Message to the World's Religious Leaders

[Huguenot]

Susan avoids critical FAIR MINDED THINKING ABOUT HISTORY!

The SWORD of MOHAMMAD was a real problem for Christians!

Muslims attacked the West - what now we call "east" and the prilgrims to Jerusalem.

...The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion".

According to some of the experts, this is probably 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 addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "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.”

APOSTOLIC JOURNEY OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO MÜNCHEN, ALTÖTTING AND REGENSBURG
(SEPTEMBER 9-14, 2006)

Muslims had taken certain Christian territories by force and had thereby denied to Christians, east and west, the opportunity to engage in one of the most important of medieval religious exercises, namely, pilgrimages. The concept of the just war not only permits people to defend themselves when directly attacked, it also permits them to go to the aid of others who have been attacked.

From the time of Mohammed, Muslims had sought to conquer the Christian world. They did a pretty good job of it, too. After a few centuries of steady conquests, Muslim armies had taken all of North Africa, the Middle East, Asia Minor and most of Spain.

In other words, by the end of the 11th century the forces of Islam had captured two-thirds of the Christian world.

The Crusades may have slowed Muslim expansionism, but they in no way stopped it. Muslim empires would continue to expand into Christian territories, conquering the Balkans, much of Eastern Europe and even the greatest Christian city in the world, Constantinople.

Why would Shi'a Muslims from Iran, like Baha'u'llah and his son know the truth from the flip side of the coin?

All in the family?

That is what you get from Baha'i - one single families biased POV and to this day, not one Shi'a can reconcile with one Sunni and meet at a Baha'i Temple in peace???

Heck, for that matter the majority of Baha'is in number are in India, where they want nothing to do with Islam.

[smaneck]

And, yet you make your own ABSOLUTE exclusive truth claims about your own new Religion,

And what claims are these?

You bring up the Mormons. What supposedly have we said about them?

[smaneck]

The three can be combined, Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, into one Brahman, and not the whole lot. Goddesses can be combined into Mother Goddess, Shakti. Ganesha, Katikeya, Hanuman, Indra, Surya, have to be kept separate.

I believe there is a passage in the Bhagavad-Gita wherein Krishna (speaking as the ulimate divinity) says that anyone who offers puja to any diety in the right spirit offers it to Him.

[smaneck]

when you tell me that I am wrong and you (bahai) are right, then you ARE making an exclusive statement.

I'm saying you are wrong in your presumptions about others.

If you tell me that I am wrong for thinking Jesus is God and the only way to salvation, they you ARE making your own counter claim and that is exclusive.

I'm not addressing here the issue of Jesus' divinity (which Baha'is affirm in any case) only what you say about others ability to achieve salvation.

You might call it "inclusive" but in fact by "including" Christianity in your religion, you change it and it is no longer Christianity, what you include is a parody of Christianity.

I'm not sure how we can be accused of making a parody of a religion for which there are thousands and thousands of forms. Obviously we can't hope to reconcile them all. All I try to do is demonstrate that the Baha'i Teachings are not antithetical to the biblical witness, I don't try to reconcile them with all the myriad of Christian sects.

[Sparko]

I'm saying you are wrong in your presumptions about others.



I'm not addressing here the issue of Jesus' divinity (which Baha'is affirm in any case) only what you say about others ability to achieve salvation.



I'm not sure how we can be accused of making a parody of a religion for which there are thousands and thousands of forms. Obviously we can't hope to reconcile them all. All I try to do is demonstrate that the Baha'i Teachings are not antithetical to the biblical witness, I don't try to reconcile them with all the myriad of Christian sects.

first, Christianity has a very limited set of core doctrines. If you hold to those core doctrines then you are Christian. Secondary doctrines may vary all over the place (when is Jesus coming back? can you play music during service) and those secondary doctrines are mostly responsible for the various denominations. But as long as they hold to the core doctrines then they are Christian. When they don't they are NOT Christian, no matter what they might claim. They are cults. Mormons are a cult, Jehovah's Witnesses are Cults, etc. So there are not such a myriad of sects as you might think.

but the Bahai teachings ARE antithetical to Christianity. Your very claim that all religions are valid ways to seek out God is antithetical to Christianity. Why? because one of those core doctrines is that Jesus is the ONLY way and ONLY by his sacrifice can we be saved. So anyone who claims that you can be saved without the sacrifice of Jesus is not Christian. Thus, what you hold to is antithetical to true Christianity. It is nothing but a characature of Christianity.

