ISIS Rejects Pope's Interpetation Of Their Own Religion

[<3 PopeFrancis]

3 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

We did not want Catholicism sweepingly judged by the recent scandals and rightly so, nor do we want it judged by failures of Catholics acting violently  in our past and in the name of Catholicism.  Nor do I think that Islam can be sweepingly judged by the violent individuals in their midst and their particular interpretation of the Koran and Islam.  There are many more peace loving and law abiding citizens in Islam, just as we have many more good and faithful, hard working, priests than the other kind.

the Quran states that Muslims can Lie under threat, however, they do not define what threat is.

On 8/3/2016 at 11:43 PM, Josh said:

Liked the article but this guy never has anything nice to say about the Pope. 

I hate to say this but neither do you.

 

On 8/3/2016 at 8:12 AM, Josh said:

When it comes to a toss-up between listening to the people who are actual, Koran-carrying Muslims from the Middle East vs. a Modernist Jesuit in Rome who doesn’t even understand his own religious teachings, I’m going to go with those closer to the source.

HOWEVER,

On 8/3/2016 at 8:12 AM, Josh said:

But we must also be honest enough to call our enemies enemies.

This is also true.

True Catholicism doesn't pick and choose what to believe or interpret individually.  There then would be no point in the hierarchy or laws, rules Doctrine  what have you.

It is the only way to deal with the issue and conquer the issue - not the people (anymore).

Pope John Paul ll or Pope Benedict made a pulic apology to all the crimes committed in the Church's past:  Crusaders, Inquisition Tribunals, buying Offices and indulgences.

On 8/3/2016 at 0:52 PM, LittleWaySoul said:

It's my understanding that the difficulty with knowing any concrete and consistent doctrine of Islam is because they have no centralized or divinely instituted authority on earth. We Catholics (and Christians) have the authority of the Church to guide us on interpretation of Scripture and morality, but Muslims don't have a similar structure. Thus when some Muslims claim to be pacifists and others want to kill all non-believers, they are both simply interpreting their scripture differently.

This is pretty much what I'm trying to express.  Thank you LittleWaySoul.

 

Edited August 8, 2016 by <3 PopeFrancis

[Guest]

Just now, <3 PopeFrancis said:

 

I hate to say this but neither do you.

 

 

What are you talking about I always have nice things to say about Pope Francis. You have like 40 post and I hardly ever see you here. I've been a big fan of Pope Francis. So you're wrong.

[<3 PopeFrancis]

On 8/3/2016 at 8:12 AM, Josh said:

When it comes to a toss-up between listening to the people who are actual, Koran-carrying Muslims from the Middle East vs. a Modernist Jesuit in Rome who doesn’t even understand his own religious teachings, I’m going to go with those closer to the source.

I was confused with this quote and I stand corrected.  Please forgive me.

This time is so confusing.  

Religions that contradict itself and justify everything and anything, I am wary of.

I don't think there is anything in the Bible that says we should not watch our and ours' backs.  

On 8/3/2016 at 8:12 AM, Josh said:

We need to get that through our heads. They’re telling us out loud, in public. We just have to listen.

I think Pope Francis is listening and Pope Benedict was definately listening.

Are we good?

[Peace]

19 hours ago, Credo in Deum said:

Muhammad: 

After establishing himself in Medina and accomplishing the job he had been invited to do, the people of Medina began several years of battle with Muhammad's former home city. In 624, the Muslims won their first battle against the Meccans. As the latter had a much larger army, the former took the victory as a sign that God was on their side. However, a subsequent battle was not victorious, and Muhammad himself was wounded. But in 627, the Meccans attacked Medina, and Medina came out on top. The prophet was not to lose again.

In 630, Muhammad and his forces marched to Mecca and defeated it. The prophet rededicated the Ka'ba temple to Allah, witnessed the conversion to Islam of nearly the entire Meccan population, then returned to Medina. Muhammad died in 632, having conquered nearly all of Arabia for Islam

http://www.religionfacts.com/muhammad

 

Jesus:

Never called for any battles. Forgave is murders and offered His death for their salvation.

Isn't this the genetic fallacy?

Edited August 8, 2016 by Peace

[Guest]

13 hours ago, <3 PopeFrancis said:

the Quran states that Muslims can Lie under threat, however, they do not define what threat is.

 

 

 

Can Catholics ever lie? (Catholic Answers text) http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/is-lying-ever-right

Are Muslims encouraged to lie to non-Muslims: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/roberthunt/2010/10/are-muslims-encouraged-to-lie-to-non-muslims/

__________________

General comment (not directed at anyone in particular): Does 'Moslem bashing' of all kinds (at times hysteria almost) remind you of anything?

Edited August 9, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[<3 PopeFrancis]

People have lied in the Bible.  No matter how well-intended or what reason.  It is not in any Law that I know of that is ok to lie under any circumstance.

_______

We are under attack right now.  ISIS is attacking in the name of the Muslim God.  They take the credit so it is no mystery.  It is very sad that the Muslims of goodwill are suffering the stigma.  The problem for me is that I don't really see any representatives really stand up and say 'This is not us'.  I mean when the so-called 'gospel of Judas was rearing it's ugly head, Pope Benedict made it clear right away Judas is a liar.  The Archbishop stood up for Fr. Hamel and the faithful.  I really don't mean to bash; however, the fact that at this time no one from the Muslim community is coming forward on the behalf of the victims' makes me wonder why.  Not that it is the reason or is justified by the Muslims of good will but, that is where the blurred lines really need to be defined.

