So the Holy Father made an innocuous remark about the Prophet Mohammed and the entire Muslim world over-reacted in typical fashion. To those who read the newspapers and who have an understanding on the issue, do you reckon that Pope Benedict XVI has made a diplomatic faux pas or do you think that his remarks had been taken out of context and blown out of proportion?
Here is an exerpt of the 'damning speech' which had aroused the ire of the Muslim world (God knows where they all find the time to take to the streets to protest all the time):
Quote:
In his speech at Regensburg University, the German-born Pope explored the historical and philosophical differences between Islam and Christianity, and the relationship between violence and faith.
Stressing that they were not his own words, he quoted Emperor Manuel II Paleologos of the Byzantine Empire, the Orthodox Christian empire which had its capital in what is now the Turkish city of Istanbul.
The emperor's words were, he said: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
Benedict said "I quote" twice to stress the words were not his and added that violence was "incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul".
"The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application," he added in the concluding part of his speech.
Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today."
Frankly, I don't see what is all the fuss about.
Sander
Re: Religious Misunderstanding yet again
loic wrote:
So the Holy Father made an innocuous remark about the Prophet Mohammed and the entire Muslim world over-reacted in typical fashion. To those who read the newspapers and who have an understanding on the issue, do you reckon that Pope Benedict XVI has made a diplomatic faux pas or do you think that his remarks had been taken out of context and blown out of proportion?
Here is an exerpt of the 'damning speech' which had aroused the ire of the Muslim world (God knows where they all find the time to take to the streets to protest all the time):
Quote:
In his speech at Regensburg University, the German-born Pope explored the historical and philosophical differences between Islam and Christianity, and the relationship between violence and faith.
Stressing that they were not his own words, he quoted Emperor Manuel II Paleologos of the Byzantine Empire, the Orthodox Christian empire which had its capital in what is now the Turkish city of Istanbul.
The emperor's words were, he said: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
Benedict said "I quote" twice to stress the words were not his and added that violence was "incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul".
"The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application," he added in the concluding part of his speech.
Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today."
Frankly, I don't see what is all the fuss about.
I find it ironic that the pope tries to (let's be honest that's what he's doing) make it seem Islam isn't a peaceful religion. I mean CRUSADES? Anyone?
Loic
True. But while most Christians today would renounce violent acts as a way of furthering their objectives, I doubt a similar proportion of believers in the Middle East feel the same way.
The Virgin Mary has been insulted so many times by other Christian sects and I do not see Catholics exploding in a similar way.
Sander
loic wrote:
True. But while most Christians today would renounce violent acts as a way of furthering their objectives, I doubt a similar proportion of believers in the Middle East feel the same way.
The Virgin Mary has been insulted so many times by other Christian sects and I do not see Catholics exploding in a similar way.
Well you have to realise that most Christians are much looser after over 500 years of ecclesiastical emancipation (peaking in the 60s) and that Muslims didn't experience this, so the power the "church/mosque" has over them is much bigger.
That said, I think there still are a great number of die hard christians who are much worse than the average muslim. (Ever watched a christian rally against abortion? :shock: :shock: :shock: )
Loic
No. But I can assure you that any Christian rallies of a public and garrulous nature are not Roman Catholic.
I feel sorry for Benedict XVI and he must be scratching his head as to how a speech that was produced for localised consumption has found itself printed and twisted across the world.
PS: Read the speech and you'd see why.
Benjamin [inactive]
Sander wrote:
Well you have to realise that most Christians are much looser after over 500 years of ecclesiastical emancipation (peaking in the 60s) and that Muslims didn't experience this, so the power the "church/mosque" has over them is much bigger.
Absolutely. A majority of Muslims today are not used to having their religion criticised or mocked; they are certainly not used to laughing about their religion.
This can be different for Muslims in Western countries through. Here's something which happened in one of my Religious Studies lessons last year:
Muslim boy: Even though I'm not a Christian...
Teacher: [cuts in] Yet...
*whole class laughs, most of whom are Muslims*
greg in noord-frankrijk
loic wrote:
True. But while most Christians today would renounce violent acts as a way of furthering their objectives, I doubt a similar proportion of believers in the Middle East feel the same way.
Euh ? Are you thinking about the conspicuous newborn christians intoning sincere, heartbreaking prayers at the white house live on TV while US missiles were being launched on Iraqi civilians ?
KSa
Sander wrote:
loic wrote:
True. But while most Christians today would renounce violent acts as a way of furthering their objectives, I doubt a similar proportion of believers in the Middle East feel the same way.
The Virgin Mary has been insulted so many times by other Christian sects and I do not see Catholics exploding in a similar way.
Well you have to realise that most Christians are much looser after over 500 years of ecclesiastical emancipation (peaking in the 60s) and that Muslims didn't experience this, so the power the "church/mosque" has over them is much bigger.
That said, I think there still are a great number of die hard christians who are much worse than the average muslim. (Ever watched a christian rally against abortion? :shock: :shock: :shock: )
Even an avarage Muslim is against abortion. As for extremists, I haven't heard about a single Christian extremist hijacking planes, setting explosives in the undegrounds, killing innocent people etc.
