Is this offensive?

[chri'stina 190]

You clearly do not know much about history....the places you mentioned were never the cradel of chirisianity... Muslims/Arabs lived in these places before Christainity existed even the pope does not agree with you on this one. and can you please give me the exact names of battles / wars/ occupation that muslims inflected for 300 years.....

Yes in those areas there were Christian settlements prior. And Christianity started in Israel and was spread by word of mouth and by preachers to surrounding Arab areas and further out. At that time there were no Muslims, and many Arabs believed in pagan religions. The New Testament has many books named after cities in that region that all had a early growth of Christianity. Islam as a named religion did not even exist until hundreds of years after Christianity was started. I'm not going to say every inch of that area was Christian, but there was no Islam back then either. I am not expert on the crusades, but I just wanted to point out a few things.

http://studylight.org/se/maps/

Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem in Palestine and there is no doubt about that....the Romans (before they became Christian) were occupying that region at that time (they were in (Palestine, Jordan, Syria etc)...after Christ his students left the religion running away for their lives and then after many years the Emperor of Rome (Constantine) converted to Christianity and took it to Rome where the Pope is now. Arabs the original owners of that Land never followed Christianity as a religion (as you said they were Pagan). Arabs are the descendants of Abraham and his son Ishmael lived there before the Romans and before Christ.

As for the crusades and the occupation of England, France and Itay to Muslim and Arab land in the 20th centurey for more than 80 years, I am sure you can google it and find out more about it, it is what it is.

I wouldn't say that all Arabs never followed Christianity. Otherwise, why are there Arab Christians today? And there were early churches in Arab areas. The descendants of Abraham, through Isaac, also lived there before the Romans and before Christ.

One other point, is that Christ's early students did not run away from Christianity. Jesus told them to go preach about this new message, anywhere they could reach. They spread the message little by little, further and further. However, that does not mean those regions became all Christian, but many in those regions did believe. Paul in the New Testament visited places in Greece and the surrounding areas where they were worshipping the Greek gods and he was routinely beaten and mobbed against by crowds for bringing the message of Christ, everywhere he went. He didn't retaliate. He knew it was a spiritual issue not a physical one. So he didn't conquer people into Christianity at all. He spoke, and some listened, while others wanted him dead. And Paul himself, was originally a Jewish religious leader whose mission was to kill christians because they believed Jesus was God and their savior, a heresy in his mind. He witnessed the killing of Christianity's first martyr Stephen, and approved it. Yet he later became a true Christian and became one of the strongest leaders of Christianity in the early church.

Why do you think Constantine heard about Christianity in the first place? Christians were getting killed in Rome and many other areas just for the fact they were Christians. Christianity was being spread by the common man to the common man. The faithful witness of Christians even while facing death is a factor that Constantine noticed. Now, then when he declared that everyone had to be a Christian is when he made a boo boo because the Bible is about free will to choose to worship God, not force.

But Christianity was still spread by word of mouth by those who were true Christians during those days. In my opinion there are 2 faces of Christianity's history. One where Rome becomes the center point and eventually becomes the catholic church with popes, etc. And the other where Christians continued living, who did not think Rome was the command on Christianity and did not follow the catholic church, but continued more the way the churches did in the New Testament. So not all Christians always followed the Pope or Rome, and that is why you have Protestants today. Martin Luther got credit for the movement yet there were people like him all over the place, doing the same and feeling the same as him but were afraid to act.

Anyway, even though I am not a catholic and I do not think the Pope is my spiritual leader, I still think he has a right to say whatever he wants to(within the law of course, which he was), without having to fear now for his life and to have his free speech robbed from him.

Edited September 19, 2006 by stina&suj

[zzerous 0]

http://studylight.org/se/maps/

Anyway, even though I am not a catholic and I do not think the Pope is my spiritual leader, I still think he has a right to say whatever he wants to(within the law of course, which he was), without having to fear now for his life and to have his free speech robbed from him.

Many people in the west hide behind freedom of speech ...his (mine and yours) freedom of speech stops when we are offending others especially when you are offending a great religion with over 1 Billion followers. Do not we all live by that code?

And if this is his view then fine at least he should come out and say it explicitly, after all he was the one when he was a cardinal expressed his view on salvation and declared that salvation cannot happen outside the catholic church. He is also the one that opposed in intra religion prayers, i.e., Muslims, Christians and/or Jews praying together...because that means that we all pray to the same God and this means that the 3 religions are equal

His alleged apology says it all, he meant what he said and that is fine. But for many Muslims to get angry and reject his views and what he stands for is fine too.

