Honesty and realism, i.e., anti-dhimmitude, from Charles Chaput, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Denver (thanks to Uncle Jeff):
...Catholics who do know history may remember the following:Islam has embraced armed military expansion for religious purposes since its earliest decades. In contrast, Christianity struggled in its divided attitudes toward military force and state power for its first 300 years. No “theology of Crusade” existed in Western Christian thought until the 11th century. In fact, the Christian Byzantine Empire had already been resisting Muslim expansion in the East for 400 years before Pope Urban II called the First Crusade — as a defensive response to generations of armed jihad.
Much of the modern Middle East was once heavily Christian. Muslim armies changed that by imposing Islamic rule. Surviving Christian communities have endured centuries of marginalization, discrimination, violence, slavery and outright persecution — not always and not everywhere; but as a constant, recurring and central theme of Muslim domination.
That same Christian suffering continues down to the present. In the early years of the 20th century, the Muslim Ottoman Empire murdered more than 1 million Armenian Christians for ethnic, economic, but also religious reasons. Many Turks and other Muslims continue to deny that massive crime even today. Coptic Christians in Egypt — who, even after 13 centuries of Muslim prejudice and harassment, cling to the faith — continue to experience systematic discrimination and violence at the hands of Islamic militants.
Harassment and violence against Christians continue in many places throughout the Islamic world, from Bangladesh, Iran, Sudan, Pakistan and Iraq, to Nigeria, Indonesia and even Muslim-dominated areas of the heavily Catholic Philippines. In Saudi Arabia, all public expressions of Christian faith are forbidden. The on-going Christian flight from Lebanon has helped to transform it, in just half a century, from a majority Christian Arab nation to a majority Muslim population.
These are facts. The Muslim-Christian conflict is a very long one, rooted in deep religious differences, and Muslims have their own long list of real and perceived grievances. But especially in an era of religiously inspired terrorism and war in the Middle East, peace is not served by ignoring, subverting or rewriting history, but rather by facing it humbly as it really happened and healing its wounds.
It is good that at last a RC bishop in the USA is doing what the archbishop down under has down, speak the truth. Also it is good that it is mentioned that it was Muslim aggression that brought about the crusades.
The Cardinal in Lebanon is fearful the Christians will leave the Middle East driven out by Hezbollah who has persecuted the remnants of the Christian South Lebanon Army (SLA).
The prospect of driving Christians out of Iraq, Syria and Lebanon and Palestine is probably a prime motivation for the Mad Mullahs of Iran. Christians and Jews to be pushed out of the region so the Mad Mullahs can execute Saddam's plan for regional hegemony
It is good that at last a RC bishop in the USA is doing what the archbishop down under has down, speak the truth. Also it is good that it is mentioned that it was Muslim aggression that brought about the crusades.
Voyager,
The danger is that then it will make for a much more dangerous region, if all the Jews and Christians are driven out of the ME, to the rest of the world.
Bigcatgirl,
I am reading about the Crusades, and have already arrived at the conclusion that they were the reaction, not the action. I am intrigued that the muslims go ballistic at the mere mention of the word.
arjun.sevak,
I am not suprised that even the Muslims would go balistic because they KNOW, they KNOW that there side started it. They are just simply in deniel because they know that the Christian world had NO CHOICE but to fight back.
I am intrigued that the muslims go ballistic at the mere mention of the word.
Why does it surprise you ? I bet you can guess how it is taught in their culture...........the way the Left tries to teach it in ours.
It is worth remembering that The Dome on The Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque are "illegal settlements" in Jerusalem.............and that Christians once populated the areas from Egypt to India and westwards..........and that after Constantinople - it was Moscow that became The Third Rome with the Kiev Rus being the cradle of Christianity in Russia.
Having suffered the blight of Communism and the suffocation of Islam, Christianity needs room to breathe - the persecution by the Secular Humanists in the West is but another attempt to crush Christianity. The French Revolution tried it - Hitler and Himmler tried it with Wewelsberg Castle and his Neo-Pagan Cultism
Sure, facts, but the new narrative is helpful when selling Hizballah.
Archbishop Chaput tells it like it is. I wish there were more men like him leading the church.
This is an informative link about the crusades:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook1k.html
It's about time SOMEBODY started to mention the 1,300 hundred year history of jihad.
The Catholics have been AWOL, and they need to enter the fray.
Catholics turned back the jihadists in Spain. They stopped them cold at Lepanto. And Polish lancers drove islam back from Eastern Europe.
And for the Catholic Church to FORGET, or to overlook those signal victories for dubious multiculturalism is pathetic.
It's like spitting on the sacrifices of the holy dead.
"But the Christians were every bit as bad..."
"were"
Jihad is.
"Archbishop Chaput tells it like it is. I wish there were more men like him leading the church"
Posted by Johnathan
Granted the text of the Archbishop's remarks here did not appear complete, but he appears to overlook the Islamic conquest of Sicily and Spain (the latter lasting more than 700 years) its very near conquest of the rest of Europe in 792 (turned back by the forces of the Frankish chieftain Charles Martel at Tours)and the numerous debilitating raids, occupations and lootings of European cities, including Naples, Benevento, Brindisi and even, briefly, Rome in 842. Some of these occupations lasted for decades and were extremely damaging.
Don't neglect to remind them about all of this Americaningermany.
"Muslims have their own long list of real and perceived grievances"
Yes, but so do non-Moslems. Christians are always beseiged by reproaches and demands for apologies from Moslems. Lets start demanding the same of them! They have a great deal to apologize for indeed!
Withot doubt, the very first muslim so called "prophet" was a terrosist of highest order. Every muslim is therefore a terrorist. A person who is a muslim out of berth but opposes islamic terrorism is known as apostate, to be killed by any of the true muslim.
A final note on this that I should have added to my last post.
Since the West is constantly being browbeaten about the Crusades,these raids in Europe need to be considered by historians in relation to the roots of the Crusades.