Your claims that all religions are valid IS an exclusive claim. because it denies that ANY religion is the only way.

It is tantamount to you claiming that "there is no absolute truth" and not realizing that your statement itself is a claim to absolute truth.

[smaneck]

Susan avoids critical FAIR MINDED THINKING ABOUT HISTORY!

The SWORD of MOHAMMAD was a real problem for Christians!

Muslims attacked the West - what now we call "east" and the prilgrims to Jerusalem.

Nonsense. Even back in the Middle Ages Muslims understood the value of a tourist buck and had no interest in stopping Christian pilgrimages. However, during the time immediately proceeding the Crusades the Islamic world had just been invaded by the Seljuk Turks who in turn divided it among various warring sultanates. Hence pilgrims were walking in the midst of a war zone and sometimes they got hurt.

[indent]...The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion".

According to some of the experts, this is probably one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat.

Ratzinger is displaying his ignorance here. The Surah of the Cow is a Medinian Surah, not an early one. It is also the surah which contains those verses allowing Muslims to defend themselves which you guys like to trumpet so much.

I always find it interesting how anti-Muslim polemists insist on emphasizing those passages which might make Islam look violent and then dismiss those which demonstrate the tolerance of Islam by falsely insinuating they were written when Muhammad was still powerless.

Truth is *both* verses are found in the *same* Surah. One verse affirms the principle of religious tolerance while the other outlines the conditions for a 'just war', conditions which are no different from those generally accepted in Christianity as you yourself state them here:

The concept of the just war not only permits people to defend themselves when directly attacked, it also permits them to go to the aid of others who have been attacked.

Which is *exactly* what the Qur'an says.

From the time of Mohammed, Muslims had sought to conquer the Christian world. They did a pretty good job of it, too. After a few centuries of steady conquests, Muslim armies had taken all of North Africa, the Middle East, Asia Minor and most of Spain.

They did not target the Christian world. The Arab invasions (in which *both* Muslim and Christian Arabs participated as equals) conquered North Africa, the Middle East and Spain within the first fifty years after the Prophet's passing. Not all of those areas were Christianized, and the Arabs would not have succeeded in conquering North Africa at all without the help of the Syrian Christians who lent them their navy. As for Asia Minor, at the time of the Crusades, yes it was being threatened by the Seljuk Turks. But those Turks conquered Muslim lands as well. The Byzantine Emperor had asked the Pope for help in recovering the lands he himself lost in the Battle of Manzikert and that is what sparked the Crusades. The thing is, the Crusaders did *nothing* to help the Byzantines win back those territories. They ignore Asia Minor entirely and instead marched straight down to Palestine in order to capture Jerusalem which had been under Muslim control for the last four centuries. Then at one point they turned around and sacked Constantinople destroying for a time what was left of the Byzantine Empire.

But to get back to Ratzinger's speech in Germany. The point of that talk was to argue that somehow Christianity was more open to reason,, in the Greek philosophical sense, than was Islam. That's pretty ludicrous to anyone who knows the history of Greek philosophy in the Islamic world and how it was then conveyed to the West. But what was even funnier was what the Pope said after the outcry against his speech. He then turned around in told people that "We teach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to the pagans." That was a misquotation of I Corinthians 1:23. Let's look at the passage in question and you can see how the Pope misrepresented it::

1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

(King James Bible, 1 Corinthians)

As you see, it is not foolishness to the *pagans" it is foolishness to the *Greeks." In other words what Paul is saying is that the crucifixtion does not make sense in terms of the Jewish understanding of how God is supposed to operate (Deut. 11:13-15) or in terms of the wisdom of Greek philosophy.

In other words this passage from Paul is a direct refutation of the entire thesis of Ratzinger's speech namely the 'reasonableness of Christianity."

Susan

[smaneck]

first, Christianity has a very limited set of core doctrines. If you hold to those core doctrines then you are Christian. Secondary doctrines may vary all over the place (when is Jesus coming back? can you play music during service) and those secondary doctrines are mostly responsible for the various denominations. But as long as they hold to the core doctrines then they are Christian. When they don't they are NOT Christian, no matter what they might claim. They are cults.

