Posted on 03/27/2013 7:20:03 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
[big snip]
Many Jesuits have been lukewarm at best ...the distrust stems from Francis's six years as Jesuit provincial of Argentina ...He was fiercely opposed to liberation theology.
"As a provincial, he was extremely strict and fairly conservative, which goes against the grain of the society," said [historian Michael] Walsh.
Fr. Jose Maria Sang, who recalls his former mentor as an earnest, well-prepared teacher with a strong spiritual orientation, also believes that those seeking to pigeonhole the new pope as conservative or progressive are missing the point.
"These terms are political, not religious," he said. "It is better to look at what Bergoglio has done since becoming a bishop – the concern he has shown for the poor and for street dwellers."
Francis... is a familiar figure in a giant slum in Buenos Aires where 45,000 people live in extreme poverty. For 15 years, Bergoglio rode the bus, and then walked in normal priest's robes through the dangerous neighbourhood to celebrate mass...
"I would say you'd find a photo of him in 60% of the homes in 21-24," said Father Juan Isasmendi... "He is a true man of God, he baptised so many children, he gave communion himself to thousands here....he was a father to so many people, a father to us priests."
Then-Cardnal Bergoglio on bus in Buenos Aires
Despite his missionary vigour, however – and a readiness to engage with the secular world– Francis remains an outspoken opponent of abortion, divorce, women's rights and euthanasia.
"A pregnant woman is not carrying a toothbrush in her womb, or a tumour," he once said. "Science shows us that the entire genetic code is present from conception. It's not therefore a religious issue, but scientifically based morality, because we are in the presence of a human being."
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
“little acknowledgement of your own error”
It’s the job of the person making the allegation to provide substantiation.
Why are you attacking someone for challenging an unsubstantiated allegation? You should be thanking me. Isn’t that what we are here for - or is it all about lies and muckraking?
Thank you, Blue Dragon. Your post #31 was exactly right.
I always like getting to “yes”. :o)
They say they are monotheists and worship One god, worship a living god and worship a merciful god. The statement affirms that they do worship a one god, but does not say they worship the same God as us.
islam believes in triumphalism -- and you can't blame them for thinking that as Islam until the 19th century was one of continuous triumphs
Mohammed got lucky in the 7th century and burst on the scene just when the Romans and the Persians had bled each other nearly to death. The Roman army in Egypt and Syria hadn't been paid for a century and the united Arabs could walk in and take over
They then swept in a massive blitzkrieg into north AFrica, Hispania, Sicily, even southern Italy
The Arabs then consolidated and by the 10th century they were losing out with the Romans winning back lands, but then they started converting Turks and the turkic bloodthirstiness combined with Islamic fervor was able to push into the Balkans
Their losses to the Slavs from 1683 through to the Russians crushing the Turks and Iranis in the 1700s and 1800s was shocking, but not shocking enough
The Moslems burned Edessa, the holiest center of the Assyrian Church of the East. They conquered Alexandria, once THE central point of Christendom, then the spiritual center of Oriental Orthodoxy. They conquered Constantinople, the center of Eastern Orthodoxy
Now they hit Western Christendom
We need to hit back and straight at the heart of the beast -- Mecca and Medina.
In Mohammed's time there were plenty of Jews in the Nejd and Medina was a Jewish city. He caught upon this idea of using Ishmael to rally together the various Bedouins...
Ok
Thomas Jefferson said there was only one way to deal with islam.
He added there is only one solution in dealing with people who’s only goal is to kill you.
Right on Mrsdono.
Francis sounds like a rare breed for sure; a Jesuit that is conservative. I sure they were looking for a leftist berserker, and they are “Deeply Saddened,” as Dassole would say.
If they worship the Moon god, they sure don’t worship the same God as we do.
>> “but we need to nuke Mecca and Medina” <<
.
A pair of matched green glass salad bowls?
Man, you got that right.
Some people have incorrectly parsed that out from the word "Allah," but actually "Allah" was used for 550 years before Mohammad was born, by Arabic-speaking Christians and for even longer than that by Mizrahi Jews. It simply means "The" "God" --- meaning the Only One.
