Pope's Comment On Islam

[ramana]

X-posted


<b>ramana wrote: </b>

Valkan I was hoping for an analysis of what the Pope said in some coherent form. If you know what he said please do a write up and post in separate theread. I believe he said some very improtant things. But am not qualified to comment on them as I dont have good knowledge of the Church doctrine. I will also put what I felt on reading excerpts of this speech published in Pioneer.

<b>S.Valkan wrote: </b>

ramana wrote:
If you know what he said please do a write up and post in separate theread.


If I had the time, I would, ramana.

The gist is that Islamic concept of Transcendent Allah is akin to that of a Kantian Noumenon,- whose actions are unknowable, inexplicable and beyond reason.

On the other hand, Christian concept of God is borrowed heavily - via the Greeks - from the Upanishadic doctrine of Satyam Jnanam Anantam, and the concept of a rational order (Dharma) as the guiding principle behind divine action.

<b>ramana wrote: </b>

Precisely. That is what I felt. Now that you have articulated it please do find the time and write it up.

What use is knowledge if its not shared or imparted?

<b>ramana wrote: </b>

The pope's remarks seem to have raised a hell storm. Must have hit home

The odd thing is there is no clear articulation of what exactly he said that rubs them wrong. Also most of the protesters have not read the original remarks.

<b>ramana wrote</b>

The large text is what I have realised in the last few months that Modernism is in retreat for it has served its purpose to bring about enlightenment and now that there is an implacable foe the need for the hour is not more secularism but more faith in oneself. We used to have a member Carl here in BR who made the same comment eons ago.

<b>ramana wrote:</b>

My son attended a popular Catholic school in Bay Area and was the most outstanding student in Church History and understood the intricacies of the Church Doctrine. He also benefitted in the sense he aced the European history classes. This understanding of Church history is necessary to understand non Greek Western Philosophy.

<b>ramana wrote </b>

lalmohan, all the folks you quoted fought Islamaists on their turf and on the Islamist terms. And what is the result? Have you heard of the Battle of Acre? That finished of the Crusades. And left Islamists feel truimphant for long time. The Crusades were the wrong way. That is why Emperor Manuel had that war of ideas.

Pope Benedict is the first Western Church leader to fight on ideological terms. It s new Cold War and another battle for hearts and minds. It has to be on many fronts - political, econmic, ideological and philosophical.

This apology is a tactical one. Just as Treaty of Hudbaya was.

<b>ramana wrote: </b>

Folks it doesnt matter whether the pope apologised or not. For once the word is uttered or written it assumes a form of its own and aquires life independent of its author. That is logos for you. Long after we are gone the world will thank the Pope for uttering those words.

By the way he said more about the Western Intellectual revolution than Islam.

<b>ramana wrote</b>

It doesnt matter if the Pope apologized for the words that he spoke have acquired 'a living breathing soul'. If you think about it his apology and the furor over his speech in Islamist lands has given credence to his remarks.

<b>ramana wrote</b>

As I said before he has raised it to a higher level of war of ideas. The rage in response has shown he is fundamentally correct. His core meassage to align fiath with reason is not at variance with Hindu practices. So its nothing new for Hindus.

However his deeper attack is on modernism and the West. Thinking liberals will reflect on it.

<b>ramana wrote</b>

This Adel Theodore Khoury was a Prof at Uty of Munster and wrote extensively on Islam and Christianity. Would make sense that the Pope is familiar with his work in German.

Would recommend people to get familair with the work of <b>John of Damscus</b>, who was first Greek Orthodox to examine Islam in his rebuttal to Emperor Leo on the ban of icons.

The Pope is delving deep into Church History and the remarkable thing is, he is using Orthodox criticsm of Islam. That itself is a major event not being commented on.

<b>ramana wrote</b>

<b>The liberals don't seem to want to see that. Maybe they are already dhimmified ?</b>


On the contrary Pope Benedict also attacked their thin veneer of modernism and 'enlightenment' which as a process of dehellenizing has removed reason from their logic.
Only two pages of his seven page speech are about Islam and Muhammed while he rest are about the 'morass' the West finds itself in due to dehellenizing.

BTW I note that Anglo Saxon media is going all out in reporting the Muslim reaction to the Pope speech and sort of blaming him for calling a spade a spade. Every two bit protest is being reported gleefully .

<b>ramana wrote</b>

Neilg, The Pope does address those issues by asking modernists to rethink the role of reason in their world view. He says only by doing this they will carry conviction with other religions. He wants to retain the best practices of modernism but firmly anchor the faith in reason. This should address the Islamist gripe about how the 'modern' West is Godless.

Its not due to dhimmitude but due to rebellion against the Church that drives modernists on that path that you mention. It is part of the secular dialogue to spit on one own's religion while extolling the 'other'.


BTW, I realized that the educated Persian must have been a Sunni for Persia turned Shia in the Safavid times (~1500 AD) about a 100 years later after the dialog with Manuel II. That he is Persian should narrow the field so to speak. Wonder if the dialog had its own impact on the rejection of Sunni faith in Persia?

Wikipedia says the Persian was an imaginary protagonist!

Manuel II