Pope Urges Muslims to Respect Christians

the church

As I understand it this is wrong:
Considering that the Pope supposedly speaks for "God" and Muslims don't believe in Him/Her.
Muslims do not recognize the Pope as a spokesman for God (most of us Protestants don't either) but they DO believe in God.

My understanding is that 'Allah' is more-or-less the Arabic word for God and that even Christian Arabs pray to Allah.

Muslims DO have a very different view of God than Christians, but that is not the same as not believing in God.

But of course the bigger problem is that a whole lot of the terrorism comes from people who don't really follow Allah OR Islam.

if your not a muslum you dont kill non beleavers

The God of Abraham is eloah or similar, transliterated from the Hebrew; Allah is the Arabic equivalent.

Iranian Muslims pray to Allah, in Arabic, though not Arabs.

Abraham's offspring included a son of him and Hagar, who is considered the ancestor of today's Arabs. Therefore three religions consider Jehovah to be their god. (Includes Jesus; Rev 3:12)

No doubt that's why there's so much peace on earth and goodwill toward men.

your a cartoonist

or at least in their minds they believe they do...and infidels don't.

'fraid not Dr Bill, they pray to 'god'

for example, the Maronites http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maronite

if "God" is christian, "Allah" is muslim, you won't hear christian arabs shouting 'allah hu akbar'

jonah "somewhere in the middle of all this" jones

.

People in Mexico call Peter Pedro and call Lord Jesus Senor Jesus, etc.

Roman Catholic community, it's never been my understanding that the pope is God's spokesperson but merely His servant. The pope represents Peter whom Jesus told to feed His sheep, lambs, whatever. He is responsible to ensure that the integrity of the teachings of Jesus and the canon law are maintained and consistant throughout the RC church. Any of us who say the pope has a ''red phone'' to God needs some correction.

Vicar of Christ. Original meaning of the word, now found mostly in religious use, is "substitute." Therefore the Pope is considered God-given substitute for Jesus. Part of the reasoning behind the infallibity doctrine. The catechism I own goes further in discouraging the faithful from disagreeing with the Pope anytime, for any reason, not just the ex cathedra stuff. I didn't use newadvent.org for any of this, but I suspect that 100-year-old Encyclopedia would be even stricter on the Pope's position.

The pope, we say, replaces the "human" Christ as supreme head and teacher of the church on earth. The word "substitute" can mean...and in the case of Christ...does mean the principal being still exists but has handed over responsibilites (temporarily/indefinately) to a trusted person. We say Peter was, in essense, the first pope and was designated by Jesus to head this church. Others argue otherwise and I respect their arguements.

I wonder how many "street" Catholics sense the difference. As I said, the cathechists seem to take a stronger view. Anyway, even "ordinary" statements and actions of Popes hardly match this description of Jesus, from one who claimed to know him well:

"Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth"
1 Peter 2:22

>> Considering that the Pope supposedly speaks for "God" and Muslims don't believe in Him/Her. LOL <<

Allah and God are one and the same as the name that must not be said by a devout Jew. In fact, Muslims honor Christ as a prophet -- but in the same way that Christians honor Elijah, as a historical prophet for a given time and place, not the ultimate prophet or Son of God. The problem is that some (not even most) Muslims don't believe in freedom of religion, and insist on the right to impose their beliefs by force of arms.

But precisely how does that differ from the Christianity that proclaimed the Crusades, that destroyed the native civilizations in the Americas (Aztec, Inca), or that "honored freedom of religion" with the Inquisition? Frankly, the principle still only receives lip service from Benedict's own Church, since whenever it's in the majority it tries to legally prohibit not only abortion, but also birth control and divorce for Catholic and non-Catholic alike. That's certainly not as bad as today's fundamentalist Muslims, but the principle is not being adhered to, nonetheless!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Question, Dave, why do you say Inquisition singular? BTW, were not the Jews expelled from England in 1290 and from France in 1306?
Then there is the matter of "witch" hunts and executions in history.

It seems you're criticism of the Muslim religion just presents another opportunity to bash the Catholic church as well. Remember, when you speak of the Crusades and Inquisitions that the church never had it's very own armies, prisons, torture chambers, executioners, etc. Remember that the Inquisitions were a political purge with religion as a theme and excuse as eliminating religious ''competition'' was was central to the solidification of power by Christian kings. Remember that the Crusades, though poorly conceived as military plans, were largely defensive operations rather than aggressions. Remember that, during the inquisitions, the accused having no rights and were subject to torture to extract confessions was the rule of the day in all matters and was not the invention of the church. Remember that the church actually sought to limit torture of prisoners and were present during the sessions marking time and diligently taking notes (there are reams of these available) describing the events. Gross as this all seems, it was probably a step in a better direction than the torture that had developed as an artform.
I say this not in defense of the church. But, I believe you'd show the worst of violent criminals some compassion if their own lives were filled with violence before succumbing to such acts themselves....wouldn't you?

My Church, while preaching that God gave man free will, claims its proper to restrict that free will by force of law. They've openly criticizzed the American view of a "pluralistic society," even in the last decade. That's not a "bash" -- it's simply a statement of fact, and hypocrisy. I firmly blieve that should the Second Coming be today, Christ woud be no more pleased with "His Church" than He was with the religious establishment that ultimately executed Him for His criticisms.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!