KSa
Re: Religious Misunderstanding yet again
Sander wrote:
loic wrote:
So the Holy Father made an innocuous remark about the Prophet Mohammed and the entire Muslim world over-reacted in typical fashion. To those who read the newspapers and who have an understanding on the issue, do you reckon that Pope Benedict XVI has made a diplomatic faux pas or do you think that his remarks had been taken out of context and blown out of proportion?
Here is an exerpt of the 'damning speech' which had aroused the ire of the Muslim world (God knows where they all find the time to take to the streets to protest all the time):
Quote:
In his speech at Regensburg University, the German-born Pope explored the historical and philosophical differences between Islam and Christianity, and the relationship between violence and faith.
Stressing that they were not his own words, he quoted Emperor Manuel II Paleologos of the Byzantine Empire, the Orthodox Christian empire which had its capital in what is now the Turkish city of Istanbul.
The emperor's words were, he said: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
Benedict said "I quote" twice to stress the words were not his and added that violence was "incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul".
"The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application," he added in the concluding part of his speech.
Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today."
Frankly, I don't see what is all the fuss about.
I find it ironic that the pope tries to (let's be honest that's what he's doing) make it seem Islam isn't a peaceful religion. I mean CRUSADES? Anyone?
I wish you had watched about Islamic schools in Pakistan on CNN last week. There was an Imam who runs one of such schools and he said that he teaches about "jihad" because "nobody can make any amendments to Islam". So, can you explain how we can combine "peace" and "the holy war"?
Thanks in advance for the answer.
greg in noord-frankrijk
KSa wrote:
As for extremists, I haven't heard about a single Christian extremist hijacking planes, setting explosives in the undegrounds, killing innocent people etc.
Because christian extremists are usually rich enough to buy and/or bias elections to grasp power and then use a regular army to do the job for them. They don't have to highjack planes as they own them already : those planes called bombers are specially designed to drop bombs on easily targetable, innocent people living in urban concentrations called cities. The only thing christian extremists need to hijack is democracy. À chacun son tour de force. God will know His own.
KSa
greg in noord-frankrijk wrote:
KSa wrote:
As for extremists, I haven't heard about a single Christian extremist hijacking planes, setting explosives in the undegrounds, killing innocent people etc.
Because christian extremists are usually rich enough to buy and/or bias elections to grasp power and then use a regular army to do the job for them. They don't have to highjack planes as they own them already : those planes called bombers are specially designed to drop bombs on easily targetable, innocent people living in urban concentrations called cities. The only thing christian extremists need to hijack is democracy. À chacun son tour de force. God will know His own.
Such a bulk of nonsense, lies and stupidities is characteristic for the extremists - in this case anti-christian ones - who are equally dangerous as other extremists.
André in Zuid-Afrika
greg in noord-frankrijk wrote:
Because christian extremists are usually rich enough to buy and/or bias elections to grasp power and then use a regular army to do the job for them. They don't have to highjack planes as they own them already : those planes called bombers are specially designed to drop bombs on easily targetable, innocent people living in urban concentrations called cities. The only thing christian extremists need to hijack is democracy. À chacun son tour de force. God will know His own.
With all due respect, Greg, I don't think that's fair. I can't actually think of a single Christian extremist government in the world.... :? There are extremists in all religious groups, and indeed in the anti-religious group as well (Christians, along with members of other religious groups, were violently prosecuted in the Soviet Union and other officially atheist countries). We should condemn extremism - fullstop - not point fingers.
There is some truth in what you write, in the sense that Christian extremists are indeed constantly working to get power, to get their views accepted as the views of the community at large, but that applies to everyone who work to have their views agreed upon. Liberals want a liberal society, socialists want a socialist society, conservatives want a conservative society, and so on. Nothing wrong with that, that's democracy. It's when a group wins power and then abandons democracy that we have trouble. In the past there had been political groups who had used the Christian religion to appeal to voters, but that doesn't make them extremists. In a democracy it's up to the voters to see the politicians for what they really are, and get rid of them if their views are distasteful. In South Africa we have the African Christian Democratic Party, a Christian fundamentalist party. I've said if they ever get into power, I'll emigrate. But no change of that, in the last national election, they got only two percent of the vote. In the more recent local government elections, they got even less support. So the voters (in a country where more than seventy percent regard themselves to be Christians) are rejecting their views.
What you've written above, could be applied to any political group, extremist or not.
True, many atrocities have been committed in the past in the name of Christianity. I've met and know about many "Christians" who are a disgrace to the religion. But that doesn't make the religion bad, it does not make everybody bad who are Christians.
Sander
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
I can't actually think of a single Christian extremist government in the world.... :?
What about the Vatican? :D
greg in noord-frankrijk
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
I can't actually think of a single Christian extremist government in the world.... :?
