Dodaj do ulubionych

For once, I really like the Pope right now!

16.09.06, 12:51
He told the world some TRUTH about the nature of Islam. Yes ISLAM not "bad
Islam". What he said struck at the heart of the "good Islam, bad Islam" myth,
which he evidently has not been suckered into believing like people even
shouldknowbetterable as Bush seem (emphasis on seem) to be.

At present it's the Muslim world that have gotten up in arms about it, rather
than dissenting Catholics and liberal Protestants, although their voice will
not be long in bleating. I just hope he sticks to his opinion and doesn't
backpedal and subscribe to the media lie that only extreme Islam is
aggressive, violent Islam. The Pope told it like it is - it all is. The
religion of Mohammed is spread by the sword. And thatwas true from the word
go to the end. Yes Catholics an yes protestants have spread their views by
the sword during the darkest moments of our history, but it was where we
failed. Where they do it is where they succeed. They succeed in doing
Mohammed's stated will, and if we spread the Gospel that way, we go against
what Jesus said.

To remind them of that greatly offends them, but TOUGH. I like B16's
readiness to tell the truth. If I were a Catholic, I would be very proud of
him right now.

--
- Uncle Davey's Homepage -
:: Foreigners Living in Poland Forum
Obserwuj wątek
    • nasza_maggie Re: For once, I really like the Pope right now! 16.09.06, 14:26
      hmmmm

      news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13542784,00.html

      Breaking News
      Protests in Pakistan Pope 'Sorry For Offence'
      Updated: 13:11, Saturday September 16, 2006

      The Pope is said to be "extremely upset" that his comments about Islam have
      caused offence to Muslims and is sorry they have led to such controversy.

      Vatican secretary of state Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone said in a statement: "The
      Holy Father is very sorry that some passages of his speech may have sounded
      offensive to the sensibilities of Muslim believers.

      "The Pontiff respects followers of Islam and hopes the true meaning of his
      speech is understood."

      The statement came amid mounting anger from Muslims over remarks by the Pope in
      a speech in his native Germany on Tuesday that was seen as critical of their
      faith.

      Calls for him to apologise had spread beyond the Islamic world.

      In the speech, the Pope appeared to endorse a Christian view, contested by most
      Muslims, that the early Muslims spread their religion by violence.

      Islamic fury erupted on Thursday and cast doubt on a visit the Pope plans to
      Turkey in November.


      The Pope has been asked to apologise Sky sources have learnt that Catholic
      bishops in the country are due to hold a meeting on Monday to discuss the row.

      In Srinagar, India, police detained nearly two dozen Muslim protesters after
      minor clashes on Saturday. Effigies of the Pope were burnt in the street.

      Two churches in the West Bank city of Nablus were fire bombed while in Gaza
      there was a small explosion outside a Greek Orthodox Church. No one was hurt.

      Pakistan's Foreign Ministry summoned the Vatican's ambassador to express regret
      over the comments.

      The Pakistan parliament also passed a resolution condemning the comments while
      radicals held protests across the country.

      The Muslim Brotherhood, the Arab world's largest group of political Islamists,
      called on the governments of Islamic countries to break relations with the
      Vatican.

      But there was support for the Pope from German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

      She told the Bild newspaper that the German-born Pontiff had been calling for
      dialogue with other religions.

      --
      All dogs go to heaven...
        • usenetposts Re: Pope compared to Hitler and Mussolini 16.09.06, 16:47
          nasza_maggie napisała:

          > If they carry on like this....
          > Do we have a full scale war on our doorstep??

          I was actually hoping that the words of Benedikt would finally become the open
          acknowledgement of war that we need to actually sort out the problems that we
          have that are not going to go away by redressing it as a "war against terror"
          and putting ourselves at terrific disadvantages by trying to make chummy chum
          chums out of nations that not only hate us, but have infiltrated our own
          societies in order to murder us in our beds.

          Unfortunately we have Cardinal Climbdown getting up on his hindlegs saying "His
          holyfatherness never meant nuttin' by it, so don't you bruvvers pay him no
          mind", which is precisely what I was hoping Rome might possibly have the balls
          to avoid.

          I see that GW has done one of their sondazes on the lead story, with the
          question "do you think the apologies of the Vatican were adequate?" the
          options, sadly, are yes/no/don't know. There was no option for "more than
          enough, I wish he hadn't even gone that far". Seeing that the YES camp had 90%
          of the vote after 100 odd votes, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority
          feeling among users (and let's not forget that GW is attracting arguably a left-
          of-center core user) was that B16 should have stuck to his guns and that the
          Latin for "get lost, towelheads" should have been all his apology.

          Maybe GW might like to add that option in just to test the hypothesis?

          --
          - Uncle Davey's Homepage -
          :: Foreigners Living in Poland Forum
      • usenetposts Re: Pope compared to Hitler and Mussolini 16.09.06, 16:56
        babiana napisała:

        > They must be insane. They hate Christian's guts. Religion of hatred.
        > news.independent.co.uk/europe/article1603761.ece

        The funny thing is that even in the way they have taken offence at his words,
        they only go to show how true it is, what he said.

        But the irony is lost on them.