Sparko,

I was raised a Christian. My family is Christian. I never believed that all Christians were going to hell and neither did my parents. We did not belong to any cult. I was baptized in the United Church of Christ and confirmed in the Presbyterian Church.

Your very claim that all religions are valid ways to seek out God is antithetical to Christianity.

Whoah. When did I say anything about their being valid ways to 'seek out God'? What I said was that God has *revealed* Himself to all peoples not that all religions are valid ways to seek Him out. Do you see the distinction? Revealing is God's act, not man's.

It is tantamount to you claiming that "there is no absolute truth" and not realizing that your statement itself is a claim to absolute truth.

There is one Absolute Truth and that is God Himself whose Essence we cannot know.. But religious truth is relative.

warmest, Susan

[Huguenot]

Nonsense. Even back in the Middle Ages Muslims understood the value of a tourist buck and had no interest in stopping Christian pilgrimages.

Mohammed died in 630 A.D.?

Correct?

So, how long were the Christian infidels ripe for the Sword of Mohammed carried on by his Ali? Or Caliphs? Or, Imams?

Come on Professor, how many Christians and Zoroastrains were murdered in Persia in the name of Allah?

letter from Yazdgird III (632 AD - 651 AD)

http://www.bozorgbazgasht.com/yazdgird.html

However, during the time immediately proceeding the Crusades the Islamic world had just been invaded by the Seljuk Turks who in turn divided it among various warring sultanates. Hence pilgrims were walking in the midst of a war zone and sometimes they got hurt.

O.K., fair enough, and sometimes Muslim piligrims get trambled to death in Mecca.

Ratzinger is displaying his ignorance here. The Surah of the Cow is a Medinian Surah, not an early one. It is also the surah which contains those verses allowing Muslims to defend themselves which you guys like to trumpet so much.

So, there is no complusion of Religion in Muslim countries?

I always find it interesting how anti-Muslim polemists insist on emphasizing those passages which might make Islam look violent and then dismiss those which demonstrate the tolerance of Islam by falsely insinuating they were written when Muhammad was still powerless.

Well, now I agree, and I want to say, after reading John Norwich's Histories of Byzantium (sp?) - I do agree.

Some of these folks were just plain dumb and acted like animals.

Pagan ways die hard.

Truth is *both* verses are found in the *same* Surah. One verse affirms the principle of religious tolerance while the other outlines the conditions for a 'just war', conditions which are no different from those generally accepted in Christianity as you yourself state them here:

Which is *exactly* what the Qur'an says.

Ah, Allah is mericul to infidels? If they convert to Islam?

They did not target the Christian world. The Arab invasions (in which *both* Muslim and Christian Arabs participated as equals) conquered North Africa, the Middle East and Spain within the first fifty years after the Prophet's passing. Not all of those areas were Christianized,

* Sigh *



So who were these people? Fire eating Zoroastinians? Plato fundies? Mani fans.

Alexandria?

Where did Saint Augustine come from? Hippo?

North Africa?

Greece? How large was the Eastern Empire? From Greece to Iraq, correct? All the way to Persia?

...and the Arabs would not have succeeded in conquering North Africa at all without the help of the Syrian Christians who lent them their navy.

Hold on.

How long did they remain, as "Christians"?

But, I see your point, and interesting that they followed the old ways as of the Pheoncians?

As for Asia Minor, at the time of the Crusades, yes it was being threatened by the Seljuk Turks. But those Turks conquered Muslim lands as well. The Byzantine Emperor had asked the Pope for help in recovering the lands he himself lost in the Battle of Manzikert and that is what sparked the Crusades. The thing is, the Crusaders did *nothing* to help the Byzantines win back those territories. They ignore Asia Minor entirely and instead marched straight down to Palestine in order to capture Jerusalem which had been under Muslim control for the last four centuries. Then at one point they turned around and sacked Constantinople destroying for a time what was left of the Byzantine Empire.

O.K. and of course they ignored the dictum of Jesus Christ, my kingdom is not of this World.

So, they were stupid or wanted booty and empire?