Well, I can think of one : the Bush government in the USA. Bush has hijacked elections twice (2000 : we all know — 2004 : war-on-terror brainwash), has made no secret of his Jesus-knocked-at-my-door, drop-the-bottle, born-again hallucinations, organised TV-shot praying sessions in his office, is sold to radical-right groups, has launched a war against the people of Iraq (human loss : 30 times the WTC and the Pentagon and Pennsylvania combined), is increasingly using extreme-right & islamophobic terminology (disingenuously coalesced neologisms like islamofascism) and is most certainly sponsoring aggressive evangelical proselytism across the world.
To many Europeans things like In God we trust and God bless America are perceived as inoffensive relics of a naïve past. The rest, however, shows a much uglier face.
André in Zuid-Afrika
I hardly think of the Bush government as specifically Christian, any more that I think of our own government as specifically Christian. Many people voted for Bush while not being Christians themselves. Don't confuse the purposes of a politician who uses (abuses) Christianity to get votes with the religion as such. He didn't do those things because he's a Christian, he did it because he's a politician. This is different from, for example, the people responsible for 9/11, who did what they did because of a fanatical belief in their religion. Bush didn't attack Iraq to make Christians out of the Iraqis, he did it for political reasons which have nothing at all to do with religion.
Of course not all "Christians" are good people, as I said in my previous post. But don't blame all Christians for what some are doing. The fact that Bush does what he does, while professing that he's a Christian, doesn't mean he's doing what the Christian faith prescibes.
In fact, millions of Christians all over the world and indeed in the USA opposes him.
To condemn Christians for what Bush is doing, would be the same as condemning all atheists for what Stalin did.
André in Zuid-Afrika
Sander wrote:
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
I can't actually think of a single Christian extremist government in the world.... :?
What about the Vatican? :D
We...ll..ll..ll :lol: :lol:
Loic
Don't make it your mission in life to offend the sensibilities of over 1 billion Catholics in the world.
KSa
greg in noord-frankrijk wrote:
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
I can't actually think of a single Christian extremist government in the world.... :?
Well, I can think of one : the Bush government in the USA. Bush has hijacked elections twice (2000 : we all know — 2004 : war-on-terror brainwash), has made no secret of his Jesus-knocked-at-my-door, drop-the-bottle, born-again hallucinations, organised TV-shot praying sessions in his office, is sold to radical-right groups, has launched a war against the people of Iraq (human loss : 30 times the WTC and the Pentagon and Pennsylvania combined), is increasingly using extreme-right & islamophobic terminology (disingenuously coalesced neologisms like islamofascism) and is most certainly sponsoring aggressive evangelical proselytism across the world.
To many Europeans things like In God we trust and God bless America are perceived as inoffensive relics of a naïve past. The rest, however, shows a much uglier face.
Greg:
What you're doing is a nasty and deliberate manipulation but only people with IQ<80 can believe it. If it turns out that George Bush likes hunting don't forget to blame all the hunters in the world for what George Bush has done.
Reading your christianophobic posts, in the context of the main topic of the thread, I’ve come to a conclusion that if Christians could defend their religion as overtly as the Muslims, Christianity wouldn't be insulted and mocked as it is, especially in the secular countries of western Europe.
KSa
Sander wrote:
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
I can't actually think of a single Christian extremist government in the world.... :?
What about the Vatican? :D
The Vatican is a country ruled by Catholics but not extremists.
KSa
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
[True, many atrocities have been committed in the past in the name of Christianity. I've met and know about many "Christians" who are a disgrace to the religion. But that doesn't make the religion bad, it does not make everybody bad who are Christians.
André, let me say that I'm really fed up with those anti-christians constantly reminding me about atrocities of my religion in the XIII or XIV century... We will never forget it but yet how long are we supposed to be blamed for the sins of our predecessors?
I’m far from competing in the "who was worse" contest but let me remind assassinated priests, raped nuns, looted catholic churches during the French Revolution, millions of casualties in the communist countries, where the political system by definition rejected religion, or other atrocities committed in the name of atheism…
Sander
KSa wrote:
Sander wrote:
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
I can't actually think of a single Christian extremist government in the world.... :?
What about the Vatican? :D
The Vatican is a country ruled by Catholics but not extremists.
Well, to me a head of state ruling by the grace of God sounds pretty extreme to me. :wink:
KSa
Sander wrote:
KSa wrote:
Sander wrote:
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
I can't actually think of a single Christian extremist government in the world.... :?
What about the Vatican? :D
The Vatican is a country ruled by Catholics but not extremists.
Well, to me a head of state ruling by the grace of God sounds pretty extreme to me. :wink:
Because you confuse terms: André wrote about Christian extremistgovernment and so he meant extremists within the whole population of Christians. Obviously, the Vatican city is not ruled by extremists but just regular Catholics.
Loic
Ok, I understand that many people are oblivious of the fact that the government of the Holy See wields only ecclesiastical authority. Its temporal power is symbolic at best and it is only through a quirk of history that the Vatican was able to remain its status as a political entity.
The Pope can at best, be compared to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Patriarches of the various eastern orthodox churches or the Dalai Lama. We don't compare him to dictators or kings or presidents.