The motives of the Church, and of other forces shaping European opinion, for supporting the crusades are often explained almost exclusively as a very cynical attempt to unite Europe politically under the power of the Papacy, using the Byzantine emperor's plea for help fighting the Turks as a pretext, with perhaps a slight nod to the desire to protect Christian pilgrims in the holy land. Its been easy for them to assume this because at the time there were a number of church reforms underway that were leading to the strong centralized papacy of the high Middle Ages, but I think they need to revisit the topic and study the role played by Europe's memory of these traumatic events of the 8th and 9th centuries.
This is a question that ought to be put to such "experts" on the Middle East as Bernard Lewis.
I'm reading a book on the war against the Barbary Pirates, titled: The End of Barbary Terror, America's 1815 War Against the Pirates of North Africa, written by Frederick C. Leiner. It's quite good.
And their tactics then, are the same ones we're seeing today. Hostage taking, ransom demands, tortured diplomacy, broken deals, endless yellow talk and threats.
I can only read portions of it at a time, because it gets me all riled up.
The real reason history is not being taught properly, the real reason important facts are being left out is because once the younger generations lose the knowledge of what lay in their past the easier it is to take their heritage away and replace it with something more eastern and sinister. It is up to the parents to educate your children in genuine history, don't let your children lose touch with the past and don't let them forget what Islam is really about.
as a very cynical attempt to unite Europe politically under the power of the Papacy,
How so ?
Europe was united under The Holy Roman Emperor.........Charlemagne had founded the Holy Roman Empire in 800 AD after protecting the Pope in Rome - and The Reich became the Protector of the Papacy in what had been the Western Roman Empire
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/national/hre.htm
"Europe was united under The Holy Roman Emperor.........Charlemagne had founded the Holy Roman Empire in 800 AD after protecting the Pope in Rome"
Posted by Voyager
Not that I'm aware of.
Someone once said of the HRE that it "was neither 'holy', nor 'Roman', nor an 'empire'. It was basically only the regions that are now France and Germany; there were various petty kingdoms and smaller principalities ruled by all sorts of lesser nobles all over western Europe, including the north of Italy, and most of southern Italy was becoming the "Papal States".
Yes, the Pope depended on this period on alliances with various parties, but did not come directly under their role, nor did anyplace else other than the two I mentioned.
At least this is what I recall. If someone can cite something to the contrary, I'll check it out.
Anyway, Voyager, you mention the Third Reich but this was Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 40s.
As for "How so?". I'm not one of the twits who say this, so you'd have to ask them. I think they miss the point entirely.
"nor did anyplace else other than the two I mentioned"
I lost my way a bit as I was writing that last post and failed to make the correction before sending it. That should have said something like, "but only the two areas I mentioned (France and Germany) comprised the H.R.E."
Arjun, while you've been studying the Crusades, I've been studying the islamic invasion of India. I had no idea, but I'm not surprised. Same game plan. Muslims are like termites, cockroaches or other vermin. Same game plan.
Anyway, Voyager, you mention the Third Reich but this was Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 40s.
Ok Templar - Reich = Empire.
First Reich = Holy Roman Empire
Second Reich = Prussian Empire founded 1871 when King of Prussia crowned at Versailles - destroyed 1918
Third Reich = Nazi era - planned 1000 year duration ended after 12 years
Heiliges Deutsches Reich = Holy Roman Empire
Frankreich = Reich of the Franks
Kudos to Archbishop Chaput of Denver, CO USA! This is a great general overview of the Islamic jihad and a must for Catholics and all Westerners to read, print, and share with their families and friends. This is the kind of article that may, God-willing, provoke further interest in the historical legacy of our common enemy. I still remember the shock I had when I first learned that all of present-day muslim North Africa was once solidly Christian before the Islamic invaders arrived. They didn't teach that in school! To think that St. Augustine's native country is now completely muslim is very sad.
Assalamau Laikum all,
You all know that stories in Koran & bible are similar but end in different ways. Via the glorious Koran, Muslims know that Abrahim & Moses, & Noah , Jesus were all muslims…but someone (Christian probably) somewhere being power hungry and politically astute changed the bible….staining historical fact.
In the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born.
The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, (and for the next thousand years) to right the wrongs on the benign population….i.e. the truth as seen by Mohd (particularly) as he was the last prophet…had to be told…this is no less that the peoples deserved….history must be told as the facts dictate.
With enormous energy, & personal sacrifice the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed.
By the eighth century, Muslim armies had spread the word of the Koran in all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece.
In desperation, and to keep Christianity lies going the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their “brothers and sisters” in the East.
You know the response yourself….the wicked crusades tried to reverse four centuries in which Muslims spread the truth …on the already “captured/converted” two-thirds of the old Christian world.
Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to push back the conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095.
Many thousands of warriors took the vow of the cross and prepared for war. Why did they do it? The Crusaders were merely lacklands and never-to do-peoples who took advantage of an opportunity to rob and pillage in a faraway land. They knew Allah had graced the muslim with enormous wealth.
"Crusading," the muslims argue is understood as an "an act of love"—in this case, the love of butchering muslims.
The liberation of Jerusalem was asked for, but in the process many innocent jews too were killed of by the crusaders.
Now nearly 1400 years later we can see the Christians are there again in the guise of “spreading democracy”. However you can see that the instigators (Bush and Blair) are both devout Christians (who may even had a wink and a nod from the pope).
The truth of the Koran cannot be overturned ….unfortunately the blood of 100s is spilled everyday trying to undo the truth….is the bible’s version of history so important?
It’s all gone now anyway…think about the future….please remove the Amerekie Christian soldiers from the ME…you know it makes sense…the Koran makes sense, may Allah bless you all.
"I am intrigued that the muslims go ballistic at the mere mention of the word" ["Crusades"]
Millions of Western Leftists also -- if not exactly "go ballistic" at the mention of The Crusades, certainly have a spasmodic reaction to it, as one big example of how bad their own West is.