But to get back to Ratzinger's speech in Germany. The point of that talk was to argue that somehow Christianity was more open to reason,, in the Greek philosophical sense, than was Islam. That's pretty ludicrous to anyone who knows the history of Greek philosophy in the Islamic world and how it was then conveyed to the West. But what was even funnier was what the Pope said after the outcry against his speech. He then turned around in told people that "We teach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to the pagans." That was a misquotation of I Corinthians 1:23. Let's look at the passage in question and you can see how the Pope misrepresented it::

1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

(King James Bible, 1 Corinthians)

As you see, it is not foolishness to the *pagans" it is foolishness to the *Greeks." In other words what Paul is saying is that the crucifixtion does not make sense in terms of the Jewish understanding of how God is supposed to operate (Deut. 11:13-15) or in terms of the wisdom of Greek philosophy.

In other words this passage from Paul is a direct refutation of the entire thesis of Ratzinger's speech namely the 'reasonableness of Christianity."

Susan

Oh, silly the Greeks were pagans.

But, in any cae, yes, the Pope appealed to reason, and the Iranian Mullahs have none.

They recently stoned to death seven people, and I was reading that in 2005, they destroyed a Sufi house of worship and dervish dance.

BTW, the Qu'arn is filled with Greek philosophy - God is monad. Neo-Platonianism, etc.

Now, REASON?

Well, in truth, and setting aside our differences, together we would like to see more freedom for Armenian Christians in Iran and for Baha'is.

And, indeed, I don't want Sufi people hurt, and geez, if these people do not have freedom as Moderate Muslims, what chance does the Gospel(TM) have?

My Iranian source informs that only 10% of Iranians support the Mullahs.

I would like to see peace in Iraq.

I am not bragging but I know a fellow from Jordan who enjoys global business, and of course freedom is good for all people IMO.

[Aupmanyav]

I believe there is a passage in the Bhagavad-Gita wherein Krishna (speaking as the ulimate divinity) says that anyone who offers puja to any diety in the right spirit offers it to Him.

Geeta after all is a vaishnava scripture. Shiva Purana or Devi Purana will say something else. For them, Vishnu did not create the universe, it was Shiva and Devi respectively. Remember, hinduism is not an Abrahamic religion. It would have many views. :)

[smaneck]

Mohammed died in 630 A.D.?

Correct?

632 A.D.

So, how long were the Christian infidels ripe for the Sword of Mohammed carried on by his Ali? Or Caliphs? Or, Imams?

Did you read what I wrote? Christians *helped* Arabs conquer these territories.

Come on Professor, how many Christians and Zoroastrains were murdered in Persia in the name of Allah?

letter from Yazdgird III

Yazdigird III was murdered by one of his own subjects, not by Muslims.

So, there is no complusion of Religion in Muslim countries?

The Qur'an says 'let there be no compulsion in religion.' But historically Muslims have allowed non-Muslims within Muslim countries to be governed by the rules of their own religion.

Ah, Allah is mericul to infidels? If they convert to Islam?

The Qur'an does not approve of aggression no matter who commits it.

So who were these people? Fire eating Zoroastinians? Plato fundies? Mani fans.

Please try and set your prejudices aside. Zoroastrians don't eat fire. But yes, there were plenty of people who were Zoroastrians, Manicheans, Buddhists, and practitioners of Greek religion when these areas were conquered.

Alexandria?

Where did Saint Augustine come from? Hippo?

North Africa?

Did I suggest that none of the areas were Christian?

Greece? How large was the Eastern Empire? From Greece to Iraq, correct? All the way to Persia?

Greece remains part of the Byzantine/Roman Empire until its fall in 1453.

How long did they remain, as "Christians"?

Generally speaking the majority of people in areas conquered by Muslims retained their religion for about three centuries. At that point the demographics begin to shift and Christians become a minority, but they are still there. Tariq Aziz, Saddam Hussein right hand man, is a Chaldean Christian.

So, they were stupid or wanted booty and empire?

The Crusaders? They were fanatics. On their way down the Rhine Valley on their way to the Holy Land they used to kill any Jews the found along the way. When they got to Jerusalem they put all the Muslims to the sword and rounded up the Jews into the synagogue, then set fire to it.