[Mirorgate 0]

Anyway, even though I am not a catholic and I do not think the Pope is my spiritual leader, I still think he has a right to say whatever he wants to(within the law of course, which he was), without having to fear now for his life and to have his free speech robbed from him.

Many people in the west hide behind freedom of speech ...his (mine and yours) freedom of speech stops when we are offending others especially when you are offending a great religion with over 1 Billion followers. Do not we all live by that code?

And if this is his view then fine at least he should come out and say it explicitly, after all he was the one when he was a cardinal expressed his view on salvation and declared that salvation cannot happen outside the catholic church. He is also the one that opposed in intra religion prayers, i.e., Muslims, Christians and/or Jews praying together...because that means that we all pray to the same God and this means that the 3 religions are equal

His alleged apology says it all, he meant what he said and that is fine. But for many Muslims to get angry and reject his views and what he stands for is fine too.

again.. since he was quoting from what was written by a Byzantine Emperor, and was trying to show the differences of the then and now.... what is the real deal? Oh yeah.... the far left zealots want to be pissed at something/someone so they take offense to it.

Why not just come out and say "We want to be pissed at you for whatever reason... so we're just gonna be so 24/7" and ya know what? I'd be fine with that, because then that is an honest thing to say. But to make stuff up left and right just to be angry...??

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Anyway, even though I am not a catholic and I do not think the Pope is my spiritual leader, I still think he has a right to say whatever he wants to(within the law of course, which he was), without having to fear now for his life and to have his free speech robbed from him.

Many people in the west hide behind freedom of speech ...his (mine and yours) freedom of speech stops when we are offending others especially when you are offending a great religion with over 1 Billion followers. Do not we all live by that code?

And if this is his view then fine at least he should come out and say it explicitly, after all he was the one when he was a cardinal expressed his view on salvation and declared that salvation cannot happen outside the catholic church. He is also the one that opposed in intra religion prayers, i.e., Muslims, Christians and/or Jews praying together...because that means that we all pray to the same God and this means that the 3 religions are equal

His alleged apology says it all, he meant what he said and that is fine. But for many Muslims to get angry and reject his views and what he stands for is fine too.

again.. since he was quoting from what was written by a Byzantine Emperor, and was trying to show the differences of the then and now.... what is the real deal? Oh yeah.... the far left zealots want to be pissed at something/someone so they take offense to it.

Why not just come out and say "We want to be pissed at you for whatever reason... so we're just gonna be so 24/7" and ya know what? I'd be fine with that, because then that is an honest thing to say. But to make stuff up left and right just to be angry...??

When the head of the Catholic church singles out another faith for criticism for spreading its tenets by the sword (albeit indirectly - by quoting the alleged words of a Byzantine emperor) AND in the same breath completely omits to mention its own glorious past in Africa and South America (not to mention the Wars of Religion throughout Europe, the Crusades, etc etc etc) he is obviously in need of a better Public Relations staff

Edited September 20, 2006 by erekose

[Mirorgate 0]

When the head of the Catholic church singles out another faith for criticism for spreading its tenets by the sword (albeit indirectly - by quoting the alleged words of a Byzantine emperor) AND in the same breath completely omits to mention its own glorious past in Africa and South America (not to mention the Wars of Religion throughout Europe, the Crusades, etc etc etc) he is obviously in need of a better Public Relations staff

Oh I agree on that part.. but they are acting like he wrote the document. again, they are just picking fights to pick them to get reactions. at least they could be honest in their agression, instead of hide behind BS reasonings.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

When the head of the Catholic church singles out another faith for criticism for spreading its tenets by the sword (albeit indirectly - by quoting the alleged words of a Byzantine emperor) AND in the same breath completely omits to mention its own glorious past in Africa and South America (not to mention the Wars of Religion throughout Europe, the Crusades, etc etc etc) he is obviously in need of a better Public Relations staff

Oh I agree on that part.. but they are acting like he wrote the document. again, they are just picking fights to pick them to get reactions. at least they could be honest in their agression, instead of hide behind BS reasonings.

Yes they are - but I find it hard to believe that this pope, who is a notorious "hard liner" in the CC didn't know exactly what he was doing when he made that speech. He's entitled to his opinion of course, but I think he was deliberately "agitating".