In as far as it's worth refuting the asinine version of events given by our slightlysinister friend from Lahore:
The only person who changed the Bible was the illiterate, semi-barbarian Mohammed, who couldn't read it himself and came up with garbled versions of Bible stories that he had heard, often from heretical sects who accepted sacred texts regarded as inauthentic by all other Christians.
Half the people who the early Caliphs attacked were Persian Zoroatrians, a religion that the Muslims came close to violently wiping out. This was because they didn't fit in with the Mohammedan fantasy that he was completing the work of the Old and New Testament, being entirely outside that tradition,
The Byzantine Empire kept the fanatic hordes of Mohammedans at bay for the best part of 700 and for that the rest of europe should be everlaastingly grateful:who the hell would want to end up with the grotesquely distorted view of reality which has been Islam's great gift to Lahore's answer to Tokyo Rose. In Europe the crusades were seen as an attempt to regain the holy places of Christianity, with a bit of land grabbing by aristos on the side. At a guess I'd say they failed because the lines of communication were too long for the Europeans.
The lies of the Koran have been overturned in Spain, the Muslims were ejected, and the Muslims have also been booted out of most of the Balkans. Owing to nearly 500 years of Ottoman rule, even now, that region remains one of the poorest and most backward in Europe.
Personally I don't think we should be wasting our time in Iraq or Afghanistan either: in stead, we should be encouraging the Muslims there to kill each other: they seem to enjoy doing that and they're very good at it.
Naseem's contribution excellently illustrates the difference between western civilization and muslim traditions. Since about Socrates, there has been extremely influential idea in western thought, that it is desirable to know the truth, and therefore if one believes in something that is true, one can then convince another of that truth by rational argument. That is, it is beneficial for man to know the truth, and one only need to show the other that it is in his self interest to know the truth. Judging from Haseem's contribution, perhaps this is an overly optimistic assessment of human nature. Even the somewhat authotarian medieval church produced loads of works intellectually "proving" the truth of it's teachings. And of course, the apostles set off without arms and even sufficient provisons, convinced that the truth of the idea which they taught will lead to its' inevitable widespread adoption. This idea lives on in modern liberal thought - as the conviction that dissidents by speaking the truth and being jailed for it can bring down totalitarina regimes. By contrast, Muhammad crawled out of the cave and almost immediately started to violently force people to accept the "truth". And I think that proves he is a fraud and did not have a bonafide spiritual experience in that cave. This is because many people over the centuries have reached a certain level of spiritual enlightenment, Buddha, Confucius, Socrates, the Taoists.... Always, these people with a real experience of the spiritual had come away with a lackadaisical attiude toward material things, wealth, sex. etc. - that they are to be possessed in modest quantites at best or even shunned, and opulent wealth is to be avoided like the devil, because they felt that the material is an obstacle in attaining the spiritual, and that the material in no way compares with spiritual. They also came away with an abhorrence of shedding blood, in some cases even non-human blood. And they came away with the conviction that they just have to explain these things well and people will want to adopt their way of life for themselves because this way of life is good, and that if people oppose them violently, they will not respond with violence. Now since Allah is supposedly spiritual, why would someone who had such a close enounter with God then proceed to gather as much possessions as he could, have as much sex as he could, and kill many people? I mean, no material experience can even compare with an encounter with God, so if Muhammad really had one, wouldn't he count all material things as nothing, and instead of spending his time in sex with his many wives and slaves, and killing his opponents, wouldn't he be spending his time in contemplating the glory of God and peacefully teaching men about it? Instead Haseem comes pretty close to making the argument that denying Muhammad is a prophet of God gives muslims the right to asssault, plunder, and rape anyone who denies this "truth". In western thought, any statement that cannot rely on rational persuasion but must resort to coersion is false.
Nassem and her ilk would have all believe that Christ advocated two separate codes of conduct for the world,advocated slavery, advocated warmongering,condoned perversions against children,robbed merchants and decapitated prisoners. To relegate Christ to prophet status of the very antithesis of who he is(islam), is to suggest Christ would sanction those acts of mohd.
By such faulty logic, man himself(some "Christian probably") would have been responsible for revising a divine "warmongering" islamic plan with a doctrine of unconditional love,sacrifice and forgiveness for all. Human beings are, by our imperfect nature, incabable of devising such. Only one can ever truly say "Before Abraham was, I AM."
No thank you Naseem, I do not require the blessing of the figment of a deranged mind.
In another thread, I lamented the fact that people were going out of their way to feed a troll, which I felt was "raslin' with a pig." As a liberal, and an atheist, I ignore alot of comments that impugn my intelligence, patriotism, and commitment to anti-terrorism. That's the kinda guy I am.
But Naseem, to actually write and beleive that:
"Abrahim & Moses, & Noah , Jesus were all muslims…but someone (Christian probably) somewhere being power hungry and politically astute changed the bible….staining historical fact."
Is so far out of the universe of rational belief, so far into the universe of irrationality, illogical, and special pleading, (really, the Koran is your only frame of reference? It's the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but and no other frame of reference can be used?) that I felt compelled to comment, even though I know, you, as a troll, will not even take a picasecond to consider that you might possible need to open your mind, just slightly, and consider the possibility that the Koran IS JUST A BOOK and should not be treated as the source of all answers.
Nutstain naseem
How does it feel to know that you are only allowed to post your lies and delusions here as an example of islamic ignorance and as a cautionary tale to anyone who thinks pisslam can be reformed.
Folks, let Naseem dream away. The truth is that the Christian faith is growing and spreading around the world, the global south booming in new believers everyday. It is because of the TRUTH that comes from the Holy Bible and the good news it carries. This is why the Holy Bible is the best selling book of all time. Plus the message of faith, hope, and as it says, "the greatest of these is LOVE" is why both the Bible and the Christian faith has spread. Truly it saddens me that many Christians of the east fell for the falsehoods of both the koran and mohammed. Remember Jesus warned against false prophets. I do pray that more of the muslims come home to Christ, who is the "way, truth, and the life". Also remember Abraham was the first Jewish person. Moses was born to a Jewish mother and thus Jewish. Jesus was raised Jewish. There was NO ISLAM before the 600's. Naseem, please historic facts straight please.