It is sad that Roman Catholicism is often misunderstood and misinterpreted. But then again, isn't it in the Netherlands where a Roman Catholic isn't allowed to ascend the throne?
Benjamin [inactive]
Quote:
But then again, isn't it in the Netherlands where a Roman Catholic isn't allowed to ascend the throne?
A Roman Catholic is not allowed to ascend to the throne in the UK due to an archaic law which arguably did have some reasonable purpose when it was created in the 17th century. I'm not sure about the Netherlands, but it would be interesting if it were the same there.
Sander
Benjamin wrote:
Quote:
But then again, isn't it in the Netherlands where a Roman Catholic isn't allowed to ascend the throne?
A Roman Catholic is not allowed to ascend to the throne in the UK due to an archaic law which arguably did have some reasonable purpose when it was created in the 17th century. I'm not sure about the Netherlands, but it would be interesting if it were the same there.
It's the same. I believe they partly changed the law when the crown prince wanted to marry the catholic maxima
greg in noord-frankrijk
André & KSa : I was speaking about christian extremists not about christians in general. You probably felt as hurt or perplexed as some muslims were at the sight (or the knowing) of caricatures about Mahomet because you failed to see I was talking about christian radicals only (just like the caricatures targeted muslim extremism only).
We don't perceive things the same way, that's for sure. For instance Queen Elizabeth is a Head of State and the head of a church — which I find revolting due to my personal opinions — but I don't think she's a christian extremist : her double title just an exotic oddity. However, Bush is supposed to be a Head of State only — what is more, a State that's supposed to be secular —, but he nonetheless displays his christianism or his personal religious beliefs (like the existence of a divinity claimed to endorse wars triggered by a very temporal organisation : the US government) on TV while on duty. To me, that's a sign of christian extremism.
André in Zuid-Afrika
Actually no, Greg, I didn't feel hurt, or perplexed, or for that matter angry at what you wrote. (And incidently, I also didn't storm out, killing non-Christians in order to punish you for expressing your views, since I consider it your right to express your views.) I simply disagree with you (as I agree with you on many other things).
I don't regard Bush as a Christian extremist. A Christian conservative, yes. I disagree with many (most) of his political views. I also disagree with him on several of his religious views (gays, for example :wink: ) But why should he remain silent on his religious views just because he's the president? It's still for the voters to decide whether they agree with him or not. I wouldn't vote for the woman Elaine mentioned on another thread in the religion forum, because I disagree with her views. I hope she loses her election. But that doesn't mean she doesn't have the right to express her views. I strongly disagree with our African Christian Democratic Party, but I don't want them banned, even though they're actually more extremist than Bush.
I appreciate that you didn't refer to all Christians. But as far as I'm concerned, there are no Christian extremists who have achieved what you've described (in modern times). I reiterate that I can't think of a single Christian extremist government in the world. Christian extremists remain fringe groups everywhere, in South Africa, in the US, in Britain, and in France. And they will always remain fringe groups, because they are rejected by the majority of Christians. The fanatics you see at demonstrations, marches, protests, don't have the support of the majority of Christians.
André in Zuid-Afrika
KSa wrote:
André, let me say that I'm really fed up with those anti-christians constantly reminding me about atrocities of my religion in the XIII or XIV century... We will never forget it but yet how long are we supposed to be blamed for the sins of our predecessors?
I’m far from competing in the "who was worse" contest but let me remind assassinated priests, raped nuns, looted catholic churches during the French Revolution, millions of casualties in the communist countries, where the political system by definition rejected religion, or other atrocities committed in the name of atheism…
Agree. We shouldn't forget the past, but it's no use pointing fingers about the past, nobody is blameless.
Fredrik
Perhaps Bush and the US still live in the Middle Ages, where all disputes were discussed within a theological framework. A secular approach was not imagineable, no matter how evil your agenda was! :wink:
BTW I believe in the the priesthood of all believers. Therefore I was mildly shocked when Muslims wanted me, a Protestant, to apologize for what that crazy Vatican guy had said!
Benjamin [inactive]
Fredrik wrote:
BTW I believe in the the priesthood of all believers. Therefore I was mildly shocked when Muslims wanted me, a Protestant, to apologize for what that crazy Vatican guy had said!
I find it very interesting that they suggested that. Do you think it might be partly that they (some Muslims) don't have the same individualist mentality that Westerners tend to have?
Deborah
greg in noord-frankrijk wrote:
However, Bush is supposed to be a Head of State only — what is more, a State that's supposed to be secular —, but he nonetheless displays his christianism or his personal religious beliefs (like the existence of a divinity claimed to endorse wars triggered by a very temporal organisation : the US government) on TV while on duty. To me, that's a sign of christian extremism.
Agreed. I think of Bush as a Christian extremist because of the times he's stated or implied that god is on the side of America. How about his statements in reaction to the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit? He said that the offending words ("under God") in the Pledge (which is scary enough on its own) are a "confirmation of the fact that we received our rights from God, as proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence" and "We need commonsense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God" and "Those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench." That really scares me.