It ultimately derives from the same root as the Hebrew words "El" and "Elohim", both used in Genesis, and even in a familiar word found in the Psalms, "Alleluia."
The actual Middle Eastern Moon-god, Hubal, is considered a false god of polytheism by Muslims. Osama bin Laden insulted the USA by calling America the "modern Hubal" (meaning "idol.")
The Sura Fussilat (v.37th) shows Islamic intolerance to nature-idols:
"And of His signs are the night and day and the sun and moon. Do not prostrate to the sun or to the moon, but prostrate to Allah, who created them, as it should be Him that you worship."
Look, Islamism is bad enough in itself: we don't have to circulate nonsense that isn't true. It makes us look like fools who don't grasp the advantage of having accurate information.
Islam is a syncretist religion consciously created by its founder to solidify his military conquests. It has elements of Christianity but somewhat changed to further Mohammed’s needs (Jesus as a prophet and Mary as his mother), elements of paganism (the meteor in the Kaaba with its embarrassingly vagina-shaped hole, evidently worshipped by the pagans of that region), and a confused version of Mosaic ritual law, which gave Mohammed total control over people’s lives. And it was iconoclastic, so Mohammed, by destroying visual references to the pre-islamic past, was able to erase it.
Finally, it was spread by force: unlike Christianity, it was never preached, demonstrated and voluntarily adopted.
There are many people in it who probably honestly want to be good and love God, but don’t know any better. So we can’t blame them. But as a religion, it’s a phony.
I think there are many Muslims who would like to get out if it. But we have to preach firmly and clearly in a way that gives them this option, that is, not by attacking Islam directly, but by preaching Christianity boldly.
And as for “dialogue,” we don’t need scholarly reflections (not that the Muslims are willing to do that either), we need them to stop killing and harassing Christians. We don’t do anything to Muslims in Western countries, except welcome them with open arms and let them collect welfare, and while Christians are not asking for that, it would be nice if Middle Eastern or African Christians could live anywhere, go to school or church without being blown up or beaten to death, vote and be employed like everybody else, etc.
Amen to every word you said.
Muslim worship of the moon god is well documented.
Satan is the Arabic “moon god.”
Having said that, I am highly skeptical of the moon-god theory. The Islamic system has many, many errors of its own, but its errors are quite fastidiously distinct from moon-god-worship. Such worship is rejected by both the theory and practice of actual Muslims, who, after all, ought to count for something.
It seems to me, by my reading of the evidence, that the moon-god-hypothesis is a tendentious misinterpretation of Islam. I find actual Muslims quite fiercely monotheistic, literalistic and iconoclastic, even moreso than our dear Puritans.
Robert Morey, a prestigious scholar on a par with Dan Brown, is the apparent source, or at least promoter-vendor, of most of this "Muslim moon god" hypothesis. Having had the pleasure of riffling through one of Morey's other books, "Is Eastern Orthodoxy Christian?", I have developed a profound respect for his talent for writing fast sloppy pastiches on things about which he knows very little, to harvest fistfuls of dollars off of credulous readers who know even less than he does.
(I say "pleasure" because I still, alas, enjoy the barbaric thrill of howling, eye-rolling and book-pitching when I read something so pretentiously silly. It's like The DaVinci Code. Silly on stilts. Really, really tall stilts.)
So. There you have my view of it.
I am in love with the Bible readings for today through Sunday. I want to go back and dig out the cross-references. It's fascinating: every word is like hypertext, a hot link leading to more insight about our Savior Jesus Christ and His goodness. How good He is!
Peace be with you. May God bless you; and if I may ask, please include me in your prayers.
Thanks, and I also agree with you that we Catholics should not even pander to the Moslems with that statement. While they may claim to be Abrahamic and they ARE monotheists, we should not just say “ok, that’s what they say they are” but say they are wrong.
Think of it -- it was a brilliant plan -- the Jews had the consciousness and unity that comes with worshipping one God rather than a pantheon
The Jews also have the knowledge that they are the chosen people
Mohammed appropriated that (with Ishmael replacing Isaac) completely and also with his victories (and distributing the money and women) built an aura of invincibility
If we say "you are not Abrahamic", they will rush to "prove" otherwise
On the other hand, if we destroy the triumphalism, Islam will crumble
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.