Also the Holy Bible through archology finds in Isreal is being seen more and more as a historic document. The Dead Sea scrolls is an example of historic documentation of the historic backround of the Holy Bible. Often from what I have seen in sample verses of the koran, I see a lot of contradictions in that book, too many to bring in a lot of doubts about the koran. Just seeing of stuff in there that have its basis in the gnostic gospels that are rejected by the Christian church would simply back the doubts up. Adding this all up and the sad truth is that a lot of people over the centuries were sold a bad bill of goods.
Before this comment is finished, I got to read today an excellent article about the growth and spread of the Christian Church in the global south. It will make one's day and night. Here it is :
http://www.mercatornet.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=347
"someone (Christian probably) somewhere being power hungry and politically astute changed the bible….staining historical fact"
"The truth of the Koran cannot be overturned"
Both posted by Naseem
Naseem, Naseem, Naseem
The ascription that you and your coreligionists make to Allah of such insipid, oafish, idiotic and incompetent behaviour - allowing his self-revelation to humanity, what should have been the most powerful force in all creation - to be subverted, perverted and undermined by evil human beings (those Christians - you think - who "lied" in their Bible!)- constitutes such a collosal act of incompetence and stupidity that to suggest it is nothing short of blasphemy, an attack on his very intelligence, to say nothing of his sovereignty and power! If I understand this monumental sophistry of yours, it states that he gave humanity his truth but, then in an act of what can only be called collosal stupidity, totally unworthy, I would have thought, of the Godhead, suffered it to be lost, I guess because he let his pathetic creatures outsmart him by subverting his vast cosmic purpose and plan! But then, we're supposed to now have complete and utter confidence in him ("submission", isn't that what "Islam" means?) when he, miraculously, brings it forth again through the prophet Mohammed and you, Mohammed's followers, this time, somehow - I can't imagine how or why since you never say (do you know or have the slightest idea?) - to be secure ever after until the end of time! Please, Naseem don't ask me to live in this pathetically fragile house of cards that you do.
Having been so careless once (or do you say it was more than once?), what's to stop this totally ineffective and incompetent God from allowing this dreadful corruption from happening again? God was stupid enough, Naseem (you say this, Naseem, not I) to let it happen once. You should be careful about accusing someone else of lying about what God said or did. If it happened once, I can see no reason to assume that it could not happen again. In fact Naseem ... it did!
You see Naseem, there's clear evidence now that the Koran as we've known it throughout most of Islamic history is actually based on a mangled translation of an original ancient Christian document written (probably in the fourth century) in Syriac as an instruction to Arab tribesmen with whom East Syrian Christians were in missionary contact. From this mistranslation, we get hilarious mistakes like the well-known "virgins" coming from what the Syriac had as "raisins" (or white grapes), and the instruction to wear the hijab (veil) arising from a misunderstanding of a verse that actually meant "They should tie their belts around their wastes".
Even if your prophet Mohammed didn't lie to you, certainly the idiot translators, theologians and jurists who compiled the first Koran in Arabic decades, at the earliest, after his death, did!
You have one of the most corrupted religious texts in the entire history of the world as the basis of your religion, Naseem! and its been used to justify crimes that far surpass the worst that the Crusaders or anyone else inflicted on the followers of Mohammed, just as you're trying to use it now.
Actually Naseem, the damage that your "heroic" Islamic armies, through their campaigns of looting, rapine, kidnapping, deportations, theft of lands, slave trading, and the like, inflicted unprovoked, on the Christian states and communities of the Middle East and North Africa, and on Europe, again unprovoked, throughout the entire 8th and 9th centuries gave Christendon far more than enough justification to institute the Crusades.
If we decide to undertake another Crusade, Naseem, this time we may not stop at making a few pilgrim roads safe for Christian travellers. We have the power to destroy you, and your precious Islam, not (just) because of vastly superior weapons and armies (although you would be wise to consider this as well, and very carefully), but because this part of the world cares about the truth, and has the enlightenment necesary to distinguish between truth and mindless absurdities. Truth prevails. And the truth, Naseem, will set you free.
Now the crimes of Islam's earliest centuries are being renewed in our homelands, courtesy of the Umma. Careful what you wish for, Naseem. After all, you just might get it. If you and other militants force us to renew the Crusades, we will destroy you and everything you hold dear.
Don't test our patience. Don't make us do it!
Assalamau Laikum all,
Thank you for your version of history, clearly the two vary ...like daylight and night.
If your version of divinity was all important (which clearly you peoples believe and have written with passion) ...then why allow 4 centuaries to pass by before lifting a finger....just imaging how different the world would be today if Turkey, Egypt, syria was still christian.
More importantly to my mind is this question for you.
Why did God those most devout countries to fall to Islam if his only son was sacrificed there?
He could have struck a might blow and got rid of Muhd...but didn't why? Can someone answer this please?...I need understanding.
lahore cactus blooms again.
Naseem,
"If your version of divinity was all important (which clearly you peoples believe and have written with passion) ...then why allow 4 centuaries to pass by before lifting a finger....just imaging how different the world would be today if Turkey, Egypt, syria was still christian."
Naseem I got the answer for you. Remember that in the early middle ages the peoples of that period did not have the high tech that folks today have. There was no tv, radio, computers, or even newspapers. These methods of communications which in today's world would get any breaking news from the Middle East or of a terror attack out within minutes. People had to depend on word-of-mouth and what was the writing instruments of the time. It would take months if not years for this to get passed along. Plus as the middle ages went along, there was an an age of faith in the Europe of the Middle Ages. This included the true stories of Christian shrines damaged or distroyed by the Muslim onslaught in the Holy Land, the oppression of Christians, but the offten forced
conversions of Christians to Islam. Added to that of the pleas coming from the Byzinintine emperor for help to not only liberate the lands taken in thief by the Muslims, but to protect the Christian shrines.