        I saw another beautifully ironic image on the www.telegraph.co.uk on the
        article entitled "Pope apologises to Muslims". There is someone holding up a
        sign, in psychopath's handwriting with letters all different sizes:

        "ALAS PoPE
        BENEDICT HAS
        LoST HIS MENTAL
        AND MORAL BALANCE"

        And this is being held aloft by someone dressed in black from head to toe, even
        with black leather gloves on, with two holes cut out for eyes.

        Oh, the sweet and sour sauce of unwitting irony.

        I nominate it for Picture of the Year.

        --
        - Uncle Davey's Homepage -
        :: Foreigners Living in Poland Forum
    • babiana Re: What we can hear in the mosque 16.09.06, 17:55

      I send you the following Memri video of a sermon given in a
      Palestinian mosque in May in which the true agenda of the Palestinians
      and their authentic voice can be heard in all its hatefulness, which
      would have put the Nazis to shame.
      Please watch it until the end.


      tinyurl.com/aymkj

      Pope Benedict XVI has to apologize? I have no words to describe my feelings.


      --
      Jesli jeden czlowiek powie ci, ze masz osle uszy, nie przejmuj sie, jesli powie
      ci to dwoch ludzi, przygotuj sobie siodlo.
      • usenetposts Re: What we can hear in the mosque 16.09.06, 18:15
        babiana napisała:

        >
        > I send you the following Memri video of a sermon given in a
        > Palestinian mosque in May in which the true agenda of the Palestinians
        > and their authentic voice can be heard in all its hatefulness, which
        > would have put the Nazis to shame.
        > Please watch it until the end.
        >
        >
        > tinyurl.com/aymkj
        >
        > Pope Benedict XVI has to apologize? I have no words to describe my feelings.
        >
        >

        Damn right. I salute this post.

        --
        - Uncle Davey's Homepage -
        :: Foreigners Living in Poland Forum
      • minimus Re: What we can hear in the mosque 17.09.06, 00:56
        > and their authentic voice can be heard in all its hatefulness, which
        > would have put the Nazis to shame.
        > Please watch it until the end.
        >
        > tinyurl.com/aymkj

        I expected something bit more dramatic. This is more or less what you can hear
        from "guest speakers" on our very own Radio M. wink
        • babiana Re: What we can hear in the mosque 17.09.06, 02:04
          minimus napisał:

          > > and their authentic voice can be heard in all its hatefulness, which
          > > would have put the Nazis to shame.
          > > Please watch it until the end.
          > >
          > > tinyurl.com/aymkj
          >
          > I expected something bit more dramatic. This is more or less what you can hear
          > from "guest speakers" on our very own Radio M. wink


          That's a very interesting and imaginative comparison.


          --
          Jesli jeden czlowiek powie ci, ze masz osle uszy, nie przejmuj sie, jesli powie
          ci to dwoch ludzi, przygotuj sobie siodlo.
          • mniklas5 Re: po sie silic 17.09.06, 08:36
            na jezyk angielski, wszyscy ktorzy tu napisali to Polacy ktorzy myslea ze znaja
            jezyk, dlaczego , dlatego ze zaden Anglik lub Amerykanin nie napisze zdania
            ktore ma 5 orzeczen i 10 rzeczownikow. Zdanie w j.angielskim ma jedno
            orzeczenie , jest krotkie i ma sens, Polacy tlumacza swoja mysle uzywajac
            polskiej mentalnosci a wiec duzo mowienia i niczego nie powiedzenie, to jest
            typowe szczegolnie u politykow, ktorzy do perfekcji opanowali tzw perfumowania
            gowna
            • brookie I'm sick and tired 17.09.06, 11:55
              of non Muslims being forced to apologise to Muslims every time
              something "wrong" is said. And "wrong" doesn't mean inappropriate in our mind
              or speach, but obviously offends them. And thy're damn sensitive.
              --
              Think the unthinkable
              • babiana Re: po sie silic 17.09.06, 13:22
                "Po sie silic" pisac po polsku? Did you mean 5 orzeczen i 10 podmiotow? "Swoje
                mysle" trzeba wyrazac precyzyjnie i najlepiej nic nie pisac jak nie ma sie
                "niczego nie powiedzenie".
                --
                Jesli jeden czlowiek powie ci, ze masz osle uszy, nie przejmuj sie, jesli powie
                ci to dwoch ludzi, przygotuj sobie siodlo.
            • usenetposts Re: po sie silic 19.09.06, 20:56
              mniklas5 napisał:

              > na jezyk angielski, wszyscy ktorzy tu napisali to Polacy ktorzy myslea ze
              znaja
              >
              > jezyk, dlaczego , dlatego ze zaden Anglik lub Amerykanin nie napisze zdania
              > ktore ma 5 orzeczen i 10 rzeczownikow. Zdanie w j.angielskim ma jedno
              > orzeczenie , jest krotkie i ma sens, Polacy tlumacza swoja mysle uzywajac
              > polskiej mentalnosci a wiec duzo mowienia i niczego nie powiedzenie, to jest
              > typowe szczegolnie u politykow, ktorzy do perfekcji opanowali tzw perfumowania
              >
              > gowna

              So you think...