So far, at least, Bush's views are not official state policy. But there are too many people in this country who share his views for me to NOT worry about it.
greg in noord-frankrijk
Deborah wrote:
greg in noord-frankrijk wrote:
However, Bush is supposed to be a Head of State only — what is more, a State that's supposed to be secular —, but he nonetheless displays his christianism or his personal religious beliefs (like the existence of a divinity claimed to endorse wars triggered by a very temporal organisation : the US government) on TV while on duty. To me, that's a sign of christian extremism.
Agreed. I think of Bush as a Christian extremist because of the times he's stated or implied that god is on the side of America. How about his statements in reaction to the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit? He said that the offending words ("under God") in the Pledge (which is scary enough on its own) are a "confirmation of the fact that we received our rights from God, as proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence" and "We need commonsense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God" and "Those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench." That really scares me.
So far, at least, Bush's views are not official state policy. But there are too many people in this country who share his views for me to NOT worry about it.
Deborah : your being scared makes me feel assuaged . All the more so as I'm sure you're not the only one to feel that way in the US.
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
Actually no, Greg, I didn't feel hurt, or perplexed, or for that matter angry at what you wrote. (And incidently, I also didn't storm out, killing non-Christians in order to punish you for expressing your views, since I consider it your right to express your views.) I simply disagree with you (as I agree with you on many other things).
MdR = LOL !!!
Of course we disagree : you're a christian and I'm faithless.
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
I don't regard Bush as a Christian extremist.
I do. A christian extremist, a Republican extremist, a warmongering extremist, an ignorant extremist etc.
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
A Christian conservative, yes.
I'd say : « A soup-seller interested in christian-conservative votes, yes. »
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
I wouldn't vote for the woman Elaine mentioned on another thread in the religion forum, because I disagree with her views. I hope she loses her election. But that doesn't mean she doesn't have the right to express her views.
I agree. However, claiming that a politico is a christian extremist doesn't mean he's got no right to his job. And Bush has had opportunities aplenty to spit his nonsense. It's worked for 48 months at least.
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
I reiterate that I can't think of a single Christian extremist government in the world. Christian extremists remain fringe groups everywhere, in South Africa, in the US, in Britain, and in France. And they will always remain fringe groups, because they are rejected by the majority of Christians. The fanatics you see at demonstrations, marches, protests, don't have the support of the majority of Christians.
As a (nominally) christian-backgrounded guy, I quite understand (and agree with) what you said. But the danger doesn't come from Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet (the christians who want their mass in Latin, perform exorcisms etc). The danger comes from trash-TV-like christianism, which is the opposite of fringe groups and which Bush epitomises perfectly.
Loic
Greg, are most Frenchmen cultural Catholics? I have the impression that they are.
You must realise that as far as Christian extremism is concerned, the usual culprits are churches which hail from the Southern Baptist creed. I have nothing against Baptists in general and indeed, I have many Baptist friends in my circle. There is no unified Baptist church unlike the Roman Catholic prelacy but in general, they are more conservative, more rigid and less tolerant of other faiths.
I must say, I look at non-Catholic Christians as I'd view Muslims or Jews or Taoists. No, I would not use the language of hardline Muslims by calling them apostate infidels. But I really have nothing in common with them.
I am given to understand that President Bush comes from a Methodist family. I hope I do not cause grave offence to any Methodists here, but I simply cannot understand the Puritanical excesses of the Wesleyan branch of Christianity. Why are the simple pleasures of life such as alcohol and gambling frowned upon?
Greg, you must understand that extremism does not exist among Roman Catholics today. In fact, I have been told that Roman Catholics in France are one of the most euceminical (sic?) in the world.
As long as they do not deviate from standard church teaching, what's wrong with that? Societies such as the St Vincent de Paul or the Legion of Mary are sterling examples of moderate Catholic movements with humanitarian aims.
KSa
Fredrik wrote:
Perhaps Bush and the US still live in the Middle Ages, where all disputes were discussed within a theological framework. A secular approach was not imagineable, no matter how evil your agenda was! :wink:
BTW I believe in the the priesthood of all believers. Therefore I was mildly shocked when Muslims wanted me, a Protestant, to apologize for what that crazy Vatican guy had said!
Fredrik,
First, I must admit I’m NOT surprised with the contempt to the Pope you showed by the words: “crazy Vatican guy”. I’m accustomed to much stronger epithets coming out of Protestants mouth. I can only tell you that the Pope John Paul II respected all the protestants in the world what he proved many times. He would never say or even think something like this in his entire life. I’m sure that the Pope Benedict thinks quite similar.
Second, what did the Pope Benedict say? Did you read or listen to the lecture he gave in Ratisbone? I’m afraid you didn’t. One phrase of this comprehensive, in-depth theological analysis has been taken out of context. This has caused improportional reactions in certain Islamic circles resulted in casualties, churches on fire, caricature of Benedict with the swastika etc. Even if there was something in it that offended Muslims it wasn’t deliberate.