I can only wonder what if Islam never came unto the scene, if the Middle East had stayed Christian, not only would there by much more lasting peace coming from the Middle East, but many of the countries that are now under Muslim rule would not have been poverty holes or countries so depened on oil for their sucess. With the coming of the false prophet named muhammed and with islam, he simply ruin a region of the world for which the rest of the world is now paying for.
May this response by of help.
"Why did God those most devout countries to fall to Islam if his only son was sacrificed there? He could have struck a might blow and got rid of Muhd...but didn't why? Can someone answer this please?...I need understanding."
God allows evil in this world in order to test our faith and resolve. Remember, Jesus Christ warned us to beware of false prophets after His ascension to heaven. He is the new and everlasting convenant.
Thank you, Bigcatgirl, for answering Naseem pretty much the same way I would have.
Now for our friend - Naseem:
Naseem, I do not wish to turn this forum into a debate about religion because I respect the thoughts and contributions of secular, agnostic and atheistic thinkers like Ryoga (even if I may not always agree with them), to whom these pages belong every bit as much as they do to those like myself and Bigcatgirl. But since you clearly, like many Moslems, prefer to view the world through a predominantly religious lens, something I generally admire and appreciate if it doesn't lead to the elimination of every other sphere of life and the truncation of every other field of thought as it usually seems to in present day Islam, I will take up this conversation with you, for the moment, since I think it deserves an answer. So for the sake of your enlightenment and, I hope, edification, I will explain to you who I am, what I am, and why I'm writing in these pages. I am a practicing and believing Christian within the Greek Catholic tradition (often confused with the Eastern Orthodox - think of Orthodoxy with the Pope) a former seminarian and a theology graduate, with an open invitation from my bishop to be ordained as a priest, something I have declined to date for a variety of reasons but not ruled out.
You ask: "If your version of divinity was all important (which clearly you peoples believe and have written with passion) ...then why allow 4 centuaries to pass by before lifting a finger?"
Bigcatgirl's response provides part of the answer to your question, although the reality goes even further than that. From the 5th century (even a little earlier than that in one or two places) until about the 11th western Europe was slowly redesigning and rebuilding itself as a society now comprised of a composite population that included the Germanic bloodlines of the barbarian tribes that had gradually transformed the Roman empire in the West and eventually ended the line of Roman emperors when they deposed the last one, Romulus Augustulus in 476 A.D. and simply did not bother to continue this sham by appointing another. Slowly because despite their admiration for the superiority of the old Roman civil law, traditions and institutions, hardly any of them could read or write. Consequently, they were limited in what they could accomplish on the basis of their own, much less developed cultures, and it was only within the senior religious leadership, the higher clergy of the Roman church and the others scattered in the rest of Europe's towns and cities, including the monks in many of the monasteries, that there was enough literacy to proceed, which they did (the monks, primarily) by painstakingly copying and transmitting the numerous Latin manuscripts of classical antiquity along with Biblical and religious texts. Slowly also because their technical development was nothing even close to the brilliant engineering (think of the enduring aquaducts and roads, many still existing) that the Romans had achieved in their period of dominance. These more vigourous but less developed peoples had reduced Europe to an agrarian backwater, although they were slowly developing and by about the end of the 7th century most of them in the south of the continent had adoped the Catholic Christianity of the Latin church, now primarily centred in Rome, since Islam, the "religion of peace" had violently exterminated Christianity in North Africa. And slowly, finally, because of the period of raiding and pillaging up and down Europe's coastlines by Norse tribesmen ("Vikings") and, as I pointed out earlier, Moslem tribesmen. These raiding episodes lead finally to the collapse of the whole social structure and the adoption of the crude system of "feudalism" that persisted for several hundred years. In short, western Europe was Christian, believing ahd devout, but preoccupied and, as we all are aware by now, the Byzantine emperor was trying to fight off his own Islamic invasions courtesy of the Seljuk Turks.
Which brings me back to the religious aspect. Let me just briefly clarify my terminology before proceeding with this. Today it would be clearer to call it simply "the West" or "the Western world" because it's no longer dominated by its overtly religious roots and is predominantly secular, but I will refer to it here nonetheless as "the Christian world" both because that might be easier for you to relate to and because the better aspects of the culture of tolerance, liberty and human rights that we now have here and which distinguishes us from the Islamic world, have deep Christian roots. Indeed, it was within the ancient Christological debates, in the effort to bring into clearer view for the Christian soul the relationship of the divine and human natures in the person of Christ, and the related mystery of the Holy Trinity, that the world first gained the concept of the individual human being as "person", a communitarian and social being which, animated by the mysterious reality of the illumination of faith and hope, recognizes and renders itself available to the other in freedom and self-effacing love, an image of the "dance of love" (quite literlly - "perichoresis" in Greek) that the fathers of the Church pictured as the essence of the relationship among the divine persons.
Now for the reason why today the Christian world holds back and has not yet responded with the full force of which it is capable. Do not imagine that the Christian world's forbearance is because of religious indifference or dissipation. Rather, it is because we take seriously, as have Christians throughout the ages, the words of our Lord who said "Love your enemies, do good to those spitefully abuse you, pray for those who persecute you, for in this way you show yourselves to be like your heavenly father who causes his rain to fall on the just and the unjust alike", or, just before his death, of those who crucified him, "Father, forgive them" and similar words in almost every breath he took. Christian restraint tries, as long as it can, at tremendous personal cost, to reject violence, because Christian faith longs for the embrace of reconciliation, and the ultimate and eternal good of the other - that's you Naseem. Yes, that has been the response, the "revenge" and the victory (truly) of the Middle East's many martyred Christians and their suffering communities - to continue to love you and your fellow Muslims, and to desire that you find your way to eternal happiness, and to hope that their broken bodies and tormented suffering may be a sacrifice that unites itself with the eternal sacrifice of Christ in the hope that his grace will make it so and be a mercy unto you.
But this patient hope and love does have its limits, Naseem. Not because our faith falters, but because we are beginning to see that there is no end to the violence of Islam despite everything we have offered you - your own words in these very pages, make this clear - and because we will not allow even the space you have left us to disappear so that the Umma eventually subjugates the whole world. Should this ever happen, Naseem, the entire world will be in the same wretched condition as Afghanistan is now within less than a hundred years.