              In fact I use long sentences because I am educated. The media use short ones
              because they are about appealing to the lowest common denominator. I am a
              native speaker of English, but I am talking, in the main, to an intelligent
              audience here, and so I use the sentence length which suits my purposes.

              --
              - Uncle Davey's Homepage -
              :: Foreigners Living in Poland Forum
      • usenetposts Sermo Ratisburgiae recantandus? Nole! 19.09.06, 21:02
        kylie1 napisała:

        > I like B16's
        > > readiness to tell the truth. If I were a Catholic, I would be very proud
        > of
        > > him right now.
        >
        > That's true, Dave but if he keeps it up, the Vatican will be burying another
        > pope real soon.
        >
        > smile

        This guy has already given his life for what he believes is the truth, and
        getting assassinated by a muslim fanatic would not spoil what he has done so
        far, quite the opposite, in fact.

        We don't need Church leaders who retract and recant their views out of fear of
        death. there never would have been a reformation had the protestants did that,
        and if now and again the catholics need to do it, well, you know, that's what
        we do. I could also be putting myself at risk from what I say, but I really
        prefer to tell the truth. If we do get killed for it, then everyone will know
        that we were right.

        --
        - Uncle Davey's Homepage -
        :: Foreigners Living in Poland Forum
        • szahtut It is just a junk 19.09.06, 22:45
          Hey guys, you are really funny. I have read most of your statement, beleive me,
          a you have a great talent to do a TVshow, theater, or movies...
          Are you thinking that people are dump? or maybe it is just emontion; and you
          forgot that Jesus was terrorized by other community at that time, I think it is
          clear that so called Islam didn't exist at that moment, and every one know that
          the holy spirit was tortured on the cross, and of course every one knows the
          story so what is new what is going on nowdays.
          So if someone want to tell the truth, he must not think that in other side of
          the river is crap, but perhaps someone who is watching him.
          I am sure no one can do his toilet and shows his ass to another person, and as
          reaction it would be vomiting. That a human nature. Keep in your mind if you
          knock on the door gentilly the person will open the door with big smil, and vis-
          versa.
          • kylie1 Re: It is just a junk 19.09.06, 23:20
            szahtut, I honestly don't have a clue what you are rambling about...


            > the holy spirit was tortured on the cross.

            It was a lot more than just the Spirit. It was Christ's body...in physical form,
            don't forget THAT szahtut.

            >he must not think that in other side of
            the river is crap,

            what's that supposed to mean?
            or

            > I am sure no one can do his toilet and shows his ass to another person,

            Are you talking about Benny's ass or what?

            I think you tried to cram a lot of your own emotions into your post. The only
            thing is I don't have a clue what you are yapping about...

            Can you rephrase it for us, please?

            thnax,

            kylie
            • usenetposts Re: It is just a junk 20.09.06, 10:40
              kylie1 napisała:

              > szahtut, I honestly don't have a clue what you are rambling about...
              >

              You're not the only one. Szahtut needs to take a deep breath and give us
              his/her ideas more slowly and simply.

              >
              > > the holy spirit was tortured on the cross.
              >
              > It was a lot more than just the Spirit. It was Christ's body...in physical
              form
              > ,
              > don't forget THAT szahtut.

              I am not sure that I have ever read a scripture that supports the idea that the
              other persons of the Trinity other than the Son also participated in his
              propitiatory sufferings. I think that what Szahtut has suggested is actually
              seriously heterodox, as far as Nicene-creed based Christianity is concerned.

              There is such a thing as modalism, which is an over-reaction against Arianism,
              which would probably be able to accommodate the idea, but like I say, there's
              no Bible verse he can quote to back up his assertion.

              --
              - Uncle Davey's Homepage -
              :: Foreigners Living in Poland Forum
            • szahtut to be or not to be this is the question 20.09.06, 12:19
              kylie1 napisała:

              > szahtut, I honestly don't have a clue what you are rambling about...
              >
              >
              > > the holy spirit was tortured on the cross.
              >
              > It was a lot more than just the Spirit. It was Christ's body...in physical
              form
              > ,
              > don't forget THAT szahtut.
              >
              > >he must not think that in other side of
              > the river is crap,
              >
              > what's that supposed to mean?
              > or
              >
              > > I am sure no one can do his toilet and shows his ass to another person,
              >
              > Are you talking about Benny's ass or what?
              >
              > I think you tried to cram a lot of your own emotions into your post. The only
              > thing is I don't have a clue what you are yapping about...
              >
              > Can you rephrase it for us, please?
              >
              > thnax,
              >
              > kylie
              In John 14;26 (Bible), we can find:
              "The Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, whom the Father will send in my name, he
              shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto
              you.""

              with respect to our father, life must continue in peace and love,we should love
              the others, why all the shits and cabagge about other faith, does one of us
              know something about there culture or faith?
              why are you mixing them and screwing them. to the best of aknowledge, they are
              peaceful people,
              I suppose guys that you are embarrassing our Jesus by aggressing other faith
              meanly the muslim's faith. why, shame on you
              • usenetposts Re: to be or not to be this is the question 20.09.06, 16:14
                szahtut napisał:

                > In John 14;26 (Bible), we can find:
                > "The Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, whom the Father will send in my name, he
                > shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said
                unto
                > you.""

