Pope Benedict, Muslims and Mutual Respect

Enrique, one thing a lot of Christians fail to recognize is that it's not 'loving your neighbor as yourself' to *pray for some supernatural power to teach them the error of their heartfelt ways in order to conform to what *you* believe they should be.*

That's not *love,* that's *arrogance and insult,* even if you believe your religion calls for it and excuses it.

It's not so, but if I were praying for you to convert to my belief, (It's not my religion's way, and nonsensical to us, to be honest,) ...well, Christians'd be wailing to have me burnt at the stake.

And your 'enemies' or 'elder brethren' feel the same way, are offended. If you want to carry on doing that, that's on *you.* Don't be surprised at the results.

I'm guessing those results ain't the conversions you want.

Doug:

Catholics believe Jesus Christ is the incarnation of God. We pray that all may recognize that. If we did not pray for our older Jewish brothers we would not be loving them as ourselves. If we did not affirm what we belive about Jesus Christ, we would not be loyal to the central belief in our faith.

Jewish and Muslim people do not believe as we believe with regard to Christ's divinity, and SOME of them do not believe in his commandment to pray for one´s enemies, not persecute them. SOME catholics believe in this but do not practice it, because it is hard to.

Who then is being disrespectful? Those who pray for their enemies or those who persecute them, whatever their other religious beliefs or non-beliefs?

Catholics belief that we should love God above all, and our neighbor as ourselves. What other religions gives the highest priority to these 2 commandments as the Catholic faith does?

Doug:

Catholics believe Jesus Christ is the incarnation of God. We pray that all may recognize that. If we did not pray for our older Jewish brothers we would not be loving them as ourselves. If we did not affirm what we belive about Jesus Christ, we would not be loyal to the central belief in our faith.

Jewish and Muslim people do not believe as we believe with regard to Christ's divinity, and SOME of them do not believe in his commandment to pray for one´'s enemies, not persecute them. SOME catholics believe in this but do not practice it, because it is hard to.

Who then is being disrespectful? Those who pray for their enemies or those who persecute them, whatever their other religious beliefs or non-beliefs?

Catholics belief that we should love God above all, and our neighbor as ourselves. What other religions gives the highest priority to these 2 commandments as the Catholic faith do?

GaryD, GaryD, GaryD,

The wishful thinking was done approximately 2000 years ago by Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke and John who continued the embellishment and fiction tradition of the Jewish scribes. The locals paid for a good story of myth and imminent second coming. There was no money in the truth.

Were it the truth I'd not object. As it is what you are thumping is supposition founded upon wishful thinking by men who prefer the praises of corrupt men to the love of the almighty God.

HL,

Some added information:

"Getting back to the historical David and the biblical David. Apparently the only "proof" that David even existed other than the highly fictionalized OT, is one piece of broken pottery with some inscriptions with a variety of translations of said inscriptions.

The "powerfull" biblical King David should have left much archeological evidence/proof but none has been found. e.g. jewels, weapons, homes, grave, religious artifacts, non-Jewish attestations. None has been found.

And what is really odd is for the scripture writers to show that Jesus came from the family of David. This however would require that Joseph was the father of Jesus. So which is it? Joseph was the father or the Holy Ghost did the deed? If it were the HG, then Jesus was not a descendent of David. "

“Why this association was important in first century Palestine was addressed by "Stories circulated to the effect that Alexander of Macedonia was not only the son of Philip II, but also of the god Zeus-Ammon (Plutarch, Parallel Lives, "Alexander" 2.1-3.2); Plato was the son of Ariston and the god Apollo (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 3.1-2), and Augustus was the son of Octavius as well as the god Apollo (Suetonius, Lives o f the Caesars 2.4.1-7). The extraordinary character of these elites reputedly stemmed from both their divine origins and their kingroups. Their kin-groups provided one form of legitimation-political right to the throne and/or social status (thus the importance of Joseph in Matthew's genealogy). Their divine procreation provided another: their honor was divinely ascribed, and their greatness as leaders derived from divine paternity."