So again, I say to you, be glad to have the opportunity for our friendship and embrace it, not with Islamic dissimulation, but sincerely and with the fullness of your whole heart. We are patient and endure many assaults, but our patience has its limits and the Umma is reaching them. Be aware that the comments I made about the Koran in my earlier entry are not meant to disparage or insult your holy book, but to invite you to become aware, and spread insight throughout the Umma, of the very same thing that we Christians, through similar scholarly analysis of our Bible over the last 150 years, have become aware of in regard to our own faith, namely that Islam emerged gradually from the general and pervasive monotheistic atmosphere of the Middle East. Be glad that this is so. It does not diminish whatever true revelation may be found in your prophet's experiences and teachings. It means rather that we have common roots, and to acknowledge this can only enlighten and elevate the religious character of all of us, Christian, Jew and Muslim alike. So open your minds (and your hearts!) and create an atmosphere of tolerance, liberty and religious freedom in Islamic lands, instead of the current stifling tyrrany. Most of all stop the appalling violence which, as I said above, is so straining our patience and forebearance. If this violence does not cease and desist, the time until the Christian world responds with the full force and fury of which it is actually capable, and which dwarfs any of the capabilities that Islamic armies have, may be measurable not in centuries any longer, or even in years, but in months ... or ... well - you get the picture I'm sure. This will not be a war like the half-hearted crusades of the middle ages, in which by the way, many of the victims, including those of the appalling sack of Constantinople in 1201 - which permanently crippled the Byzantine Empire - were actually Christians (yes, I do acknowledge that many of the Crusaders committed crimes against Muslims, including some for which many of us Christians, were these men alive today, would be only too happy to see them executed) were actually committed against Christians. Instead it will be like the one we launced to defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in Second World War, but likely far more determind, and for those of you on the receiving end, far more destructive.
So be glad of our forebearance, Naseem, and accept the hand that we offer in friendship, for with it we offer you life as well. But know that we place before you also the choice between life and death. Choose life! Either way, make your choice carefully lest you find yourself in the position of the Japanese admiral, who after the apparently successful attack which he had lead on Pearl Harbour, tasting bitter gall in his throat, could not rejoice, but only utter these words: "I fear that all that we have accomplished is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.
Thank-you templar for going more into detail what would have taken me all day to do research and to be able to post. It was an good read. I do admit my patience has been stretched thin dealing with the Islamofacists threats(s) and the troubles with the Muslim community not accepting responsibility to police itself.
"since you clearly, like many Moslems, prefer to view the world through a predominantly religious lens, something I generally admire and appreciate if it doesn't lead to the elimination of every other sphere of life and the truncation of every other field of thought..."
American Protestants (and it's mostly them, generally not Catholics, or Orthodox, or European Christians) can't have it both ways. Either you accept the mystery of this world as something larger than the confines of your eschatology, or you don't. Muslims don't. American Protestants also tend not to, for irrational reasons, cut off from the grander, richer, deeper history of Christianity (which evolved into modern Western secularism) that they have consigned to the "dark" and "evil" Catholic Church of the Middle Ages -- a giant black hole of history between the time of the death of the last Apostle and the day that the first American Protestant was "born again".
remote control,
The good news is that as the more conservitive Evangelical Protestant chruches have been working with the Catholic Church on a number of social issues, that viewpoint has changed. Also the movie, "The Passion of the Christ", which was an overall sucess has brought up not only certain meditations on the Passion of Christ that Catholics/Orthodox Christians honor into the front burner of the minds of Evangelical Protestant Christians, who were the movie's biggest supporters, but also of that of the role of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Also a number Protestant leaders also had attended the funeral of the great pope, John Paul II in Rome over a year ago and have spoken warmly about him and their rememberences of him. So things are changing for the better when it comes to inter-Christian communications.
Assalamau Laikum all,
Thank you for your answers...a good attempt by Mr. Templar.
I can work out that communications were not so good 1100 years ago for myself.
My queation was more targetted at "divine intervention".
Christains say JC being the son of God was divine intervention...muslims say that for mohd.
But if things were going SO badly for christians ...why was there not divine intervention?....and why did the christians not win if they had god on their side?
Naseem
Your question demonstrates the difference and hence incompatibility of the God of the Bible and the pagan stone carved moon god of islamic fiction.
God is Love. Can allah say that? No he is of hate.
God loves all humanity and allows it to make mistakes, to a point.
allah just gets upset and hopes some avid fiction reader to get upset and smite on his behalf.
Because God allows such things to happen does not in any way reduce His control of global events.
Time is short for you Maseem, repent now.
Kind regards
My queation was more targetted at "divine intervention".
Posted by Naseem
Actually it wasn’t.
"If your version of divinity was all important (which clearly you peoples believe and have written with passion) ... then why allow 4 centuaries to pass by before lifting a finger?"
You asked, or appeared to ask, why the Christian world waited to respond to Islamic aggression since the subject "your version" (specifically the possessive adjective “your“) clearly implies that you were talking about the Christian world (us). Since there is no other grammatical subject in your question, Naseem, I merely answered the question you appeared to be asking. If your question was about something else, then you should have been clearer.
In any case, since you now say that you intended to ask why God did not help us, I can tell you that that question is irrelevant. We in the Christian world (I'll call it “Christendom” from now on when I refer to its historic religious dimension, otherwise "the West" since today it is no longer, strictly speaking, "Christian") find our understanding of suffering and of freedom in the fact that the Lord Jesus clearly warned his followers that they would face persecution, opposition and hardship because of their faithfulness to him and his teachings ("If anyone would be a follower of mine, he must take up his cross everyday") and he himself suffered, even to the point of a humiliating and painful death by crucifixion. That God himself would endure this and, moreover, offer forgiveness to the perpetrators of such a crime, and ask his followers to be similarly patient and forbearing, reveals something about the Christian attitude to "divine intervention", Naseem, that if you ponder carefully, answers the question you ask . God is not a dictator, a puppet master, a brutal control freak, or a sadistic prison guard (despite anything that Islam attributes to him), but respects the freedom he has given to rational creatures such as human beings, including, as it must be, their freedom to destroy themselves (since this is, after all, what terrorists and other evildoers really do when they harm or destroy others), just as he respects all the other laws that govern the workings of his creation, and frankly he need not intervene at all, in the way that you’re suggesting, Naseem to make the world different, because for one thing he has seen to it that nature itself puts limits on the depravity of men and women; were it were not so the world would simply cease to exist.