                In what way does this verse say that the Holy Spirit suffered on the cross?

                That is what you claimed and what you are being asked to prove from scripture.

                >
                > with respect to our father, life must continue in peace and love,we should
                love
                >
                > the others, why all the shits and cabagge about other faith, does one of us
                > know something about there culture or faith?
                > why are you mixing them and screwing them. to the best of aknowledge, they
                are
                > peaceful people,

                You obviously live on a different planet to the rest of us. Of course they are
                not peaceful people. They are only peaceful when the rock is in your hand, not
                theirs. You only need to follow current events to see the truth.

                > I suppose guys that you are embarrassing our Jesus by aggressing other faith
                > meanly the muslim's faith. why, shame on you

                Faith in Jesus has only meaning when the choice to have faith or not is free.

                This is why we oppose the Islamo-fascists, to get rid of their bullying and
                duress. Then the people in those countries will be free to decide what they
                really think about religion, whether to be a believer in Mohammed, in
                christianity, or in nothing at all.

                Jesus didn't go around poking swords in people's faces making them believe. He
                challenged them to believe, but He didn't force them to state that they
                believed if they couldn't care less, by using violence.

                If you are concerned about Jesus, and not Islam as I suspect, then you should
                be in favour of doing things His way. And that means opposing religious
                fascism, be that the Pharisees of His time or the Islamists of today.

                --
                - Uncle Davey's Homepage -
                :: Foreigners Living in Poland Forum
    • babiana Re: For once, I really like the Pope right now! 18.09.06, 12:16
      A Corriere della Sera journalist stated that Oriana Fallaci, who passed away few
      days ago, discovered the true face of Islam and she alone would be able to
      comment on the current crisis and attacks on Pope Benedict XVI.
      He underlines that in the current situation, she would have probably encouraged
      the pope not to concede.
      --
      Jesli jeden czlowiek powie ci, ze masz osle uszy, nie przejmuj sie, jesli powie
      ci to dwoch ludzi, przygotuj sobie siodlo.
    • ianek70 Re: For once, I really like the Pope right now! 20.09.06, 17:17
      He did the right thing by clarifying what he meant, and not apologising for his
      words (being sorry for causing offence is something else).

      Dialogue between religions is pointless.
      In order to prove that a god supports one set of primitive superstitions and
      wacky rituals rather than another, they would first have to prove that that god
      existed. Nobody ever has, nobody ever can, nobody ever will.

      The only reason they stopped settling theological arguments with swords was
      that they invented guns.
      • szahtut it is not fun 20.09.06, 19:40
        ianek70 napisał:

        > He did the right thing by clarifying what he meant, and not apologising for
        his
        >
        > words (being sorry for causing offence is something else).
        >
        > Dialogue between religions is pointless.
        > In order to prove that a god supports one set of primitive superstitions and
        > wacky rituals rather than another, they would first have to prove that that
        god
        >
        > existed. Nobody ever has, nobody ever can, nobody ever will.
        >
        > The only reason they stopped settling theological arguments with swords was
        > that they invented guns.

        maybe he is right, but it is shameful that he couldn't tell the answer of the
        other part;
        I do believe that Islam is growing faster that we think because for the moment
        the muslims don't use swore any more, but the B16, intelligent bomb,
        phosphorics bombs, laser ans others,.... to show our real democracy prawda,
        poczekaj, tell me who throw the nuclear bombs in Japan? Dose any one from
        islamic country say christian or Jesus, of couse they say USA simply.

        just look to the news, who is killing people in Ivory cost , in Rwanda,congo,
        and others,
        so I believe that we are christian in deep water. we should spread Love.
        • babiana Re: it is not fun 21.09.06, 03:37
          You garble all facts and information. You distort to such an extent that it is
          impossible to comment or discuss. Muslims don't use swords anymore? Stop your
          sputter because it's not funny.

          --
          Jesli jeden czlowiek powie ci, ze masz osle uszy, nie przejmuj sie, jesli powie
          ci to dwoch ludzi, przygotuj sobie siodlo.
          • szahtut Re: it is not fun 21.09.06, 11:37
            babiana napisała:

            > You garble all facts and information. You distort to such an extent that it
            is
            > impossible to comment or discuss. Muslims don't use swords anymore? Stop your
            > sputter because it's not funny.
            >
            Just one time, look to yourself in the mirror.
            Dumb-freedom
          • ianek70 Re: it is not fun 21.09.06, 13:48
            babiana napisała:

            > You garble all facts and information. You distort to such an extent that it
            is
            > impossible to comment or discuss.