Both these groups are stale and well past their sell by date IMO.

[Mirorgate 0]

When the head of the Catholic church singles out another faith for criticism for spreading its tenets by the sword (albeit indirectly - by quoting the alleged words of a Byzantine emperor) AND in the same breath completely omits to mention its own glorious past in Africa and South America (not to mention the Wars of Religion throughout Europe, the Crusades, etc etc etc) he is obviously in need of a better Public Relations staff

Oh I agree on that part.. but they are acting like he wrote the document. again, they are just picking fights to pick them to get reactions. at least they could be honest in their agression, instead of hide behind BS reasonings.

Yes they are - but I find it hard to believe that this pope, who is a notorious "hard liner" in the CC didn't know exactly what he was doing when he made that speech. He's entitled to his opinion of course, but I think he was deliberately "agitating".

Both these groups are stale and well past their sell by date IMO.

meh... Catholics still hold by the "priests don't marry because it distracts from God" BS when it was first implemented to keep church bought property in chcurch hands instead of being bequethed to Priests first born son.

Many things are man made laws that govern churches. some good. some bad. not many though are actually biblical.

still waiting on the true statement from the hardliners there though. "We're just pissed and you are the new target" so much simpler, and doesnt waste my oxygen so.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

When the head of the Catholic church singles out another faith for criticism for spreading its tenets by the sword (albeit indirectly - by quoting the alleged words of a Byzantine emperor) AND in the same breath completely omits to mention its own glorious past in Africa and South America (not to mention the Wars of Religion throughout Europe, the Crusades, etc etc etc) he is obviously in need of a better Public Relations staff

Oh I agree on that part.. but they are acting like he wrote the document. again, they are just picking fights to pick them to get reactions. at least they could be honest in their agression, instead of hide behind BS reasonings.

Yes they are - but I find it hard to believe that this pope, who is a notorious "hard liner" in the CC didn't know exactly what he was doing when he made that speech. He's entitled to his opinion of course, but I think he was deliberately "agitating".

Both these groups are stale and well past their sell by date IMO.

meh... Catholics still hold by the "priests don't marry because it distracts from God" BS when it was first implemented to keep church bought property in chcurch hands instead of being bequethed to Priests first born son.

Many things are man made laws that govern churches. some good. some bad. not many though are actually biblical.

If you visit the Vatican, that's the exact impression I got. Nice museum.... filled with solid gold plates, crowns, scepters etc. representing centuries worth of institutional corruption, greed and murder.

Edited September 20, 2006 by erekose

[Mirorgate 0]

When the head of the Catholic church singles out another faith for criticism for spreading its tenets by the sword (albeit indirectly - by quoting the alleged words of a Byzantine emperor) AND in the same breath completely omits to mention its own glorious past in Africa and South America (not to mention the Wars of Religion throughout Europe, the Crusades, etc etc etc) he is obviously in need of a better Public Relations staff

Oh I agree on that part.. but they are acting like he wrote the document. again, they are just picking fights to pick them to get reactions. at least they could be honest in their agression, instead of hide behind BS reasonings.

Yes they are - but I find it hard to believe that this pope, who is a notorious "hard liner" in the CC didn't know exactly what he was doing when he made that speech. He's entitled to his opinion of course, but I think he was deliberately "agitating".

Both these groups are stale and well past their sell by date IMO.

meh... Catholics still hold by the "priests don't marry because it distracts from God" BS when it was first implemented to keep church bought property in chcurch hands instead of being bequethed to Priests first born son.

Many things are man made laws that govern churches. some good. some bad. not many though are actually biblical.

If you visit the Vatican, that's the exact impression I got. Nice museum.... filled with solid gold plates, crowns, scepters etc. representing centuries worth of institutional corruption, greed and murder.

nononononononononooooooooo.... gifts to God from subservient patrons

eta: We all know the beginnings of the Catholic Church are rather unsavory to say the least. History though also tells similar about Islams beginnings too. There is blood on both sets of hands. To play "blind to me but look at you" is totaly ludacris.

Edited September 20, 2006 by Mirorgate

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

When the head of the Catholic church singles out another faith for criticism for spreading its tenets by the sword (albeit indirectly - by quoting the alleged words of a Byzantine emperor) AND in the same breath completely omits to mention its own glorious past in Africa and South America (not to mention the Wars of Religion throughout Europe, the Crusades, etc etc etc) he is obviously in need of a better Public Relations staff

Oh I agree on that part.. but they are acting like he wrote the document. again, they are just picking fights to pick them to get reactions. at least they could be honest in their agression, instead of hide behind BS reasonings.