[hep_rsb]

1 hour ago, <3 PopeFrancis said:

People have lied in the Bible.  No matter how well-intended or what reason.  It is not in any Law that I know of that is ok to lie under any circumstance.

_______

We are under attack right now.  ISIS is attacking in the name of the Muslim God.  They take the credit so it is no mystery.  It is very sad that the Muslims of goodwill are suffering the stigma.  The problem for me is that I don't really see any representatives really stand up and say 'This is not us'.  I mean when the so-called 'gospel of Judas was rearing it's ugly head, Pope Benedict made it clear right away Judas is a liar.  The Archbishop stood up for Fr. Hamel and the faithful.  I really don't mean to bash; however, the fact that at this time no one from the Muslim community is coming forward on the behalf of the victims' makes me wonder why.  Not that it is the reason or is justified by the Muslims of good will but, that is where the blurred lines really need to be defined.

Hi <3 popefrancis,

If you do a quick Google search for Muslims against ISIS, you will find quite a few articles about that movement. Here is one of the first links to show up

http://time.com/4112830/muslims-paris-terror-attacks-islam-condemn/

[Socrates]

On 8/8/2016 at 4:54 PM, Peace said:

Isn't this the genetic fallacy?

No, because both Christians and Muslims claim to be following the founders of their respective religions, and look to them as the example of how to best live their lives.  Certainly, Christians do not consider the life of Christ to be irrelevant to our Faith, and how we as Christians ought to live.

It would only be fallacious if you want to argue that either the Christian Faith has nothing to do with Jesus Christ, or that Islam has nothing to do with their "prophet" Mohammed.

[Peace]

13 hours ago, Socrates said:

No, because both Christians and Muslims claim to be following the founders of their respective religions, and look to them as the example of how to best live their lives.  Certainly, Christians do not consider the life of Christ to be irrelevant to our Faith, and how we as Christians ought to live.

Hmm. As Catholics we look to the the saints as primary examples of how to live our lives. We also obviously follow the teachings of the apostles and other fathers of the Church, who were all sinners. I do not think that the sins that they committed is reflective of what the Christian faith itself stands for. So how is it then that the various sins that Muhammad committed are reflective of what Islam stands for? I do not see how the situations are logically any different.

13 hours ago, Socrates said:

It would only be fallacious if you want to argue that either the Christian Faith has nothing to do with Jesus Christ, or that Islam has nothing to do with their "prophet" Mohammed.

I do not think that these assumptions need to be true for the argument to be fallacious. Let us assume that Muhammad founded the Islamic faith.  Obviously, that means that he has something to do with it.  Then, a week after setting down the faith in stone (or paper or whatever it was), he becomes corrupt and decides that he will manipulate and/or misconstrue what was set down in stone in order to serve his own purposes.  His non-adherence to what is written in stone does not change what is written in the stone itself.

Now, that may or may not be what actually happened (I have no opinion on it), but the point is that people can set a standard X, and then deviate from the standard by committing action Y.  This happens all the time. So logically one cannot point to action Y as support for the assertion that the standard is Y, not X. There are other logical possibilities, which is why the argument is fallacious.

If you take the argument that was made and apply it to other contexts I think you can more readily see that it is fallacious.  For example, a majority of the founding fathers of the USA, the same people who debated and framed the constitution, were bad people. Many of them owned other men and sold and treated them like cattle, both before and after the constitution was ratified. Does that mean that the constitution is anti-black or pro-slavery? Does that mean that the constitution advocates racism? No, of course not. That is just a silly argument.

But I do not see how that argument is logically any different than the argument that is being against Islam via-a-vis Muhammad.  The argument is essentially "Muhammad founded Islam. Muhammad did bad things. Therefore Islam advocates bad things". It seems like a rather juvenile argument, does it not?

I do not particularly care about the result by the way.  If it is true that Islam teaches violence (or that Muslims advocate violence as part of their religion) I have no problem with anyone saying that. But the arguments being put forth seem rather weak. And I think that many of those same types of arguments could be used against others to attack Christianity.

[<3 PopeFrancis]

 

Where's Nihil Obstat  when you need one.

 

[Nihil Obstat]

3 hours ago, <3 PopeFrancis said:

 

Where's Nihil Obstat  when you need one.

 

Always lurking.

[<3 PopeFrancis]

lol

[Nihil Obstat]

 

[LittleWaySoul]

Also important to note that Mohammed and Jesus aren't directly comparable because to my understanding, Muslims see them both as prophets whereas we see Jesus as God (I.e. sinless). Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this though. 

Edited August 11, 2016 by LittleWaySoul

[PhuturePriest]

I'm not an expert, so I won't personally comment on this topic.

However, here is a very interesting video of Scott Hahn and Robert Spencer (a recognized expert used by the US military) on the theology and history of Islam and whether the Islamic State is truly faithful or not:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT6venEOTnY

 

2 hours ago, LittleWaySoul said:

Also important to note that Mohammed and Jesus aren't directly comparable because to my understanding, Muslims see them both as prophets whereas we see Jesus as God (I.e. sinless). Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this though. 

Muhammad is viewed as the perfect example in Islamic belief, however, so they would still view him as a perfect example to follow as we would Jesus.