            So I'll clarify:
            All the so-called 'great' religions were spread by violence or the threat of
            violence.
            Medieval Christians and Muslims used swords, later they had guns, now they have
            missiles (swords now have mainly symbolic value).
            These things are essential for them, since they obviously can't conquer
            people's hearts and minds with logic or common sense. No religious leader has
            ever even bothered trying to prove the existence of their gods.
            So if there is no constructive dialogue within religions, there is obviously no
            point trying to have a debate between different religions, or between religious
            leaders and people in the real world.
            Either they make/keep people Christian or Muslim using violence, or they argue
            that it's our/their tradition, because 1,000 years ago they converted our
            ancestors using violence.

            www.sundayherald.com/57953

            Whether people believe nice lies about angels and love and magic paintings, or
            nasty lies about having to kill the infidel, it's all lies.
    • nasza_maggie washington post 21.09.06, 14:01

      Enough Apologies

      By Anne Applebaum
      Tuesday, September 19, 2006; Page A21

      Already, angry Palestinian militants have assaulted seven West Bank and Gaza
      churches, destroying two of them. In Somalia, gunmen shot dead an elderly
      Italian nun. Radical clerics from Qatar to Qom have called, variously, for
      a "day of anger" or for worshipers to "hunt down" the pope and his followers.
      From Turkey to Malaysia, Muslim politicians have condemned the pope and called
      his apology "insufficient." And all of this because Benedict XVI, speaking at
      the University of Regensburg, quoted a Byzantine emperor who, more than 600
      years ago, called Islam a faith "spread by the sword." We've been here before,
      of course. Similar protests were sparked last winter by cartoon portrayals of
      Muhammad in the Danish press. Similar apologies resulted, though Benedict's is
      more surprising than those of the Danish government. No one, apparently, can
      remember any pope, not even the media-friendly John Paul II, apologizing for
      anything in such specific terms: not for the Inquisition, not for the
      persecution of Galileo and certainly not for a single comment made to an
      academic audience in an unimportant German city.

      But Western reactions to Muslim "days of anger" have followed a familiar
      pattern, too. Last winter, some Western newspapers defended their Danish
      colleagues, even going so far as to reprint the cartoons -- but others,
      including the Vatican, attacked the Danes for giving offense. Some leading
      Catholics have now defended the pope -- but others, no doubt including some
      Danes, have complained that his statement should have been better vetted, or
      never given at all. This isn't surprising: By definition, the West is not
      monolithic. Left-leaning journalists don't identify with right-leaning
      colleagues (or right-leaning Catholic colleagues), and vice versa. Not all
      Christians, let alone all Catholics -- even all German Catholics -- identify
      with the pope either, and certainly they don't want to defend his every
      scholarly quotation.



      Iraqis burn the German flag and an effigy of the pope in Basra yesterday. (By
      Nabil Al Jurani -- Associated Press)



      Unfortunately, these subtle distinctions are lost on the fanatics who torch
      embassies and churches. And they may also be preventing all of us from finding
      a useful response to the waves of anti-Western anger and violence that
      periodically engulf parts of the Muslim world. Clearly, a handful of apologies
      and some random public debate -- should the pope have said X, should the Danish
      prime minister have done Y -- are ineffective and irrelevant: None of the
      radical clerics accepts Western apologies, and none of their radical followers
      reads the Western press. Instead, Western politicians, writers, thinkers and
      speakers should stop apologizing -- and start uniting.

      By this, I don't mean that we all need to rush to defend or to analyze this
      particular sermon; I leave that to experts on Byzantine theology. But we can
      all unite in our support for freedom of speech -- surely the pope is allowed to
      quote from medieval texts -- and of the press. And we can also unite, loudly,
      in our condemnation of violent, unprovoked attacks on churches, embassies and
      elderly nuns. By "we" I mean here the White House, the Vatican, the German
      Greens, the French Foreign Ministry, NATO, Greenpeace, Le Monde and Fox News --
      Western institutions of the left, the right and everything in between. True,
      these principles sound pretty elementary -- "we're pro-free speech and anti-
      gratuitous violence" -- but in the days since the pope's sermon, I don't feel
      that I've heard them defended in anything like a unanimous chorus. A lot more
      time has been spent analyzing what the pontiff meant to say, or should have
      said, or might have said if he had been given better advice.

      All of which is simply beside the point, since nothing the pope has ever said
      comes even close to matching the vitriol, extremism and hatred that pour out of
      the mouths of radical imams and fanatical clerics every day, all across Europe
      and the Muslim world, almost none of which ever provokes any Western response
      at all. And maybe it's time that it should: When Saudi Arabia publishes
      textbooks commanding good Wahhabi Muslims to "hate" Christians, Jews and non-
      Wahhabi Muslims, for example, why shouldn't the Vatican, the Southern Baptists,
      Britain's chief rabbi and the Council on American-Islamic Relations all condemn
      them -- simultaneously?

      Maybe it's a pipe dream: The day when the White House and Greenpeace can issue
      a joint statement is surely distant indeed. But if stray comments by Western
      leaders -- not to mention Western films, books, cartoons, traditions and
      values -- are going to inspire regular violence, I don't feel that it's asking
      too much for the West to quit saying sorry and unite, occasionally, in its own
      defense. The fanatics attacking the pope already limit the right to free speech
      among their own followers. I don't see why we should allow them to limit our
      right to free speech, too.

      applebaumanne@yahoo.com

      --
      All dogs go to heaven...
    • babiana Re: Telegraph.uk 22.09.06, 01:53

      Islam, like Christianity, is not above criticism
      (Filed: 18/09/2006)

      The Pope quotes a barbed medieval criticism of Islamic violence in the course of
      a scholarly discourse, and Muslims all over the world go into uproar; churches
      are firebombed. The Prime Minister's wife delivers a playful slap to a cheeky
      teenager, and six detectives rush to question her.