Yes they are - but I find it hard to believe that this pope, who is a notorious "hard liner" in the CC didn't know exactly what he was doing when he made that speech. He's entitled to his opinion of course, but I think he was deliberately "agitating".

Both these groups are stale and well past their sell by date IMO.

meh... Catholics still hold by the "priests don't marry because it distracts from God" BS when it was first implemented to keep church bought property in chcurch hands instead of being bequethed to Priests first born son.

Many things are man made laws that govern churches. some good. some bad. not many though are actually biblical.

If you visit the Vatican, that's the exact impression I got. Nice museum.... filled with solid gold plates, crowns, scepters etc. representing centuries worth of institutional corruption, greed and murder.

nononononononononooooooooo.... gifts to God from subservient patrons

Which is why I think Henry VIII did Britain a service by breaking the CC in Britain, and cutting ties with Rome.

At any rate, I don't think its any coincidence that Britain's 400 year or so period imperial dominance began to ascend in the years after that... Not that its a justification - the difference was we were doing it for ourselves, rather than for Rome.

[Mirorgate 0]

Which is why I think Henry VIII did Britain a service by breaking the CC in Britain, and cutting ties with Rome.

At any rate, I don't think its any coincidence that Britain's 400 year or so period imperial dominance began to ascend in the years after that... Not that its a justification - the difference was we were doing it for ourselves, rather than for Rome.

"The sun never sets on the British Empire"

yep.. bout summed that up at the time too.

oh.. Luther in germany.. saw a documentary on him... quite interesting. never knew he married till then.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

eta: We all know the beginnings of the Catholic Church are rather unsavory to say the least. History though also tells similar about Islams beginnings too. There is blood on both sets of hands. To play "blind to me but look at you" is totaly ludacris.

I'm not blind to it - I just have a better understanding of European history than I do Middle-eastern medieval history.

There's a certain amount of irony in that Pope Benedict has criticised Islam for doing much the same thing that the CC has been long been criticised for doing.

The decline of the European Monarchies in favour of more secular forms of democratic government is the main reason why we aren't still doing this sort of thing, and why many middle-eastern countries which retain monarchical or other dictatorial forms of government, still are.

Edited September 20, 2006 by erekose

[Mirorgate 0]

eta: We all know the beginnings of the Catholic Church are rather unsavory to say the least. History though also tells similar about Islams beginnings too. There is blood on both sets of hands. To play "blind to me but look at you" is totaly ludacris.

I'm not blind to it - I just have a better understanding of European history than I do Middle-eastern medieval history.

There's a certain amount of irony in that Pope Benedict has criticised Islam for doing much the same thing that the CC has been long been criticised for doing.

The decline of the European Monarchies in favour of more secular forms of democratic government is the main reason why we aren't still doing this sort of thing, and why many middle-eastern countries which retain monarchical or other dictatorial forms of government, still are. In that context - Pope is essentially "emperor", albeit an impotent one these days.

Well... when you are "the voice of God on Earth" ... it kinda gets to your head in a wrong way... what with power to set in heaven what you set here on earth.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

eta: We all know the beginnings of the Catholic Church are rather unsavory to say the least. History though also tells similar about Islams beginnings too. There is blood on both sets of hands. To play "blind to me but look at you" is totaly ludacris.

I'm not blind to it - I just have a better understanding of European history than I do Middle-eastern medieval history.

There's a certain amount of irony in that Pope Benedict has criticised Islam for doing much the same thing that the CC has been long been criticised for doing.

The decline of the European Monarchies in favour of more secular forms of democratic government is the main reason why we aren't still doing this sort of thing, and why many middle-eastern countries which retain monarchical or other dictatorial forms of government, still are. In that context - Pope is essentially "emperor", albeit an impotent one these days.

Well... when you are "the voice of God on Earth" ... it kinda gets to your head in a wrong way... what with power to set in heaven what you set here on earth.

They should all slap on the rubber gloves, pull their cheeks apart and disappear up their own arseholes.

[Mirorgate 0]

They should all slap on the rubber gloves, pull their cheeks apart and disappear up their own arseholes.

well there is that. but dont hold yer breath on that one.