Pope's comment on Jesus and ISIS

[Guest]

What are your thoughts on these comments from Pope Francis?   “Today, I don’t think that there is a fear of Islam as such but of ISIS and its war of conquest, which is partly drawn from Islam,” he told French newspaper La Croix. “It is true that the idea of conquest is inherent in the soul of Islam, however, it is also possible to interpret the objective in Matthew’s Gospel, where Jesus sends his disciples to all nations, in terms of the same idea of conquest.”

Edited July 17, 2016 by Guest

[HisChildForever]

Well, Christ did direct His followers to spread the Word, but His teachings make clear to do so in a loving, peaceful way. Not sure how that can be interpreted as "conquest." I am uncertain of the Islamic verses on spreading their faith.

[Guest]

I do not understand the Islamic religion, but it seems to me that terrorism is using their Faith as a means of justifying a desire for conquest and power and with any and all kinds of violence including against their own and innocent people of any kind.

  It seems that there are very peace loving people, gentle and kind, who profess Islam and abhor and fear terrorism as much as any of us - and on the other hand there are those who advocate violence.  Both groups proclaim that they are embracing the Koran and Islam.  I think what Jesus asks of us is to spread The Gospel but not for conquest and power but for salvation ......... and not only salvation beyond as it were, but The Gospel has all the answers to live Peacefully and happily, fulfilled, in this life and as much as one might stumble and bumble, rise and fall, along the road of this life.  Jesus underscores very heavily that the latter is not only for oneself alone but at once must embrace one's neighbour too (and as an expression of Love of God) in order to experience the fullness of salvation in this life and beyond.  To me "salvation" as a term has a definition which embraces both this life and beyond.

I do wonder (without understanding the religion) if the violence and hatred of terrorism is drawn even in part from the Islamic beliefs, or is Islamic belief twisted to rationalise and justify conquest by violence?  We have seen this operate in history almost everywhere at times, where religion has been used as an excuse for shocking violence..........it was never religion per se at fault I don't think but misunderstanding and misinterpretations coupled with a thirst to be violent with hatred as foundational.  I think that the misunderstandings and misinterpretations were not deliberate but genuinely believed.  While I do tend to think that with terrorism or Isis ( and the ilk)  leadership quite deliberately does present misinterpretations of Islam and to further their own ends of conquest and power. Their interest is not in genuine Islamic belief, but conquest and power with violence. Be that as it may I do really suspect that Isis has been able to convert many to their doctrine who do genuinely believe and that has become the pebble in the pool and genuine belief then spreads.  I think they readily recognise the 'type' that is rich soil to be radicalised and are trained to recognise same and radicalize.  I don't think Isis is unintelligent at all.

Wherever the civilised world is fearful increasingly of the terrible threat and results of terrorism, it can be said that the civilised world is indeed terrorised i.e. fearful even terrified - and becoming increasingly fearful and terrified - the objective and goal of terrorism itself.  It is not only working towards a long term goal of splitting the world into two groupings with Isis or the like taking control with violence, it is has already split communities within the world into groups opposing each other. 

We see already in some communities, the hatred even violence with which these two groups can oppose each other.

All in the pseudonym of religious belief - false religious belief to justify hatred with a lust for power and control, violence.  I don't think it is Islam to fear, rather it is hatred with a lust for power and control, violence.....no matter the clothing it wears or where it might wear it.

 

Edited July 18, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[dUSt]

I interpret the pope's words like, "Look, yes, Islam can be used to justify conquest, but so can Christianity. If we can be peaceful, so can they."

[Socrates]

Whatever Pope Francis may have meant, the way the Gospel was spread in the Church's early history is very different from the way Islam was spread in its early years.  Islam was spread almost entirely by the sword, while the Christian faith was spread by peaceful preaching and evangelization (see the Acts of the Apostles, etc.)  While some Christians in later history have used the Faith to justify violence, this was never the primary means of conversion.  

And I'm really not sure what it is in the Gospel of Matthew that would lend itself to justifying ISIS-like activity.

It seems some work too hard to down-play the very real differences between the Christian Faith and Islam.

[Seven77]

On 7/22/2016 at 1:48 PM, Socrates said:

Whatever Pope Francis may have meant, the way the Gospel was spread in the Church's early history is very different from the way Islam was spread in its early years.  Islam was spread almost entirely by the sword, while the Christian faith was spread by peaceful preaching and evangelization (see the Acts of the Apostles, etc.)  While some Christians in later history have used the Faith to justify violence, this was never the primary means of conversion.  

And I'm really not sure what it is in the Gospel of Matthew that would lend itself to justifying ISIS-like activity.

It seems some work too hard to down-play the very real differences between the Christian Faith and Islam.

Hold up, who said that the Gospel lent itself to justifying ISIS-like activity?  The pope said that the mandate at the end of the Gospel of Matthew could be read as conquest-- a conquest of peace obviously.

[Socrates]

On 7/24/2016 at 4:55 PM, Seven77 said:

Hold up, who said that the Gospel lent itself to justifying ISIS-like activity?  The pope said that the mandate at the end of the Gospel of Matthew could be read as conquest-- a conquest of peace obviously.

Obviously there's nothing wrong with a "conquest of peace," but the first part of the quote concerned ISIS and Islamic terrorism.  The difference is that while the context of Matthew's Gospel may be obviously peaceful, that is not so obviously the case with the Islamic Qu'ran texts in question.  And Islamic conquest historically has usually been through military violence.