      We are living in a world that has lost not only its sense of proportion but also
      its ability to discriminate.

      In the case of Cherie Blair – who aimed a slap at a 17-year-old fencing champion
      while both of them giggled – it is hard not to conclude that it served her
      right. In her role as a trendy human rights lawyer, she has helped foster the
      nosy paranoia that led the Child Protection in Sport Unit to call the police.
      That said, however, Mrs Blair was clearly guilty of nothing more than a sense of
      humour.
      advertisement

      By contrast, it is not immediately apparent how much blame to attach to Benedict
      XVI for the worldwide furore over last week's lecture. On reflection, the answer
      must be: not very much. Presumably, the Pope regrets quoting the Byzantine
      emperor's opinion that aspects of Islam were "inhuman". Moderate Muslims have
      been upset by it, and Benedict reiterated yesterday that he was sorry that they
      had taken offence. But he is even more sorry that this offence has been
      exacerbated by the deliberate manipulation of his words by Islamic firebrands
      and their slick media operation.

      The combination of grievance-nurturing multiculturalism and instant headlines is
      having a disastrous effect on the worldwide Muslim community. There seems to be
      no limit to its spokesmen's willingness to voice outrage; and their messages are
      then picked up by fanatics who mount appalling attacks on Christians in Muslim
      countries. When was the last time a Muslim leader apologised for such atrocities?

      The truth is that barbaric attacks happen weekly. No wonder that Benedict
      favours an urgent dialogue with Muslims on the subject of religious violence,
      rather than the usual touchy-feely exchange of compliments.

      Well, he has started a dialogue now, albeit not quite in the way that he
      intended. And it is essential that it continue. A self-abasing apology from the
      Pope would have postponed that discussion yet again.

      We suspect that Western public opinion is not displeased that Benedict has said
      the unsayable. Now it is time for other churchmen to tell their Muslim
      counterparts that, in addition to dishing out criticism, they must learn how to
      take it.
      --
      Jesli jeden czlowiek powie ci, ze masz osle uszy, nie przejmuj sie, jesli powie
      ci to dwoch ludzi, przygotuj sobie siodlo.
    • szahtut to be or not to be this is what? 22.09.06, 21:15
      usenetposts napisał:


      >
      > At present it's the Muslim world that have gotten up in arms about it, rather
      > than dissenting Catholics and liberal Protestants, although their voice will
      > not be long in bleating. I just hope he sticks to his opinion and doesn't
      > backpedal and subscribe to the media lie that only extreme Islam is
      > aggressive, violent Islam. The Pope told it like it is - it all is. The
      > religion of Mohammed is spread by the sword. And thatwas true from the word
      > go to the end. Yes Catholics an yes protestants have spread their views by
      > the sword during the darkest moments of our history, but it was where we
      > failed. Where they do it is where they succeed. They succeed in doing
      > Mohammed's stated will, and if we spread the Gospel that way, we go against
      > what Jesus said.
      >
      > To remind them of that greatly offends them, but TOUGH. I like B16's
      > readiness to tell the truth. If I were a Catholic, I would be very proud of
      > him right now.
      >
      Dear, as I said before, you are attaking Islamic faith on purpose or not, and
      that depends on your consciense,
      If the Islam was spread by sword as you said, NO one would be a muslim till
      today, and that waas proved by your example related to Christian faith in mifle-
      age, and as you said it a blak page in christian faith history. other example
      to prove that any faith can not be followed using Sword or Bombs or F-16.
      just look to the missionary in Afrika, even in Islamic countries didn't work to
      bring people the christianity why? because they give them some litters of milk
      and bread but in the same time others group were stollen their countries (
      petrol, Dimond, copper, distroying theier nature, putting the chemical
      waste,...). and so on.
      I condemn 100% the 9/11 aggression, but look to the american people who
      accepted islam as new faith, why? is Mohammed spreading his faith using sword,
      IDOUBT YOU DARE TO SAY YES. because mohammed dead, but why he brought tothe
      human being is true, and of course the Koran was notfrom him but from God as as
      Bible was from God.
      and before to be proud of some one just read between the lines of the holly
      pope speech.
      Mark 12:28-30
      28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and
      perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first
      commandment of all?
      29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O
      Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
      30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy
      soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first
      commandment.

      • usenetposts Re: to be or not to be this is what? 23.09.06, 20:32
        szahtut napisał:

        > usenetposts napisał:
        >
        > Dear,

        Actually, I'm not that way inclined, but thanks anyway

        > as I said before, you are attaking Islamic faith on purpose or not, and
        > that depends on your consciense,
        > If the Islam was spread by sword as you said, NO one would be a muslim till
        > today, and that waas proved by your example related to Christian faith in
        mifle
        > -
        > age, and as you said it a blak page in christian faith history. other example
        > to prove that any faith can not be followed using Sword or Bombs or F-16.
        > just look to the missionary in Afrika, even in Islamic countries didn't work
        to
        >
        > bring people the christianity why? because they give them some litters of
        milk
        > and bread but in the same time others group were stollen their countries (
        > petrol, Dimond, copper, distroying theier nature, putting the chemical
        > waste,...). and so on.
        > I condemn 100% the 9/11 aggression, but

        "I condemn 9/11 BUT" it's always that way with you people isn't it?