Loic
Not wanting to add fuel to fire here, but Ksa knocked the nail in the head when he said that Protestant Christians generally have a lack of respect for the Holy Father. Even the much beloved John Paul II was not spared the brickbats - I still remember a Presbyterian here saying something like: Hallelujah! The Pope is dead.
If we were in Northern Ireland, he might just be shot dead.
I suppose there are also Protestants around who'd also criticise Mother Teresa for the fact that she was a Catholic.
So I think a religious dialogue between the great faiths of the world, while essential, is still not as important as developing an understanding between all the Christian churches.
I used to entertain a fantasy notion where all Christian denominations are once again united under the aegis of the Church of Rome. Wishful thinking, perhaps, but it never hurts to dream.
Elaine
loic wrote:
I used to entertain a fantasy notion where all Christian denominations are once again united under the aegis of the Church of Rome. Wishful thinking, perhaps, but it never hurts to dream.
No offense, but I'm actually puzzled why you would entertain such a notion, considering that institution's shady history.
greg in noord-frankrijk
loic wrote:
Greg, are most Frenchmen cultural Catholics? I have the impression that they are.
Me too. To the extent many of them are baptised ou would have their children baptised soon after birth, would marry at the church (if they marry at all), would like to be buried with a cross on their tombs etc. But I believe most of them do not haunt churches.
You know, there's a church in every village of France and there are 36.000 municipalities in the country...
loic wrote:
You must realise that as far as Christian extremism is concerned, the usual culprits are churches which hail from the Southern Baptist creed. I have nothing against Baptists in general and indeed, I have many Baptist friends in my circle. There is no unified Baptist church unlike the Roman Catholic prelacy but in general, they are more conservative, more rigid and less tolerant of other faiths.
I'm not too familiar with US christian cults of protestant obedience but I know they're really different from (French) catholicism.
loic wrote:
I am given to understand that President Bush comes from a Methodist family. I hope I do not cause grave offence to any Methodists here, but I simply cannot understand the Puritanical excesses of the Wesleyan branch of Christianity. Why are the simple pleasures of life such as alcohol and gambling frowned upon?
I don't know what's the difference between methodists and baptists (etc) but I can tell you Bush is instrumentalising religion — or religiosity to be more accurate.
loic wrote:
Greg, you must understand that extremism does not exist among Roman Catholics today. In fact, I have been told that Roman Catholics in France are one of the most euceminical (sic?) in the world.
Extremism does exist among French catholics. It's just reduced to almost nothing and encompasses issues linked to traditionalism (it's prehistoric).
Loic
Elaine: Shady? Do not confuse the institution with the person. Yes, there were bad popes. There were mad popes. They enriched themselves at the expense of the church and their self-serving actions continue to haunt us today.
However, do not forget that it was the church which kept alive the spirit of learning during the Dark Ages in Europe when only the clergy were usually the only chaps around with knowledge of reading and writing.
I can even think of a redeeming point for the corrupted excesses of the church. Do you think Gothic architecture could have been born without the patronage of the Roman Catholic church? What about the numerous paintings by the Italian masters that were commissioned by the church? The world would undoubtedly be culturally poorer without them.
Greg: I am not too sure of the difference between Methodists and Baptists as well. What I do know is that Baptists are not baptised at birth and that they only do so once they reach an appropriate age of reason - 16 for them. As I said, there is no unified Baptist creed other than a few commonalities which bind them together.
Nonetheless, I take a very dim view of churches which force the congregation to tithe. I think tithing is a personal issue and should not be compulsory.
To be frank, I found it annoying initially when the President peppered his speeches with religious language. But he is a politician and I suppose he is speaking the language of his audiences - or rather, his core supporters. I think it is a little sad that the GOP's core base is now made up of conservative Protestant Christians and not the traditional sort of Tory who believes in small government and big business. Bush's brand of conservatism alienates me at times and to tell you the truth, I am glad his policy is not practised in my country.
Just as the Democrats are sometimes highjacked by left-wing extremists (the type who advocate the abolition of the nuclear family, unfettered access to abortion even in the third trimester, etc), the GOP is more or less hostage to the religious wing of their party. Bush does not act as independently as you'd like to think - when they ask him to jump, he can only ask, 'how high?'
Fredrik
Very interesting discussion you are having here!
Even though I may call the Pope that "crazy Vatican guy"; I usually don't view him with much contempt. As many Norwegian Protestants I have a certain unfulfilled longing for a religious leader, a representative of the unity of Christendom. Therefore I like to watch the Pope celebrating Midnight Mass in St. Peter's on Christmas Eve. But we, of course, are not used to view him as a holy figure, just as some kind of global bishop, primus inter pares, who, in our eyes, of course is not infallible. And that fact makes it easier to accept that he has crazy views on HIV prevention etc.
BTW the Norwegian word for pope, "pave", is also used for disobedient little children, perhaps a legacy of the Reformation!
I too heard that the Pope was misunderstood in Regensburg. He was quoting a Byzantine emperor in the 13th century, and if there was a person who should be anti-Muslim, it had to be the beleaguered Byzantine Emperor, with the expanding Muslims in front of his gates!
And the latest ecclesiastical news from Norway:
In Øygarden, a small island municipality in the extreme west of Norway, the parish council has agreed upon a ban on any gay-friendly priests that might preach in their parish! And if the present conservative bishop of Bjørgvin diocese is replaced with a gay-friendly one when he steps down in two years, this parish wants an alternative, conservative bishop! :lol:
My reaction, apart from amusement, was a rekindled belief in the abolition of ordained priesthood (as it exists in the Church of Norway today) and the introduction of the priesthood of all believers.
Speaking of which, here are my ideas for the ideal church:
- No ordained, wordly priesthood
- Separation of church and state, no royal summus episcopus
- Monasticism as an established institution. Possibly monks (and nuns) as clergy, as in Catholic and Orthodox Christianity.
- A very liberal celebration of the Eucharist, both in the church and at home
- Veneration of the Virgin Mary and other saints
- Lots of holy shrines and joyfull pilgrimages in every region.
- A broad church with a strong Grundtvigian emphasis
(And if the Catholics want to join in:
- No Papal infallibility, only symbolic preeminence for him and other patriarchs)
Benjamin [inactive]
Quote:
I must say, I look at non-Catholic Christians as I'd view Muslims or Jews or Taoists. No, I would not use the language of hardline Muslims by calling them apostate infidels. But I really have nothing in common with them.
I have to say that I found this statement rather surprising, loic. As a Roman Catholic, do you honestly not feel as though you have anything in common with at least High Anglicans and High Lutherans? It's just that I've attended masses in High Anglican (Anglo-Catholic) and Roman Catholic churches and they really are very similar. The Lutheran cathedral I visited in Germany was q similar sort of thing as well.
Fredrik,
Quote:
Speaking of which, here are my ideas for the ideal church:
- No ordained, wordly priesthood
- Separation of church and state, no royal summus episcopus
- Monasticism as an established institution. Possibly monks (and nuns) as clergy, as in Catholic and Orthodox Christianity.
- A very liberal celebration of the Eucharist, both in the church and at home
- Veneration of the Virgin Mary and other saints
- Lots of holy shrines and joyfull pilgrimages in every region.
- A broad church with a strong Grundtvigian emphasis
(And if the Catholics want to join in:
- No Papal infallibility, only symbolic preeminence for him and other patriarchs)
Hmmm... I can think of a lot of churches which fit all but on or two of those!
By the way, if anyone is genuinely interested in the differences between Methodists and Baptists, I can give a summary.
Loic
Frederik:
Well, some points of your proposed ideal church that I approve:
-Separation of Church and State (to formalise in name what has already happened in reality)
-A very liberal celebration of the Eucharist (as in that that the Eucharist is encouraged but it is still nonetheless a sacrament and that Transubstantiation is present)
-Veneration of the Virgin Mary and saints (why not?)
Benjamin:
I have to rephrase my statement. I do not feel a sense of solidarity with them although I acknowledge the commonalities which exist between us.
Oh, I'd be obliged if you could explain to me the difference between Baptists and Methodists, or between any Protestant denomination for that matter.
Benjamin [inactive]
loic wrote:
I have to rephrase my statement. I do not feel a sense of solidarity with them although I acknowledge the commonalities which exist between us.
Oh, I see. As a Unitarian, I personally do feel a sense of solidarity with Quakers, but that's probably the difference between people who are part of very small religious groups and people who are part of the largest religious organisation in the world.
loic wrote:
Oh, I'd be obliged if you could explain to me the difference between Baptists and Methodists, or between any Protestant denomination for that matter.
Firstly, I think that the most important thing to understand about the notion of a 'Protestant' church is that it refers to those denominations with historical roots in the Reformation. It makes no specific comment about the beliefs and practice. Unfortunately, this misunderstanding has often led to the naïve assumption, especially from people in predominately Roman Catholic societies, that the pseudo-Catholic Church of England, the puritantical and fundamentalist Southern Baptist Convention and the über-liberal Unitarians are all essentially the same thing, or at least that they are more similar to each-other than any are to the Roman Catholic Church. That view is, in my opinion, totally flawed.
Secondly, it is important to realise that just because denominations may be called 'Methodist' in, say, Britain and the United States (or wherever), they will usually be run independently from each-other. That's to say that there may be very significant differences between them.
Finally, may denominations give quite a lot of freedom to individual congregations. This means that it may not always be easy to comment on what a particular denomination is 'generally' like.
Okay then... Methodists can largely be traced back to John and Charles Wesley in England in the 18th century. He didn't originally intend to found his own denomination, but wished instead to promote their ideas within the Church of England, which included Christian teachings which could be understood by people of all levels of education, and the idea of a personal relationship with God. Essentially, at least in England, they tend to be very similar to Low Anglicans. Many Methodist churches in England could be described as quite liberal, although I think that they tend to be more conservative (or even fundamentalist in some cases) in the US.
