ISIS Rejects Pope's Interpetation Of Their Own Religion

[LittleWaySoul]

1 hour ago, PhuturePriest said:

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.

Ah, makes sense. 

[Guest]

DENNIS PRAGER August 9, 2016 12:00 AM @DENNISPRAGER The pope’s comments on Father Hamel’s slaughter make clear that leftism is our dominant religion. Pope Francis made comments last week that reveal the most important single thing you need to know about the modern world: The most dynamic religion of the last hundred years has been leftism. Not Christianity and not Islam. Leftism. Leftism has taken over the world’s leading educational institutions, the world’s news media, the world’s popular entertainment, and it has influenced Christianity (and Judaism) far more than Christianity (or Judaism) has influenced anything.On July 26, two Muslims slit the throat of a French Roman Catholic priest, Father Jacques Hamel, 86, while he was saying Mass in his church. Five days later, on his plane returning to Rome from World Youth Day in Krakow, Poland, Pope Francis was asked about the French priest and Islam by Antoine Marie Izoarde, a journalist with i.Media, a French Catholic news service: Izoarde: Catholics are a bit in shock, and not only in France, after the barbarous assassination of Fr. Jacques Hamel — as you know well — in his church while celebrating the Holy Mass. Four days ago you here told us that all religions want peace. But this holy, 86-year-old priest was clearly killed in the name of Islam. So, Holy Father, I have two brief questions: Why do you, when you speak of these violent events, always speak of terrorists, but never of Islam, never use the word Islam? . . . What concrete initiatives can you advise or suggest in order to counteract Islamic violence? Thank you, Holiness. As reported by the Catholic News Service, this is what Pope Francis responded: I don’t like to speak of Islamic violence, because every day, when I browse the newspapers, I see violence, here in Italy . . . this one who has murdered his girlfriend, another who has murdered the mother-in-law . . . and these are baptized Catholics! There are violent Catholics! If I speak of Islamic violence, I must speak of Catholic violence. The pope of the Roman Catholic Church, asked about Islamic terror and the slitting of the throat of a Roman Catholic priest by Islamic terrorists, responds that there is also Catholic terror — that a man who was baptized Catholic who “murdered his girlfriend” is the moral and religious equivalent of Muslims engaged in mass murder in the name of Islam. How can anyone compare: 1) A person who happened to have been baptized a Catholic as a child — and who may have no Catholic identity as an adult — with an adult who affirms a religious identity? 2) The murder of a girlfriend — most likely a crime of passion — with the ritual murder of a Catholic priest because he was a priest? 3) Individual murders unrelated to any ideology with mass murders committed in the name of an ideology? Pope Francis then added: Terrorism is everywhere. . . . Terrorism grows when there are no other options, and when the center of the global economy is the god of money and not the person — men and women — this is already the first terrorism! You have cast out the wonder of creation — man and woman — and you have put money in its place. This is a basic terrorism against all of humanity! Think about it! “Terrorism grows when there are no other options”? The idea that Islamic terrorism is a desperate act arising from poverty is widely held among the Left. But it is utterly false. Most Islamic terrorists come from the middle class or above. In the recent case of the Bangladeshi terrorists, for example, nearly all the attackers came from some of the wealthiest families in Bangladesh. And, as should be well known by now, most of the 9/11 hijackers came from middle- and upper-middle class families. Islamic terrorism doesn’t come from economics; it comes from its theology. “Terrorism grows . . . when the center of the global economy is the god of money”? Yazidi women weren’t gang raped and burned alive because of the ‘global economy’ and its ‘god of money.’ Pursuit of money and terror have nothing to do with each other. Terrorism grows only when some ideology preaches it. All this statement does is provide an excuse for Islamist terror by blaming the “global economy” and the “god of money” instead of the terrorists and their god of death. “The first terrorism [is] when the center of the global economy is the god of money”? It is a bad thing when money becomes a god, but there is no comparison between the “god of money” and the horrors of Islamic terror. Yazidi women weren’t gang raped and burned alive because of the “global economy” and its “god of money.” The only explanation for these statements is that Pope Francis has inherited his theology from Catholicism but, unlike his immediate predecessor, Pope Benedict, he takes much of his moral outlook from leftism. The Western combination of Judeo-Christian morality and political liberalism — with its doctrines of moral accountability, moral absolutes, confronting evil, and political and social freedom — has produced the most moral societies in world history. The pope of the Roman Catholic Church should be its greatest advocate. But because of leftism, he isn’t. — Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. 

Edited August 12, 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

I actually would probably say similar things if I were the Pope. What's he supposed to say? He has a tough job. 

