Posted on 09/16/2006 12:07:35 PM PDT by Notwithstanding
The following is the prepared text from which Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news) spoke as he addressed an academic audience at the Unviersity of Regensburg on September 12. As he actually delivered it, the speech differed slightly. Because the speech has aroused an unusual amount of debate-- particularly regarding the Pope's references to Islam and to religious violence-- CWN strongly recommends reading the entire text.
(Excerpt) Read more at cwnews.com ...
...In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: There is no compulsion in religion. It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat.
But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the “Book” and the “infidels,” he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words:
Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached. The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul.
God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death.... The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: "For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality." Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry...
ANd immediately before this excerpt above, he said this:
"In this lecture I would like to discuss only one point-- itself rather marginal to the dialogue itself-- which, in the context of the issue of faith and reason, I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue."
Islam has proven the Pontiff's point - their solution to everything is VIOLENCE. Their response to the words of some long dead person (which the Pope quoted) have caused the Islamic groups to burn churches.
They just proved his point!! This shows how truly ignorant these people are and why they need to be removed from the earth .. having abdicated their right to rule anybody.
Mohammedens are IGNORANT and incapable of reason. They are simple minded and will not be placated. We have repeatedly seen their achilles heel--insecurity about their so-called prophet. We ought to key on that--it's time to keep pointing out that Mohammed was a raving loon and a pedophile. Whipping your enemy up into more of a frenzy, when he is already in a frenzy is the way to go--Sun Tzu understood it so should we.
Bookmark. Can't wait to read.
Personally, I like the description; self professed demon possessed mass murdering heretic that taught to worship the moon-god of war to all the ignorant.
That excerpt only covers 10% of what the Pope said, and is only obliquely relevant to what he was discussing:
Faith, Reason and the University
People need to read and make an attempt to analyze what he said:
http://zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=94748
He WAS NOT DISCUSSING THE USE OF VIOLENCE FOR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES!!! He was not discussing Islam at all!!! He was discussing: "FAITH, REASON AND THE UNIVERSITY" ... and stated as part of his conclusion that "...theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences..." and that "... the world's profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions."
His final statement was, "It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university." The "cultures" he was referring to had little or nothing to do with Islam - he was talking about the clash of "empirically verifiable" vs. "theology" cultures, as he earlier had said, "A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures."
He is being excoriated for using a quote from over 600 years ago "-- by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.": "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." The Pope made clear he was quoting an ancient conversation. He made clear that this is NOT HIS words, but that of the Byzantine emperor, and that emperor then went on to make a "... decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature."
The last sentence was the whole point that the Pope was making during his whole presentation: Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. It was one of his many starting points for his theological discussion of "Faith, Reason and the University", part of his conclusion being, "...We will succeed in [broadening our concept of reason and its application] only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith. Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today..."
The reaction to the very profound things the Pope said illustrates several things. One of them is that the people are completely incapable of understanding the profound, and that Western universities have fallen short in their education responsibilities, including in their education of the NYSlimes' reporters and their readers who can't bring themselves to acknowledge that they don't know everything. Another is this illustration that people should not be given access to specialized knowledge and discussion, whether that be theological, political, or scientific, without thorough and accurate filtering. Yet another, but by no means the final, is that biased people always misunderstand what even the finest communications expert says.
The Pope's major point is that ALL of the profoundly religious cultures whether they be Christianity, Islam, Jewish, Hindu, etc., should not be marginalized by being snootily looked at as a "subculture" not worthy of inclusion in the university environment, and that the university "culture" must engage in reason with the religious "culture".
PLEASE, If you agree with this analysis of what the Pope said, or any part of it, FEEL FREE TO USE IT any way you desire!
This dialogue he enjoyed at the university is lacking in islam.
And so his call to islam and European agnostics....
“Not to act reasonably (with logos) is contrary to the nature of God”, said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.
Brilliant pope!
+
If you want on (or off) this Catholic and Pro-Life ping list, let me know!
Works for me!
bump
How true. The muslim street's actions PROVE the pope's words true.
1 In the beginning was the Word [Logos], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
--John, Chapter I
Islam is the religion of stuck on stupid.
Sounds reasonable to me!
You wrote, "Another is this illustration that people should not be given access to specialized knowledge and discussion, whether that be theological, political, or scientific, without thorough and accurate filtering."
At this point, I must repsectfully point out that your line contains in it the essence of of a major theological reason why the absolutism of the Catholic Church resulted in the Reformation.
Just who is to be the "thorough and accurate filter"? You, me, the ADMIN MODERATOR, some Rabbi, an Imam, the Pontiff?
I agree that the mindless violence of Islamic world, typified by their response to the Pontiff's speech, is making the case for their forced Reformation or extermination.
I would like to make a history based argument: American personal religiosity, combined with freedom of belief, led to the least faith baised strife for the longest time on recorded since the Reformation.