Baptists have earlier origins, and have tended to place all authority on (their interpretation of) the Bible, rejecting any use of icons. Whilst many Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Anglican Christians would regard the Bible as 'the book of the people', Baptists would perhaps be more inclined to see themselves as 'the people of the book'. They believe in 'believers baptism', in which people deemed old enough to be able to know for themselves wether or not they 'accept Christ' are immersed in water. This act is seen as symbolic only. Likewise, the 'Eucharist' (Baptists tend to use 'Communion' instead) is celebrated, but is seen as only symbolic of the last supper -- they do not accept transubstantiation, consubstantiation or even the spiritual prescence of Christ in the bread and wine. Equally, the wine, which is alcohol free, is usally distributed in individual glasses, rather than from one cup. The bread and wine is not 'blessed' as such. Baptists in the US seem to have a reputation for being rather fundamentalist. They don't have this reputation in the UK, rather they are seen as the people who sing very joyful hymns, but this may be because they are numerically insignificant.
Any other denominations?
Fredrik
loic:
When you mentioned Transubstantiation I had to look up the Eucharist stuff on Wikipedia, as I had very little idea about it. It looks like that my official position should be the Lutheran in, with, and under the forms doctrine, but personally I find the Orthodox doctrine about true sacrifice and objective presence but pious silence on the particulars most appropriate.
The kind of Eucharistic adoration or worship that you can find within Catholicism just strikes me as odd, so I guess I am not much of a transubstantiationalist!
Benjamin:
Very interesting explanation! When you mentioned the Baptists, I remembered that there is one Protestant sect whose name sounds more mystical and temptingly heretical to me than any Opus Dei or Priory of Sion: The Anabaptists, Wiedertäufer or gjendøperne....
Loic
Benjamin: Do you know anything about the altar-call among the Baptists? Have you attended a Baptist service? What do you think are the tangible differences between say, a Baptist service and a Unitarian one?
Frederik: To tell you the truth, I once secretly thought transubstantiation to be a little dodgy too. But you have to accept the miracle of the sacrament and that Jesus is physically present during holy communion. I am given to understand that non Roman Catholics see the Eucharist as a symbolic representation of the Last Supper but I assure you that it is far more potent than a mere symbol.
This is why women are not allowed to be ordained as priests.
PS: I wonder if everyone here realises that according to the OED, catholic with a small c means universal. The Roman Catholic church is, as the name implies, the true universal church.
KSa
Loic: Let me ask you some questions:
How many catholics are there near the place where you live?
Something about your community, parish, priests, bishops?
How many people attend the Holy Mass?
How are you perceived by others (Buddhists?Muslims?atheists?)?
Do you observe any convertions?
Are you a "natural born Catholic" or did you convert at a certain moment?
It's still unusual to find Roman Catholics in Asia, and Singapore is not an exception - all Christians constitute 14%, according to Wikipedia. That's why I'm asking these questions. We know very little about them. We know very little about you.
Benjamin [inactive]
loic wrote:
Benjamin: Do you know anything about the altar-call among the Baptists?
All I know is that it would be quite normal after a baptism in a Baptist church for the pastor to call for individuals to declare publicly their faith in Jesus Christ, especially those who had undergone a conversion experience during the service. They may be asked to come out to the front, or to simply stand up or raise their hand.
Quote:
Have you attended a Baptist service?
Unfortunately not. What do you think are the tangible differences between say, a Baptist service and a Unitarian one?
Unfortunately, I have not attended a Baptist service. However, here are my (reasonably informed) assumptions for what the differences might generally be:
Baptists would sing lively hymns praising Jesus/God, whilst Unitarians would sing quieter hymns which might not always be explicitly Christian.
Baptists would take the readings entirely from the Bible and would be viewed as the Word of God, whilst Unitarians would take readings from the Bible and many other sources, none of which would necessarily be viewed as inerrant.
Baptist sermons would give specific theological and ethical teachings, whilst Unitarian sermons would encourage questioning.
Baptist services may often be lively or even charismatic, whilst Unitarian services would be a much quieter affair with much time for silent meditation.
I'd actually be able to give a better informed assessment of the difference between Unitarian, Methodist and Anglican services. My grandparents are Methodists, my mother was brought up as a Methodist and I've attended Methodist services a number of times. Likewise, my dad was raised Anglican and I've attended a lot of Anglican services as it's the main church where I live. I've also attended Roman Catholic, Lutheran and Congregationalist services, and I'm reasonably well acquainted with Quaker meetings, so I could probably give a better informed summary of those than for the Baptists as well.
Quote:
I am given to understand that non Roman Catholics see the Eucharist as a symbolic representation of the Last Supper but I assure you that it is far more potent than a mere symbol.
Anglicans officially believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. However, a certain degree of freedom is given to the individual Anglicans as to how they understand this — beliefs officially range from transubstantiation to the belief in the spiritual presence only.
Likewise, Lutherans officially (I think) believe in consubstantiation, in which the bread and wine is both physically bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ.
Quote:
PS: I wonder if everyone here realises that according to the OED, catholic with a small c means universal. The Roman Catholic church is, as the name implies, the true universal church.
. All the more so as I'm sure you're not the only one to feel that way in the US.