[<3 PopeFrancis]

It is probably debatable whether the murder of abortionists and the murder of those involved in abortionists including facilities would be a crime of passion.  "Many" Catholics even, believe, if not by Law, that it is wrong.  The Church defines abortion as "intrinsically evil".  For arguments sake "ONLY", Islamic terrorists justify their actions in the "cause of Islam".  Those questions to Pope Francis are not fair.  Pope Francis spoke of terrorism as wrong before Fr. Hamel was murdered.  They are putting him on the spot so perhaps they can entrap him into saying something "against" the Muslim faith or at the very least so that there is reason to water down Catholicism.  So, would murder (not killing in war or a truly justifiable reason against the Commandment) outside of the defined lines or circumstances be wrong?  I think "yes" simply because of what Our Lord tells us about "love your enemies" and "do good to those who persecute you" as many saints have proved a true path to peace.  Sadly, I think there will be a renewal of  militant Catholics because of the spilt blood of Fr. Hamel offering the Precious Blood of Our Lord.  If a Catholic priest or anyone were to grab an ISIS terrorist's head and slice the throat, we would be scandalized (no matter how justified one "apparently" seems) which means Our Lord would be scandalized.   The point I'm making is there are lines drawn out for "true" peace' sake.  These are a points in determining a religion's true peace.  By true peace I mean that when the storm hits what will I do when there is only you and I to witness.

 

[Guest]

It's time to blow them up...

[Credo in Deum]

On August 10, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Peace said:

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.[/quote]

We look to the saints, Church Fathers, etc and honor them insomuch as they imitated and reflect the divine image of Christ! This is why they're saints!  We honor the goodness of their lives, a goodness which we do not attribute to them, but to Christ Himself. This is the reason we tell Protestants or other people who accuse of "worshiping" saints that when we honor the saints we honor Christ! 

Quote

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.[/quote]

Incorrect. It does change it since had he not lived his message after receiving it then he is neither holy nor is he a prophet from God nor can his message be trusted.  His entire message becomes suspect.  Perfect examples is your "what if" scenario which leaves us with the important question, what parts are still authentic and which are the parts he manipulated once he became corrupt?  I mean the credibility of a witness is used either for or against them when they testify.  Is that fallacious reasosing too?  Do you follow, Peace?  If Christ said one thing but did another we would not be following Christ. 

Quote

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.

You clearly have an opinion on it and you clearly care since if you didn't you wouldn't have bothered with all of these mental gymnastics.  Regardless you cannot compare a secular document with Sacred Scripture.  The constitution is neither protected by infallibility nor it's founders with impeccability (free from sin).  

As to your last sentence those arguments cannot be used to attack Christianity because its founder, Christ, is sinless!  There is nothing about His life which isn't 100% impeccable.  Nothing.  This is why as Christians aka FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST, we look to His life and His example of what it means to be Christian; Chirstlike. Our enemies even look to Christ as our rule for how we ought to conduct ourselves. We are judged based on our adherence and faithfulness to His image. 

Lastly none of the Islamic people have decried Muhammad's actions during the Arab Conquests as actions which were mistakes or sins that are contrary to Islam.  If Muhammad's conquests are not seen as wrong then there is no reason for any Muslim to view ISIS as being wrong in their mission of global conquest for the glory of Islam. In fact I respect the members of ISIS since they do not hide this fact simply because it becomes inconvenient. They follow the example of their prophet and they live their faith. 

Edited August 13, 2016 by Credo in Deum

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

In fact I respect the members of ISIS since they do not hide this fact simply because it becomes inconvenient. They follow the example of their prophet and they live their faith. 

I don't. I think they are why hell exist.

[<3 PopeFrancis]

4 hours ago, Credo in Deum said:

We are judged based on our adherence and faithfulness to His image

The Saints seek to imitate Christ and His Life 

4 hours ago, Credo in Deum said:

They follow the example of their prophet and they live their faith. 

If this is the case then they are neither peaceful nor worthy of respect.  By this statement I mean ISIS.

 

 

[Guest]

15 hours ago, Josh said:

I actually would probably say similar things if I were the Pope. What's he supposed to say? He has a tough job. 

Was listening to Imacculate Heart Radio tonight and they were talking about this. How if he actually came out and was blunt about it it would put even more lives in danger. 

2 hours ago, <3 PopeFrancis said:

 

If this is the case then they are neither peaceful nor worthy of respect.  By this statement I mean ISIS.

 

 

If?

[<3 PopeFrancis]

16 hours ago, Credo in Deum said:

They follow the example of their prophet and they live their faith. 

ISIS seems to be a religion in itself in that - they follow the example of whether it be an ISIS leader or Mohammed himself and live their faith in that.  It perhaps as not as organized as others, but a religion in their philosophy.

 

16 hours ago, Credo in Deum said:

In fact I respect the members of ISIS since they do not hide this fact simply because it becomes inconvenient. They follow the example of their prophet and they live their faith. 

In their faithfulness to the end I have to agree is admirable.  Ultimately, though.

11 hours ago, <3 PopeFrancis said:

If this is the case then they are neither peaceful nor worthy of respect.  By this statement I mean ISIS.

 

[Socrates]

On 8/10/2016 at 0:50 PM, Peace said:

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.