        > look to the american people who
        > accepted islam as new faith, why? is Mohammed spreading his faith using
        sword,
        > IDOUBT YOU DARE TO SAY YES. because mohammed dead, but why he brought tothe
        > human being is true, and of course the Koran was notfrom him but from God as
        as
        >
        > Bible was from God.

        Let's hear what this holy Book says at Sura 111, then, where we see mohammed
        getting in a strop at his uncle, because his uncle listened to his aunty to
        said "prophet, my ass, and don't you go giving him any of our money":

        "Let the hands of Abu Lahab perish, and let himself perish!
        His wealth and his gains shall avail him not.
        Burned shall he be at the fiery flame
        And his wife laden with fire wood,-
        On her neck a rope of palm fibre." (Sura 111)

        Wookh takoy maladyets. And we see similar nonsense and threats on almost every
        page of that nasty little kitaab.

        Open your eyes, matey.


        --
        - Uncle Davey's Homepage -
        :: Foreigners Living in Poland Forum
        • szahtut Re: to be or not to be this is what? 24.09.06, 13:35
          usenetposts napisał:

          > "I condemn 9/11 BUT" it's always that way with you people isn't it?

          As human being NO one accept that action but open your mind? How many Vietnamse
          dead???
          Irak???
          Palestine???
          Libanone???
          So Mister Blar "liar" Dimocracy Dumb,
          But Petrol Guys,
          I condemn 9/11, could you condemn the evengilist christian liberal actions In
          Afganistan, Irak, Palestine Libanon and so on. even not you prove that you
          believe to Darwinism's theory
          > > Bible was from God.

          I think the Bible never said I am from God and the only book who said that book
          (Bible) is from God is Koran.
          > Let's hear what this holy Book says at Sura 111, then, where we see mohammed
          > getting in a strop at his uncle, because his uncle listened to his aunty to
          > said "prophet, my ass, and don't you go giving him any of our money":

          Wow, I appreciate your interest to that man:

          en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Masadd
          Once Abu Lahab asked the Prophet: "If I were to accept your religion, what
          would I get?" The Prophet replied: "You would get what the other believers
          would get." Abu Lahab responded: "Is there no preference or distinction for
          me?" In which the Prophet replied, "What else do you want?" Abu Lahab replied
          back: "May this religion perish in which I and all other people should be equal
          and alike!"
          en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Lahab

          > On her neck a rope of palm fibre." (Sura 111)
          However, Surat 109 is saying something else:
          Surat: The Disbelievers
          KORAN
          In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.

          Say (O Muhammad(peace be upon him) to these Mushrikun and Kafirun):"O Al-
          Kafirun (disbelievers in Allah, in His Oneness, in His Angels, in His Books, in
          His Messengers, in the DAy of Resurrection, and in predistination, etc.)!
          "I worship not that which you worship, Nor will you worship that which I
          worship And I shall not worship that which you are worshipping. Nor will you
          worship that which I worship. To you be your religion, and to me my religion
          (Islamic Monotheism)."


          > Open your eyes, matey.

          I should do, but what about this:
          Whereas, The Bible is a collection of writings by many different authors, the
          Quran is a dictation (or recitation). The speaker in the Quran - in the first
          person - is God Almighty (Allah) talking directly to man. In the Bible you have
          many men writing about God and you have in some places the word of God speaking
          to men and still in other places you have some men simply writing about history
          or personal exchanges of information to one another (ex: Epistle of John 3).
          The Bible in the English King James Version consists of 66 small books. About
          18 of them begin by saying: This is the revelation God gave to so and so… The
          rest make no claim as to their origin. You have for example the beginning of
          the book of Jonah which begins by saying: The word of the Lord came to Jonah
          the son of Elmitaeh saying… quote and then it continues for two or three pages


          to be or not to be this is the truth,?
    • babiana Re: Islam and Hinduism 24.09.06, 02:37
      Muslims challenging the idol worship of Hinduism

      "I wrote to the sangkancil and akandabaratham forum group about the
      truth of Hinduism.
      Some Muslims got upset. They threatened me with
      lynching, blackmail, and reporting to the infamous Malaysian Police.

      First, read what I had written - ” All must know that Hindu ritual
      practice were done in the earliest stages. Only Islam came later by
      tailoring some facts. For example, the Hindus will go round a Siva
      temple seven times and offer the gifts to the icon God or Goddess. In
      the Siva temple, prayers are offered five times daily. It is the
      morning, noon, afternoon, evening and late evening by the priest. It
      is not compulsory for every Hindu devotee to pray five times daily,
      unless they wanted to impress with their holier-than-thou facade.