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
-John 1:5
I CAREFULLY chose that statement. Academic addresses are NOT meant to be "sound bites" --- they often contain statements of misdirection and are often full of rhetorical devices. I was definitely not speaking only of theological thought, I was careful to write that as a general statement.
Scientific research, engineering studies, sociological studies, etc., similarly, often come up with "results" that are completely at odds with reality, and can EASILY be misunderstood by someone in the general public. I could give myriad examples here, but you are certainly capable of giving them yourself. Often, people are duped by politicians or some other blasted "interest group" who takes such statements 'way out of context and gets them into the press in such a way as to totally distort the truth. Lawyers LOVE to mislead juries in a similar way, and if the judge is not on his toes, a completely misleading case is allowed to be presented.
The Pope's academic address was a very well organized, logical statement that has to be considered IN WHOLE, not in part, extolling univerities to reconsider that by limiting their realm of thought they leave a "real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought -- to philosophy and theology." He concludes, as I have already stated, with, "It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university."
That non-academic non-specialists have gotten involved in the complete misunderstanding of this address clearly proves my point that you are taking issue with: "that people should not be given access to such specialized knowledge and discussion ... without thorough and accurate filtering."
On this issue, I prefer to stand with jefferson rather than the present Pope. "An informed electorate is the only safe repository of power."
Alas, along the path to enlightenment are both pitfalls and deliberately set traps, manned by such bottom feeders as lawyers, NGO-Persons, and members of what was accurately called the Academented.
When, in America, the average high school student graduates with a reading level of 6th grade, it is ridiculous to champion the ability of the electorate to comprehend a highly sophisticated academic address such as the one given by the Pope. Jefferson would not have recommended that, either.
Are you arguing that ignorance justifies authority?
I am arguing that people who do not have the intellectual where-with-all to fully comprehend a scholarly address should either
a) listen, shut up, and try to learn just a smidgeon or
b) keep away from the subject to begin with.
That includes slimy "reporters", who are about the least intellectually capable persons I've ever known, and who then have the gall to broadcast their lack of comprehension to a naive world, which assumes that if the reporter said it, it must be true.
When I go to a seminar regarding particle physics or "dark matter/ dark energy" cosmology as I do once a month or so, I sit still and listen. Much of it goes way over my head. I might have doubts about some parts of it, and I may even have concepts of my own that I would love to have explored, but I have no delusions about my own capability to master the mathematics needed to explore those concepts myself, and I don't go around telling people I understand these subjects. And this is from someone who was called on in the past to teach relativity and quantum mechanics.
In a contrary manner, many people read the Pope's address, and, since they have a university degree in teaching or engineering or a high school degree from a wonderful institution, tend to believe that they have the ability to read and immediately comprehend his meaning. Not only that, but many "analysts" here and around the world have expressed that they are certain that they not only comprehend his meaning, but they comprehend what he means because they "read between the lines."
Yeah - right... These dopes who can just barely read and write are certain they know better than the Pope's own spokesman what he meant!
This is a man who has had extremely rich life experience before he even was ordained. A man who has a doctorate in theology and whose thesis studied one of the world's greatest philosophers, Augustine, and his Doctrine of the Church - whose works I am certain most these critics never cracked open for more than ten pages. A man who did a further dissertation about St. Bonaventure to qualify for professorship. A man who was a lecturer on dogmatic and fundamental theology at the Higher School of Philosophy and Theology in Freising, and who after many further years of professorship held the Chair of dogmatics and history of dogma at the University of Regensburg, and was then tapped to be the former Pope's right hand man in many capacities.
The philosophical arguments he is capable of making can run rings around most of the professors of philosophy in the world, but these blokes are certain that they comprehend what he said in an academic address which was never meant to be read by someone without specialized ability and knowledge? These nitwits read it as if it were a press release instead of a studying it as a complex philosophical argument and yet they believe they comprehend its meaning - even better than the Pope's own spokesman?
Yes. I am arguing that there are times that the ignorance of people means that they must bow to the authority of persons who are much more learned than they are, and that they acknowledge that there are things they simply do not have the intellectual capacity to ever comprehend.
Many of them, though, will go through life believing they are just as wise and capable as he is - and even ignore when his spokesman tries to clue them in as to the meaning of his address.
Hear, hear!! And excellent post AFPhys. Fascinating reading about Pope Benedicts career, a most learned man indeed.
You did leave out one salient point about modern reporters though. In addition to being intellectually lacking with poor critical thinking skills and full of gall and themselves, many also have their own anti-Christian, anti-Catholic, anti-Pope agendas and are more than willing to feed those through their "reporting".
You are also unfortunatly correct about the naivete of people who assume reporters are telling the truth. Which is where you and I and FRee Republic steps in :^)
Thank you ... your critiques mean a great deal to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.