The kind of intervention you are talking about, in which God miraculously steps in in some dramatic and spectacular fashion (no doubt accompanied by all sorts of sensational signs in the heavens that leave everyone breathless with wonder!) to change an otherwise certain outcome, such as a miraculous victory for one side or the other in some battle that that side, by all human considerations, clearly ought to have lost, represents a cheap, trashy, tabloid version of religion that frankly is degrading to religion and demeaning to God. (I’ll provide the cultural reference for you here, since I don’t know whether you are familiar with “tabloid journalism” in whatever part of the world you are writing us from: “tabloids”, if you’re wondering, are disedifying, sensationalistic newspapers, of which we have quite a number in the West, that are full of stories based on trivial and idiotic things like gossip about the lives of celebrities, stories of bizarre creatures or weird, abnormal births, visitations by alien beings from other planets, astrology, horoscopes, occult matters, and all sorts of other contemptible trash). Moreover, God is free to intervene through the workings of grace and its appeal to conscience - that reflex in the rational faculties of the soul that distinguishes right from wrong - which because of the limits I’ve mentioned in the natural order of things, always reaches some human beings in the world, even if only a small number, who respond to him in love and obedience (though all are free to if they wish to). So the promise of Christ to be with his followers does not depend on some juvenile hope for fantastic miracles and spectacular signs in the heavens; the kind of piety that expects this is “kidstuff“, as we say in the West.
So why DID the Umma succeed in reducing the Christian presence in the Middle East? I can only guess. Perhaps because the Christians' faith had grown indifferent or been weakened by their sins or they were arrogant or proud or divided amongst themselves and for these or similar reasons could not withstand the challenge of a more vigorous community. Or maybe because, in the larger picture, to suffer for Jesus Christ beautifies and ennobles the Christian soul and he wanted to exalt his bride, the Church, in these lands, with the "crown of glory" that the martyrs and confessors receive. For that matter, why did Christendom survive in the west and withstand the Umma’s dreadful and iniquitous attempts to completely destroy and subjugate it? Who knows? Maybe because the wicked always sew the seeds of their own destruction, given enough time to be consumed by their evil. Certainly, we know that the Umma became the victim of its own success and was eventually torn apart by internal rivalries and power struggles (as per the laws of nature that I referred to above whereby depravity can only go so far before creation itself reacts against it, just like the antibodies that destroy disease in a living organism). Or maybe after being turned back by the forces of Charles Martel at Tours, they had a sudden attack of good sense, or even of conscience (a divine intervention truly worthy of God‘s goodness and one that even a sceptic like me could credit), and decided they should quit while they were ahead, or because some of them, by God‘s grace (there he is intervening again - how sublimely and wondrously sneaky of him!), were spared the full force of Satan‘s fury enough to prompt them to freely relent from their Islamic violence to some degree.
For either of us to look for the kind of “divine intervention” that your question assumes, thereby reducing religious truth to the destruction of all those who stand in our way or refuse our beliefs, is a travesty that can only produce crime, not piety, not communion with the divine, not hope, not faith, not love, nor anything worth living (or dying) for. To call such beliefs "religion" is beyond grim and beyond insane, a classic psychopathy that replaces God with a mad spirit conjured up by twisted minds in tortured dreams. But based on what we see from Islamic suicide bombers and other maniacs the impression is growing stronger and stronger in the West that that is what Islam seems to be - a suicidal death cult whose liturgy is a constant spasm of threats and malevolence, and whose gift to mankind is unending pain, rage, violence and death. Is it any wonder that we feel we can not "submit", but can only pity those of you who have? Consider, Naseem, that you have only what you‘ve heard over and over again in your mosques, from your clerics, or wherever you‘ve gotten it from, and the fact that indeed you HAVE heard it so many times, as the proof for any of your claims or assumptions. We have a saying in the English speaking world: “If you say something (anything!) often enough, people will start to believe that its true“. Yet on the basis of nothing more than this, you presume to conclude that the very violence that Islam would consider “persecution” if we did it to the Umma, the Umma can inflict on us with impunity! How grotesque!
But as I noted above, Naseem, you seem to beg the question. In fact, when one examines the facts of history, it appears quite possible that, in fact, God did intervene on the side of Christendom (though not, I think, as you would have imagined it). If I were to accept any part of your logic, and this Naseem is where your present line of argument has the biggest flaw in it, the very conditions you acknowledge, and cite in your own turn (“if things were going SO badly for Christians"), surely indicate that perhaps God WAS on the side of Christendom. Despite the fact that Europe was so weak, vulnerable and damaged, and still the Muslim invaders, the superior and all-powerful Umma, destined, so you believe, by Allah’s decree to rule the world, for one reason or another, could not take her. Certainly the territories Christendom had left after its historic encounters with the Umma were enough to ensure the survival of the Christian faith and its influence in the world. In fact, in Europe Christendom not only survived, but prospered and went on to evolve into the modern West, the most technically advanced and successful civilization in the history of the world. As I said in an earlier posting, the West of today owes much to the Christendom of centuries ago. (And the Umma owes much to both). The West has attained a level of achievement in the arts, science, medicine, technology and material wealth, that benefits the whole world, and that the Umma could never have dreamed of attaining on its own. At the very least, I think we have to say, God‘s final decision has yet to be made clear. Perhaps the next few years will make it clear. I think it best for all of us to hope that that doesn‘t have to happen. But again, so much depends on the Umma. As Payingattention says above, its time to repent.