      Why has one to go round seven times, especially in the Temple of Lord
      Siva? To reach Lord Siva one had to cross seven seas. The Serpent
      Virgin Ladies (Naga Kanni Amman) was guarding each sea. (The seas must
      consider as mind waves). Each lady must permit you to the next
      destination. Destinations can be considered as seven rooms guarded
      heavily by these serpent virgin ladies. After all the seven virgin
      ladies gave you the permission, then we can see our Lord Siva. We
      Hindu devotees don’t have to travel to Mecca to perform the ritual.=20
      One can stay where they are and practice meditation and mantra.

      BTW, we Hindus don’t mind any Muslims praying to the Black Stone in
      the Kaabah, because our Almighty Hindu God, Lord Siva Linggam sits
      there. Actually Muslims big brother Mohammed knew the truth. He
      fasted for forty-eight days (Wow! the Quoran forgot the number of
      days!) By fasting his third eye opened, and he had to pass through
      seven virgin ladies one by one to open the doors so finally he was
      able to meet the Lord Siva.

      So with respect to the Lord Siva, Muslims big brother followed the
      annual ritual, going round seven times to open the doors. On the final
      round instead of meeting Lord Siva, he kissed the stone. That is the
      truth. The Arab followers were just following what Muslims big brother
      did in his life but know not the true reason.

      We Hindus perform the rituals once a year by wearing white loin
      clothes over the body and cut or shave the hair. This hair was offered
      as devotee’s karma to be forgiven of his / her sin. Did you notice the
      Muslim following the same rituals by cutting or shaving the hair and
      wearing white loin clothes when they perform the Hajj in Mecca? NO
      question should be asked. It is called ritual practice in Islam. It is
      alright for Islam to promote ritual practices but the non-Muslims
      can’t! What a silly mentality!

      Why has Muslims to pray five times a day? The Linggam Stone (Lord
      Siva) has five types of power. To represent praying five times by
      facing the direction of the black stone to bow and prostrate, asking
      the same power from God to bestow towards one who is praying. Muslims
      should understand that angel Gabriel gave the black stone. Who is this
      angel Gabriel? In Hinduism, angel Gabriel was “Lord Naga
      Linggeswarer”. When the Muslims are criticizing non-believers’
      worshipping idols / icons as Satan, what is Kaaba, black stone, and
      two satan pillars made of?

      Later, the same upset Muslims wrote me saying that Hindus, like other
      pagans, worship useless, lifeless objects which can be pissed upon,
      and has no ability to do anything. If anyone spit on any of the idols
      that I worship, they will not move one bit. Besides they criticize my
      idol worshipping even to the length of using foul languages. They
      label me “kafir” and demand that I should be killed according to
      Islam.
      I can see life in my idols. But it’s very hard to prove the existence
      of God in the idols.

      For 1400 years the Muslims showed hatred towards idol worshippers and brand them
      as kafirs. This has made Muslims being seen in negative light by the others, and
      usually associated with terrorist cults. Islam is not a religion of peace,
      because the actions prove they are violent and irrational. Actually we cannot
      blame the Muslims from acting this way. It is not their fault that they have
      been misled. The only fault in Islam was their stupid book written by
      unknown writers 1400 years ago. That book contradicts itself in so
      many places. Even the so-called educated Muslims can’t comprehend it.

      In this 21st century, all of us must put and end the stupid thinking
      of hatred and live in peace. So to this end, I am inviting the Muslims
      worldwide to take this challenge. Well, I am calling these Muslims to
      come forward to accept the challenge of spitting, kicking and pissing
      on one of the temples in Malaysia arranged by myself. In this temple
      there are no statues, but only ant-hill, trisulam (iron spear) and one
      red brick (as a statue). Now the Muslim must get reality in themselves
      and prove to me (and other Hindus) that worshipping is not worth,
      lifeless and can’t be harmed by any Hindu God/Goddess from the idols,
      by accepting the challenge. It is cowardly writing of the Muslims
      showing their stupidity against Hinduism. Prove to the Hindus by
      spitting, kicking and pissing on the Hindu Idols. I need twelve true
      Islam believers around the globe to come forward and participate in
      this challenge."

      May the Hindu Gods/Goddesses Bless Everyone!

      OM SIVAYA NAMAHA



      --
      Jesli jeden czlowiek powie ci, ze masz osle uszy, nie przejmuj sie, jesli powie
      ci to dwoch ludzi, przygotuj sobie siodlo.
      • szahtut Re: take it easy!!! 24.09.06, 10:19
        babiana napisała:

        > Muslims challenging the idol worship of Hinduism

        SUrat: The Disbelievers
        KORAN
        In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.

        Say (O Muhammad(peace be upon him) to these Mushrikun and Kafirun):"O Al-
        Kafirun (disbelievers in Allah, in His Oneness, in His Angels, in His Books, in
        His Messengers, in the DAy of Resurrection, and in predistination, etc.)!
        "I worship not that which you worship, Nor will you worship that which I
        worship And I shall not worship that which you are worshipping. Nor will you
        worship that which I worship. To you be your religion, and to me my religion
        5Islamic Monotheism)."

        wow guys, it looks clear to me that freedon in religion

Popularne wątki

Nie pamiętasz hasła

lub ?

 

Nie masz jeszcze konta? Zarejestruj się

Nakarm Pajacyka