From: K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998. p.55”

See also: wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/368_Genealogy_of_Jesus

The Church baptized Aztecs, Mayans, Incas, and American Indians. See how better off they are now? Why not add Muslims to the list?

In Romans Paul says:

“Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Paul is saying that Jesus was descended from David and he became the son of God upon his resurrection from the dead. How is that possible that Jesus came from David? Marry came from the priestly family, the family of Aaron. Her husband Joseph was descendent from David. But Joseph was not the father of Jesus. So, Jesus was not descended from David and Paul was definitely wrong.

In 1Timothy the writer, presumably Paul but that is highly doubtful, says:

“This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God; there is also one mediator between God and humankind, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself a ransom for all.”

The writer is saying that:

- God is the Savior(and not Jesus)
- There is one God. (The Father is God but not Jesus)
- Jesus is human. (and therefore Jesus is not God)
- Jesus is a mediator between God and humankind. (Jesus is not God)

If Jesus is a mediator between God and humans he cannot be a god. There is only one God whom the Christians and Jews call the Father. And all this theology of god man is messed-up. It just doesn’t add up. It’s more like a Hodge podge theology.

GaryD, GaryD, GaryD,

Au contraire!!! It is time to thump the truth and it may take 2000 years of said thumping to correct all the 2000 years of thumped flaws and errors of Catholicism to include its atonement theology which makes god the padre guilty of filicide.

Jesus was a simple preacher man. Time to give him an appropriate burial.

Of course the Pope also led a Good Friday prayer that Jews would see the light.

Maybe Catholics and Muslims can agree on shared hatred.

Yes I am familiar with Crossan's garbage CCNL and I am aware as you apparently are not that you repeating it ad infinitum does not make it one whit more valid than it was the first time which is to say not at all.

We're sorry for the technical difficulties. We think a system glitch is inadvertently blocking some perfectly acceptable comments. We are looking into the problem. We think it may have something to do with whether the comment is posted multiple times. Please be patient when you post a comment. Try to wait 5-10 minutes before posting again. Thank you.

GaryD, GaryD, GaryD,

And your trip to heaven and back was when?

The comments about the atonement theology are from Professor JD Crossan, an On Faith panelist which you already knew from previous postings.

And of course, your Three B Syndrome forces you to continue 2000 years of mumbo jumbo in your support of the trinity myth.

To counter your thumping of the orthodox, some reality thumping:

Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/ carpenter/ simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

Soja John it won't matter, of course there are similarities between the two Mohammed was after all the world's first plagiarizer and one with a faulty memory into the bargain.

But you'd better reach an understanding of the Muslim doctrine of Abnegation fisrt and detail a few dozen of those priests and nuns to read the Hadiths which for more than a few Muslims is every bit as important to understanding Islam as it is currently practiced as the Koran.

I've addressed that rather idiotic statement before concerned. Apparently your reading comprehension skills aren't on par with your copy and paste skills.

None the less in the hope that some Christian will gain a bit in understanding I will post the rather easy rebuttal yet again.

Your view as expressed in that statement regarding atonement is that God should ignore justice thereby making it a matter of whim to be enforce whenever He feels like it. That makes of God the worst of tyrants.

Further God's Son, in the case of Jesus, is God himself. They are of one substance. What that means is that there was nothing that Jesus the Son experienced on the Cross that God the Father on his throne in heaven did not experience as well.

Dear Fr Reese

When I heard about the planned dialogue between Catholics and Muslims (which is expected to take place at regular intervals) I was delighted. Having known/read Catholic priests/nuns who have engaged intensely with other religions, I feel that the Catholic Church is well equipped to take on the challenge and engage in fruitful dialogue with Muslims.

Here I wish to share my random thoughts on the topic.

The Pope could commission a group of sixty or more priests and nuns to work on the project of preparing a verse for verse cross reference of the Quran with the Bible.

A group of lay/religious scholars could be commissioned to study Arab paganism (beliefs and customs and reforms underway at the time) at the time of Mohammad, to trace its impact on Islam.