Oh, silly the Greeks were pagans.

Replacing Greek with pagan changes the entire meaning of the text and obscures the fact that the Paul was saying that the crucifixtion didn't make sense in terms of Greek philosophy.

But, in any cae, yes, the Pope appealed to reason, and the Iranian Mullahs have none.

This particular Pope and the Iranian Mullahs have a lot in common and I would willing to bet the Mullahs know their Greek philosophy better than Ratzinger does. That's what Khomeini used to teach in Qum.

They recently stoned to death seven people, and I was reading that in 2005, they destroyed a Sufi house of worship and dervish dance.

Which has what to do with reason? The Dominicans who ran the Inquisition excelled in logic chopping. The fact of the matter is that 'reason' in the sense of formal logic does not make people more humane.

BTW, the Qu'arn is filled with Greek philosophy - God is monad. Neo-Platonianism, etc.

Not every monotheist is a neo-Platonism. Ever hear of Judaism?

Well, in truth, and setting aside our differences, together we would like to see more freedom for Armenian Christians in Iran and for Baha'is.

Armenian Christians are not doing too badly in Iran. The only Christians who are persecuted are those that converted from Islam or who try to convert Muslims. Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians all fare better than Baha'is in Iran. Here's an article by a Jew comparing their treatment to those of Baha'is:

http://www.forward.com/articles/13602/

[smaneck]

Geeta after all is a vaishnava scripture. Shiva Purana or Devi Purana will say something else. For them, Vishnu did not create the universe, it was Shiva and Devi respectively. Remember, hinduism is not an Abrahamic religion. It would have many views. :)

Yep, but wouldn't they take the same attitude, that a sacrifice to another deity actually goes to them?

[Aupmanyav]

Even the atheist hindu guy recognizes that.

Sparko, I have a 3,000 year old screen name (He was a clansman, could be an ancestor, a commentator on Vedas. Aupmanyav means 'one in the line of Upamanyu' who was a Vedic Sage). /

[Aupmanyav]

Yep, but wouldn't they take the same attitude, that a sacrifice to another deity actually goes to them?

No. The worshiper would not be thinking of another deity. During rituals, each deity is invited separately, accorded welcome separately, and offered oblations separately. That is why oblations are poured in fire with the chants Indrayasswaha, Suryayasswaha, Varunayasswaha; for Indra, for Surya (Sun), and for Varuna, etc.

Sacrifice is not the right word, no animals or humans need to be sacrificed. 'Yajna' is effort, work (worship) to please the God, an undertaking (I will get the blessings of this God). It was wrongly understood even by non-Aryan hindus and they started animal or human sacrifice.

[smaneck]

It was wrongly understood even by non-Aryan hindus and they started animal or human sacrifice.

I believe the Horse Sacrifice was Aryan.

But by sacrifice I simply meant puja.

[Aupmanyav]

I believe the Horse Sacrifice was Aryan.

Again, probably it was not. It was conducted during the Arctic nights of two months - it is known as a 'Ratri-Kratu' (night sacrifice - it never lasted for more than 100 days, as it is mentioned in the Vedas). The purpose was to fortify Indra and his steed so that they can rescue the sun from the netherworld. A lot of Soma (Haoma) was used. Killing the horse would defeat the purpose. I think it was a religious drinking session during the long Arctic night.

The story according to hindus is that a bitch (Sarama) helped Indra to find the cave in which the Gawah (cows - rays of the sun) were imprisoned by the Asuras (many names are mentioned, Vaala, Namuchi, Vritra, Shambara, Kuyava, etc.). Indra, fortified by the ritual and helped by the Aryan fire-priests, Angirasas, and another Gods, the Ashwinis (various stories), defeated the Asuras, removes the stone cover, and made the sun to come back again.

In the Greek version, it is a dog (Cerebrus) who helps Herakles to find the cave, defeats the Titans, removes the stone cover, and releases the cows. In Avesta also, it is a fight between Verethragna (Sanskrit Vritra-ghna, killer of Vritra, the darkness), Thraetona, who defeats Azi-dahak, the serpent, so that the enclosures in Alburz from which Ardvi Sura Anahita (the divine river) flows are cleared and the life-giving waters flow again, meaning the sun rises again.