Bigcatgirl:
Thank you for your favourable response to my earlier posting. I am, of course glad to see that Christians are regaining the unity our Lord wishes, and coming together in agreement around so many of our common issues.
However, there is one matter that I wish to point out to you and to Naseem alike, though for very different reasons of course, since obviously the two of you are in entirely different categories, the one on the side of truth and righteousness, and the other, well ....
In any event the point has to do with our beloved late Pope, John Paul, who you mentioned above. While I certainly understand, appreciate and sympathize with those who loved and admired his many enduring and outstanding human qualities, I am convinced that there is a great deal in John Paul's legacy to the Church that the Church will, in the long run, repudiate. Among the acts and policies to which I refer are, besides his position on certain points of contention within Catholic theology, his arguably needless apologies to the Islamic world over the Crusades and certainly (!) his lamentable and scandalous incident of kissing the Koran given him as a gift by some visiting Islamic leaders. Although his action must be seen in the equivocal meaning of the kiss, which in John Paul's European culture does not necesarily imply worship or veneration, but is simply a gesture of respect and gratitude to the one offering a gift, it did, just the same, cross the line of prudence and good sense, and I am convinced that future generations of Christians will, understandably, be shocked and shaken to see these dreadful images.
While in modern ecclesiology, and for some very good reasons, Popes are always very reluctant to publicly and directly contradict or condemn any of their predecessors, they do in fact do so in a variety of carefully crafted and circumscribed ways, and for those of us who carefully observe all this, it is clear that the new Pope, Joseph Ratzinger, is already doing so in regard John Paul's policies and actions. Benedict XVI is leading the Church in a very different way, and in a very different direction, than did his predecessor ("Thanks be to God!"), despite the obvious fact of his deep personal love and respect for the man. Part of this change of course, is especially evident in the turnover of the leadership of the Roman Curia, many of whom are being reassigned, or retired outright in light of considerations or age, and their replacements think entirely differently than did their predecessors, including the new man in charge of the Secretariate of State, the body responsible, among other things for the Church's relations with states. It is extremely clear, both from these changes, and from Benedict's speeches, remarks and communiques, that the new pope is assuming a much more critical and combative policy toward Islam and its very bad behaviour.
In an earlier post in this thread, Dan chastized the Catholic Church for having been "AWOL" and, or course, he's right. The pontificate of John Paul, no matter what his great qualities as a human being and his many positive achievements, amounted to twenty-six years of foot-dragging, delay and "stuffing" of issues that desperately needed to be attended to, including recognition of the significance of what was becoming more and more apparent in the behaviour of Islam worldwide. Finally a new pope, and with him, the Church is beginning to deal with this issue, as well as her many others, shaking off this long, inexcusable period of bleery-eyed slumber and somnolence.
Naseem and others like her need to know that Holy Mother Church is opening up her closets and storage rooms, bringing out and readying the components of the old ideological framework of the Crusades, repairing, restoring and updating them, and preparing them for reassembly. Let us hope and pray that Naseem and the likes of her come to their senses before this ancient machine needs to be reactivated.
By the way everyone, although I was obviously absorbed in other matters yesterday, I had tried to resume posting much earlier but was unable to do so due to problems in my connection to the site. Did anyone else experience any of this. Do you suppose it had anything to do with the other problems the site has experienced recently thanks to some of Naseem's friends?
Remote Control:
I posted a message to you a short while ago (or thought I had) but at the moment it doesn't seem to be there so I'm repeating myself here in case it was lost or I messed up. Maybe its still out there somewhere in cyberspace, so please overlook any redundancy that may result if you suffer an episod of deja vu now or in future in connection with this.
My ealier message was just a note of thanks for your apparently favourable response to my earlier post to Naseem, but also a request that we avoid dividing amongst ourselves over old theological debates or cultural disputes. It's important to demonstrate to Naseem's world the attitude I've about - forgiveness - as well as unity and perhaps most important of all inclusion of secular thinkers like ryoga, and the many others on these pages.
Thanks again.
One further note, Remote Control, that I forgot to include in my last post. Though its likely that Naseem is anything but a troll trying to annoy and distract us, I have written what I have above in my last several posts primarily because of the occassion such intrusions provide to contribute what I can to the knowledge Christians in the West need to have about how to respond to Islamic propaganda, since the majority are, I think, still not up to speed on the awful truth about Islam or what to make of its bizarre claims - especially with its vague and insidious talk about "common ground" around the figure of Jesus. God willing, her most recent post is the last we'll hear from her and we can talk about other things.
"Though its likely that Naseem is anything but a troll"
That should have read "UNlikely".
(Do you suppose I need more sleep these days?)
It astounds me that Mooslims, including educated ones, espouse the idea that Jesus, Moses, et al. were mooslims.
Do they think that the insidious Christians and Jews snuck into the Qumran caves over the centuries and edited the dead sea scrolls? The relatively minor differences that exist among the various versions and editions and codices of the Old and New Testaments only serve to rpove their historicity.
Or perhaps the forerunner of modern Christian ecumenism was when the Catholics and Protestants in 16th century England got together to edit out all of the Mophammedanisms from the Gospels.
Now, if King David the Psalmist believed in Islam, perhaps the 23rd psalm would read "The Lord is my Shepherd...He maketh me to lie down in ambush in green pastures. ..." And, Jesus being a Mooslim probably preached "Blessed are the poor in spirit for, if they blow thermselves up in a marketplace filled with women and children, they shall see God." And perhaps Moses' tablets of the 10 commandments actually read: "I am the Lord thy God....thou shalt not have strange Gods before me because I, being a Black Moon Rock am the strangest of all!"
The responsorial psalm is: "Lord, give us a break."
"God willing, her most recent post is the last we'll hear from her and we can talk about other things"
Sansantiago:
Despite having written the above of our dear friend Naseem, if for no other reason than the sake of reading your last post, I hope she's still lurking on this page.
Well said, and thanks for the laughs. I need that these days.