A group of twelve priests and nuns each from different congregations/orders - active (for eg Jesuit, Dominican, Selesians) and contemplative (Benedictine & Carmelite) - would ensure that there are several parallel versions of the work, each with a unique perspective.

The Bible could be divided into twelve segments, so that each of the twelve members of the group from each congregation/order would have to work only on one section of the Bible but the whole group would as a whole cover the whole Bible.

The Quran being much shorter than the Bible should be taken verse for verse and compared with the verses in the Bible: both for verbatim or paraphrased Biblical thought.

The work would then be: 'The Bible (Judaism and Christianity) and Arab paganism in the Quran/Islam and the Quran/Islam not in the Bible (Judaism and Christianity) and in Arab paganism.'

A group of Jewish scholars could similarly be requested to contribute separately with information about Judaism in the Quran, comparison of Jewish and Sharia Law.

After the work on the Quran is complete the same could be done with the Hadiths.

It would thus be not be a critical analysis of Islam but a verse for verse Scriptural comparison and detailed comparison of the tenets (and the common persons mentioned in the Scriptures) of both religions based directly on Scripture. No Muslim would have problems with that.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Bgone, Bgone, Bgone,

You truly need help as you are without doubt possessed by the "demons of the demented"!!!!

Original sin come from the fact that all sex is sinful. We are all conceived through a sinful act and therefore need baptism to get rid of it.

Jesus was sacrificed to God because Jesus is the son of God's enemy, the biggest devil of them all, Lucifer.

We have a choice. We can acknowledge God, almighty God that created all or we can side with God's enemy, the angel Lucifer that wants to throw God out and take God's place. 86% of Americans choose to follow Lucifer calling Him God.

Proof the above is so can be found in the Bible. Lucifer prevents me from giving you a direct url to a Bible web site that explains the Bible, (hoax-buster.org) however you can create your own url or better yet read Exodus, biblegateway.com if you don't own a Bible.

GaryD, GaryD, GaryD,

Hmmm, you have been to Heaven to verify all your theology?

And the reality of "atonement" theology:

"An atonement theology that says God sacrifices his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us."

"Traditionally, Christians have said, 'See how Christ's passion was foretold by the prophets." Actually, it was the other way around. The Hebrew prophets did not predict the events of Jesus' last week; rather, many of those Christian stories were created to fit the ancient prophecies in order to show that Jesus, despite his execution, was still and always held in the hands of God."

"In terms of divine consistency, I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time, including Jesus, brings dead people back to life."

Sorry Baptism has nothing to do with Original sin. In fact unless you belief about half of the Italian Mob went unrepentan to heaven Baptism doesn't Biblically produce remission of sins, Christ's crucification did that.

A good many first century Christians died without ever having the chance to be baptized. And a lot of people before the Christian Era commenced entered into heaven without ever having been baptized.

The only reason to be Baptized is because Christ commanded it as a symbolic way to divorce one's self from one's former life if one is old or to display a baby or young child as one of the fellowship.

Actually there was no need for Magdi Allam's Baptism since there is and was no original sin so the point is mute just like the Pope's Baptismal words were.

An update on current Catholic theology as taught in many Catholic university graduate classes:

"The story of Adam and Eve is only symbolic.
This story was composed in the 900s BCE and functions as an etiology (explanatory myth) . In the 900s Israel was self ruling, under King David
and Solomon. The people were no longer at war and the question" Why are we not happy?" may have been asked. The short answer is sin. (Look at 1 Kings 11 for some clues into why the story depicts Eve sinning first and then tempting Adam [Solomon]).

Original Sin therefore is only symbolic of the sins of our origins -- in our
families and in the broader society, both of which affect each person
profoundly. The "sins of our origins" approach helps to account for certain
patterns of sin in particular families and societies.

Baptism therefore does not erase original sin since the sin does not exist. The old "laundry of the soul," approach to Baptism is no longer
accepted.

As soon as Mr. Allam shook off the brainwashing of Islam and accepted the teaching of the Catholic Church, he became a Catholic.

However, as has been noted many times, the Catholic Church is almost as flawed as Islam and Mr. Allam is simply trading one hallucination and myth based religion for another."