Pius attacked for not confronting evil, Benedict attacked for confronting evil
- Thread starter Macfistowannabe
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
BrownEyedBoy
Rock n' Roll Doggie
No way. He was condemning "evil" but didn´t choose his words wisely and offended another religion. End of story.
He deserves all the outrage.
He deserves all the outrage.
INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
BrownEyedBoy said:
(Fill in the blank)
_________________ offends Muslims.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Macfistowannabe said:
soooo ... "confronting Islam" is the same thing as confronting the Holocaust?
Benedict was talking about Islam, not about "Islamofacism" or whatever new word the Bush administration has focus-grouped to describe this shadowy enemy we need to give a face to in order to justify the wild expansion of executive power (evildoers? jihadists?).
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
Benedict was quoting a fourteenth century manuscript, not giving his own opinion. He's a smart guy but gosh did he ever screw up.
AliEnvy
Refugee
Ah, missed this one before replying to the other Pope thread.
Yep, he screwed up but at least he's trying to fix it...that in itself is huge progress for the Vatican.
Yep, he screwed up but at least he's trying to fix it...that in itself is huge progress for the Vatican.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
AliEnvy said:
Yeah, it's not exactly the standard practice for the Vatican for the pope to admit he screwed up.
OP
OP
Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Re: Re: Pius attacked for not confronting evil, Benedict attacked for confronting evil
In any event, the pope was directing his quotation of the Byzantine emperor towards those who live by the sword. The pope was informing you about the history of Islamic Jihad - conversion by the sword - even if he did sight a quote about the prophet Muhammad. Why is it relevant, you ask? Because it's become the biggest issue of our time.
But those who condemn the pope for speaking out against Islamic Jihad are being hypocritical because they are the same crowd that accuses Pope Pius of aiding and abetting the Nazi party, when in fact, he did the opposite - he saved a lot of European Jews from the horrors of the Holocaust.
Irvine511 said:soooo ... "confronting Islam" is the same thing as confronting the Holocaust?
Benedict was talking about Islam, not about "Islamofacism" or whatever new word the Bush administration has focus-grouped to describe this shadowy enemy we need to give a face to in order to justify the wild expansion of executive power (evildoers? jihadists?).
I agree, there was a better way to confront the horrors of Islamic Jihad than to knock the prophet of Islam. That's why he outraged most every devout Muslim.
In any event, the pope was directing his quotation of the Byzantine emperor towards those who live by the sword. The pope was informing you about the history of Islamic Jihad - conversion by the sword - even if he did sight a quote about the prophet Muhammad. Why is it relevant, you ask? Because it's become the biggest issue of our time.
But those who condemn the pope for speaking out against Islamic Jihad are being hypocritical because they are the same crowd that accuses Pope Pius of aiding and abetting the Nazi party, when in fact, he did the opposite - he saved a lot of European Jews from the horrors of the Holocaust.
How do you think the Byzantine Empire (a.k.a., "East Roman Empire") expanded? Through multiparty democratic elections? He's just as guilty of "living by the sword" as the Muslims he condemned, and he was pissed off by the fact that he was less successful than the Ottomans who eventually relegated his empire to ancient history.
Manuel II Palaiologos and his descendants would have been bitter, because not only were the Ottomans easily eating away at their empire, but the West also had nothing but contempt for them. In fact, the only reason it's called the "Byzantine Empire" is because that's what an 18th century philosopher called it--deeming it unsuitable to be the "Roman Empire," the name that the empire called itself while it existed.
Trying to apply modern politics to 15th century Europe is really quite futile.
Melon
Manuel II Palaiologos and his descendants would have been bitter, because not only were the Ottomans easily eating away at their empire, but the West also had nothing but contempt for them. In fact, the only reason it's called the "Byzantine Empire" is because that's what an 18th century philosopher called it--deeming it unsuitable to be the "Roman Empire," the name that the empire called itself while it existed.
Trying to apply modern politics to 15th century Europe is really quite futile.
Melon
OP
OP
Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Good point, another reason to believe that the Pope could have made his point differently.melon said:
On this I disagree - many truths are eternal. I for one am a strong believer in the Socratic Method - ask the hard questions, tie the opponent in verbal knots, and baffle them with their own hypocrisy.melon said:
Thomas Jefferson believed this to be true as well. Don't mind me quoting this one again and again.
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
On the other hand, existentialism has also stood the test of time. We now call it postmodernism.
Last edited:
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
Reason is overrated. So are "facts" that come from it. There are very few facts and alot of theory and grey areas.
OP
OP
Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
If I abandon my reasoning, I abandon the merits of my opinions.verte76 said:
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Macfistowannabe said:
Then again if there was no reasoning or at least faulty reasoning to begin with, then not abandoning your opinion is just stubborness. Something we all need to be careful of...
OP
OP
Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Or - finding faulty reasoning on the other side is another way to question reasoning.BonoVoxSupastar said:
"The truth behind the lies" is unfathomable unless people are willing to use the Socratic Method and put aside their irrational fears.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Yeah, you missed my point.
OP
OP
Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Where did I "go wrong?"BonoVoxSupastar said:Yeah, you missed my point.
I very much grasped your point on faulty logic - that's where the opponent has to resort to the hypocrisy card - which can still be credible to some extent.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Macfistowannabe said:
I'd like to explain that one...
OP
OP
Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
The other side may have faulty logic as well.BonoVoxSupastar said:
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Macfistowannabe said:
Wow, you've never taken a logics or debate class have you? Hypocricy can't be credible. Hence the definition of hypocricy.
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
^ No need to get belittling...
If the (present) Pope hadn't chosen a quote that appeared to identify Islam categorically with what he meant to speak out against, he wouldn't be getting all this condemnation. Pius was criticized because he repeatedly declined requests--including from the US, British, Brazilian, Belgian, and Polish governments, as well as his own nuncio in France--to publically speak out against Nazi massacres and deportations, not because he declined to imply that being German in general predisposes one to commit atrocities.Macfistowannabe said:
Similar threads
