Divorce" lay out in terms we Westerners can get how th doctrine of hell can be accepted as sensible and logical, without putting God in the dock, so to speak. If you would consider reading at least summaries of those writings, you might begin to see hell in a different light.

rusmeister
20-09-2013, 13:53
Honestly, I don't get how you even identify yourself as Catholic, unless it was through being accidentally baptized as a baby.

so i got baptised. and was raised and brought up a good catholic boy.
and if yo ucheck back my posts, as i have stated the reasons for it, i do believe in HIM but not in the -office- of the church and her earthly representives.
One can believe - or not believe - in anything. Some do believe in horoscopes, others do not believe the earth is round.
I don't believe you are familiar with the intelligent and in-depth responses you would get from intelligent Catholic sources about the necessity of authority and of the institutional Church.



and why should not have EVERYONE have the right to discuss,we are a democracy after all. and the Church for sure is not without fail and infallibel. it is run after all by humans.
But the Catholic Church, like the Orthodox Church, does not claim to be a democracy. As a matter of fact, they see themselves as part of a Theocracy. They do not claim to be infallible, generally speaking; in fact, I would be impressed if you could show with exactitude what they DO think to be infallible.


And it is with our taxmoney that we keep the church alive, so we have all the right to discuss things and not any longer just accept what is thrown at us from the Vatican or better whar WAS thrown and ordered to us by the Vatican.
Here is something I almost agree with you on. I do NOT agree that the Catholic Church is alive because of tax money; the Roman Empire taxed its citizens, yet is no longer with us. I think such things last because they contain huge amounts of truth. But I DO think that churches that receive tax money ought to stop receiving it.


people become more eductyed,
So I see.
(just joking! I know what typos are! :) )


are asking more questions and are reasoning and not blindly accepting anymore. -You do because I tell you- never worked for me. and never will. Not when i was a cooks apprentice and it does not since many years in the Church.


It seems to me that there is blind acceptance on your side. I think I have demonstrated to a huge extent on this site how it is that my own eyes are open. Nor do I think any apologist would EVER try to tell you to believe just because they said so (though we think people who DO believe the truth "just because" are specially blessed). So if you encounter anyone who talks like that, you've been in the wrong part of "Catholictown". There is a huge thing that remains undiscovered by you to this day.

Since I don't expect you to become Orthodox "because I say so", I might refer you to Stanley Anderson on Facebook, as an intelligent, gentlemanly Catholic who is my "bestest" internet friend, who, if you ever asked him some honest questions, would reveal a side of Catholicism that you have never seen, in a polite and cheerful manner.

Benedikt
20-09-2013, 14:36
Since I don't expect you to become Orthodox "because I say so", I might refer you to Stanley Anderson on Facebook, as an intelligent, gentlemanly Catholic who is my "bestest" internet friend, who, if you ever asked him some honest questions, would reveal a side of Catholicism that you have never seen, in a polite and cheerful manner.[/QUOTE]


could you please therefore ask if he might consider it and answer my questions or discusss catholicism here on Expat?

rusmeister
20-09-2013, 16:14
Since I don't expect you to become Orthodox "because I say so", I might refer you to Stanley Anderson on Facebook, as an intelligent, gentlemanly Catholic who is my "bestest" internet friend, who, if you ever asked him some honest questions, would reveal a side of Catholicism that you have never seen, in a polite and cheerful manner.


could you please therefore ask if he might consider it and answer my questions or discusss catholicism here on Expat?[/QUOTE]

I can ask, though am not sure what he would say.
He wouldn't want to come to fight and argue, that's for sure.

MickeyTong
20-09-2013, 23:04
so i got baptised. and was raised and brought up a good catholic boy.


http://i46.tinypic.com/5b2o2e.jpg

Benedikt
21-09-2013, 09:12
[QUOTE=MickeyTong;1219216]


-we- do it rather with less water...Catholic Baby Baptism - YouTube

rusmeister
21-09-2013, 12:52
Thanks, Benedikt!
This makes me think about what is the same and what is different from Orthodox baptism. We don't believe in Original Sin in the Catholic sense (we hold there is no personal guilt to be cleansed of), but we DO believe in ancestral sin, bearing the conseqences of Adam's son - and subseqently, death.
Also, in Orthodoxy, the child immediately becomes a full member of the Church. There is no "Confirmation" later, and we Commune babies and young children effective immediately after baptism. And we dig full immersion - sprinkling would be an act of desperation, in the desert somewhere or something, where there simply is no water to speak of.
We do chrismate, like the Catholics, though, and also don't think that Baptism procures eternal salvation on its own, but that it is necessary and salvific.

Of course, I see Baptism as being a rite conducted by an organized Church, and that the practices were developed and determined by that Church for a very good reason, and so, see no sense in acknowledging the rite and rejecting the institution that developed the rite. It would be like valuing the oath to support and defend the Constitution given by new inductees into the Army, and then disdaining the Army itself.