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. . . . .

There's a lot that is wrong and inaccurate in your post, but I'll try to deal with the main point here.

While they don't regard him as divine, the truth is that Muslims do in fact regard their "prophet" Mohammed as the highest exemplar of human behavior, and a model to be followed.  I'm too lazy to look up sources now, but this is confirmed by everything I've read or heard on the topic.  You won't find a single serious Muslim who would claim that Mohammed himself had become corrupted, or that he lived a life contrary to Islam, or was otherwise a "bad Muslim."

The example of violent conquest was continued by his immediate successors, who quickly, through military force, conquered all of Christian North Africa and then Christian Spain, before being stopped in France.  While one could conceivably argue that they had strayed, I think it's a weak argument to claim that the early Muslims got Islam all wrong, and only in comparatively modern times did anybody figure out the "true meaning" of Islam.

Again, the means of the spread of the early Church contrasts dramatically with the means of the early spread of Islam.

As a Catholic Christian, presumably you don't believe the "revelations" of Mohammed to be genuine, so the issue of whether or not Mohammed or anyone else interprets them rightly is a moot point.  But if you're trying to defend "true Islam" and its teachings, you fail, because your arguments are ones no actual believing Muslims would ever entertain.  In fact, they would likely find them sacrilegious and insulting.

 

I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make concerning the saints, but as Christians we do in fact look to Christ as the ultimate example of how to live, and seek to imitate Him.  The canonized saints are persons recognized as exemplary in imitating and following Christ in their lives.  While some may have lived sinful lives prior to converting to Christ, none of them led lives in any significant way contrary to Christ following their conversion.

[Socrates]

11 hours ago, Josh said:

Was listening to Imacculate Heart Radio tonight and they were talking about this. How if he actually came out and was blunt about it it would put even more lives in danger. 

Frankly, I think it would be better if he just kept his mouth shut, rather than regurgitate the standard pc nonsense and demonstrably false leftist ideological drivel.  The primary concern should be with the truth.

[<3 PopeFrancis]

2 hours ago, Socrates said:

As a Catholic Christian, presumably you don't believe the "revelations" of Mohammed to be genuine, so the issue of whether or not Mohammed or anyone else interprets them rightly is a moot point.  But if you're trying to defend "true Islam" and its teachings, you fail, because your arguments are ones no actual believing Muslims would ever entertain.  In fact, they would likely find them sacrilegious and insulting.

 

I really understand this and in a naturalistic world this might be so; however, our world is indeed Created by God and Jesus became Man in His Name through the Holy Spirit, the Trinity.  Yes, we Catholics believe this.  We hold this to be true because true in fact.  

The way you have laid out the scenario which is in fact the case, not even Muslims (only in so far as Doctrine is) can consistently adhere to much less have Christians co-exist with it.  There is simply no room for anything else but Muhammed and his teachings.

Tensions are at high alert because of the powers that be and everyone is holding on to the God(s) that comforts them because we have been systematically wiping God out of our culture for generations and now do not know how or where to find Him anymore.  He always IS here, has always BEEN here and WILL Always BE here.  Until people accept the fact or come to a realization of it we are in a situation which is spiraling.  It is that grave.

 

[Credo in Deum]

On August 10, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Nihil Obstat said:

Always lurking.

Lamont Cranston

18 hours ago, <3 PopeFrancis said:

I really understand this and in a naturalistic world this might be so; however, our world is indeed Created by God and Jesus became Man in His Name through the Holy Spirit, the Trinity.  Yes, we Catholics believe this.  We hold this to be true because true in fact.  

The way you have laid out the scenario which is in fact the case, not even Muslims (only in so far as Doctrine is) can consistently adhere to much less have Christians co-exist with it.  There is simply no room for anything else but Muhammed and his teachings.

Tensions are at high alert because of the powers that be and everyone is holding on to the God(s) that comforts them because we have been systematically wiping God out of our culture for generations and now do not know how or where to find Him anymore.  He always IS here, has always BEEN here and WILL Always BE here.  Until people accept the fact or come to a realization of it we are in a situation which is spiraling.  It is that grave.

 

As Ven. Fulton J Sheen points out that one needs only the use of Reason and History to find God.  Christ was the only religious figure to be pre-announced. His coming was foretold not only in the OT but in other religious text from around the world.  Christ not only fulfills the OT pre-announcement but confirms it with the ending of the Jewish Temple and all animal sacrifices after his death and resurrection. Christ is the only religiou figure who associated truth with His very person, and He is the only religious figure who came to die instead of live.  Lastly Christ's very Inacarnation has struck time in two!! Even the enemies of our Faith or of religion itself have to date their attacks based on His life.  Perfect example: "The God Delusion " by Richard Dawkins originally published in the year of our Lord (AD) October 2, 2006

 

The irony is delicious and God has a great sense of humor. 

Edited August 14, 2016 by Credo in Deum

[Nihil Obstat]