Pope Francis "you Cannot Insult Religion"

[dUSt]

Radical Islam needs insulted. No?

No, it doesn't. It needs to be refuted, not insulted.

 

[Guest]

No, it doesn't. It needs to be refuted, not insulted.

I can agree with that. Although to them it's the same thing.

[little2add]

Or that we don't really know much about what Muhammad originally believed and that his followers constructed myths around him as the generations went on.

Just like Jesus.

The source of knowledge about Jesus is the Holy Spirit, not books
John 14:16-17
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever-- the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

[Norseman82]

Good news: The Pope has retracted his statement:

 

http://www.eyeofthetiber.com/2015/01/16/pope-retracts-punch-in-the-face-remark-says-he-would-kick-them-in-nuts/

 

A Catholic version of "The Onion"?

[PhuturePriest]

A Catholic version of "The Onion"?

 

Indeed.

[4588686]

In the NT we have the writings of the disciples of the Apostles and the Apostles themselves who knew Christ directly.  Where is the problem?  Couldn't Thomas Jefferson have been exaggerating in his writings as well as the people who knew him directly?  It seems that you would be skeptical of Christ to the point of never accepting anything written of Him, yet when someone like Thomas Jefferson is being talked about you would lap up everything presented to you.  How about another non-religious figure that has little written about him, like Alexander the Great?  Do you doubt his authenticity? 

 

 

This is just a silly argument. I certainly would not take Jefferson's writings at face value if they were talking about his accomplishments. I would take them seriously if I were trying to figure out his opinions and beliefs. 

 

I don't know why you keep talking about 'authenticity'. I believe that Jesus existed. Just like I believe that Alexander the Great existed.  

[superblue]

I think it would be safe to say that Pope Francis made this statement to help calm down those muslims who have been angered by the current events, so that future terrorist attacks will not happen.

 

I didn't look at this statement as an infringement on the right to free speech, or anything of the sort.

[Kia ora]

I'm not sure how this is relevant to what the Pope said as they are really two different things. He didn't say if someone hits you first or kills your mother or puts your family in a concentration camp, he said if someone insults your mother or your faith ... slightly different scenario. 'Sticks and stones' vs bullets and torture.

 

And besides, this opens a whole new discussion about martyred Christians who died rather than fight back vs those who fought in 'just wars'. It might be beyond the scope of this particular issue.

 

But you weren't asking me, so I'll let beatitude respond to your question.

 

I really doubt that the Holy Father would argue that there are circumstances in which he'd feel happy plotting to shoot his friends.

 

There have been Christians who have felt maybe not happy, but obligated by 'love' for their fellow human beings and for God, to kill other human beings. Not shoot, but to stab, bludgeon, strangle human beings. Waging war involves the planning and execution of a premeditated plan to kill people. This in fact has been the general theological trend for Christianity for most of the time there has been a Christianity to speak of.

 

I'm wondering what beatitude's opinion on that is. I wouldn't be surprised in fact if the Holy Father would argue that there are circumstances in which he'd plot to shoot his enemies. Not happily, but worse than that, with love of God and love of man in his heart.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Kia ora

[MarysLittleFlower]

Maybe my view is different but I think that the limit of saying what you want is if it damages others or insults God. I don't feel as strongly about free speech as some others... Finding the right way to think or speak should be focused on IMO.

This doesn't mean we can force people to believe something but there can be laws regulating speech or actions that are truly damaging or evil. I'm talking about the state listening to the Church. I seem to remember reading that Pope Pius X condemned the view as heretical that the state can decide morality without the Church teachings.

So I support the Social Reign of Christ the King not a relativistic society and not an Islamic state.

About the cartoons... I think obviously the response was very wrong but I disagree with the cartoons too. Doing them doesn't help the situation. It doesn't share the Gospel or help to be more open to it. In fact the cartoonists mock Catholicism in a terrible way too. Charity and truth does more.. This doesn't help.

I know my view might not be popular but maybe that's more because of our cultural values than any disagreement with Church teaching - because I don't think my view is against Church teaching...? I think the limit of free speech is when its damaging or uncharitable or blasphemous etc. Basically it should not go against God and Church and charity to neighbor.

Mocking Muslims don't help them. That's not an effective way to even talk to people.

Edited January 25, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower