sigh

now we have to contend with Invasion of the Pope Snatchers =(

Posted by: GreatShaitan at October 4, 2006 11:27 AM

People lost in the mental maze of Islam have developed the psychological defense mechanism of projection to previously unheard of levels, so it seems to me when I read what they choose to show the world. The claim is that this Pope changed his "deen", so his congregation beat him to death. This does not sound like anything that ever happens in the west. However, the death penalty for apostasy is part and parcel of Islam since the time of Muhammad. Today we see Islamic authorities pushing their adherents to kill those who speak out of line, either Muslim of infidel. They have little trouble finding volunteers.

The deranged often assume, or even hallucinate, that those around them share their twisted logic.

Posted by: Quijybo at October 4, 2006 11:30 AM

But the pope mentioned by AKM Moslem Ali isn't dead... He's living in a trailer park in Mississippi with Elvis, Jim Morrison, and Tupac Shakur!

Posted by: Provoslavni at October 4, 2006 11:33 AM

Being a Muhammadan means never having to take responsibility for the s*** you spout. Especially when it's designed to rile up Islam's unwashed illiterate masses. Who depend on their local lying Imam to transmit the word allah to him

Posted by: dennisw at October 4, 2006 11:35 AM

I think the writer has confused the Pontiff aka The Pope with a fellow from Straffordshire named Tim Pope, whose reputation at the time was a bit sullied. He had been accused of witchcraft and of impugning the innocence of local milkmaids and the cows as well.

I'm terribly sorry, but the Pope the Bengal refers to is "the Pope of Straffordshire, aka Tim"

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at October 4, 2006 11:49 AM

Did I tell you I converted Muhammad to Tantric Buddhism ?

I forgot, it was so many lives ago.

Posted by: POITIERS-LEPANTO at October 4, 2006 11:55 AM

>>>sigh

now we have to contend with Invasion of the Pope Snatchers =(

>>>>Posted by: GreatShaitan

LOL
LOL
LOL

dyin' laffin' here!!!

Invasion of the Pope Snatchers,,

ROTFLMAO!!

snort
choke!!!

Posted by: solsticewitch13 at October 4, 2006 12:06 PM

"This declaration angered and infuriated the people who beat him to such an extent that he died. This people did not think or ponder about the message. They were swept away by their sentiment, false pride and vanity."

Hmmm. Sounds pretty familiar. I guess if you're going to lie about historical (?!) events, your lies will be more readily accepted by your audience if they include the daily behavior of your audience.

Simple mindedness from the top to the bottom.....

I wonder which western university will be the first to incorporate this supposed 'conversion' into a history-of-religion class.

Posted by: oregonjack at October 4, 2006 12:07 PM

On the topic of history revision by Bangladeshis, I have a Bangladeshi (Hindu) friend who once told me that in his school, some Muslim friends told him that Bengal was 'liberated' by its first Muslim conquerer Ala-ud-din Khilji. Translation: Hindu Bengal was liberated from Hindu rule by Muslims who conquered and converted it. He also noted that in Bangladesh, religion is taught in place of history. Given that Bangladesh doesn't have its own history prior to 1971, makes perfect sense - going before that would mean admitting itself as a part of Pakistan (post 1947) or India (pre 1947). Given that fact, none of this should surprise anybody.

On the above story, why stop there? Why not just pick your favorite people/personalities (preferably dead ones who can't contradict you), declare that they were Muslims, and go on. Just say that Florence Nightingale, Mother Teresa, St Francis of Assici (sp?), Napoleon, Shakespear, Galileo, et al were Muslims. After all, how different would that claim be from the average Muslim belief that Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Alexander the Great were all Muslims?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at October 4, 2006 12:12 PM

OneEyedWink

I once had a Muslim classmate who told me the story about how Neil Armstrong, on setting foot on the moon, saw 'Allah' inscribed there, and recited the Shehada after his return.

Looks like an Iranian millionaire is taking a trip in space on the International Space station. I wonder whether or not she is Muslim? If she isn't, no comment, but if she is, then she'd have to face Mecca, do the salat 5 times, etc, disrupting normal activity. Something tells me she isn't.

Muslims should just leave space, and the moon to Allah. On the other hand, I'd be more than happy if they all settled on the dark side of Mercury.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at October 4, 2006 12:17 PM

Sorry for so many posts in quick succession, but here's another howler from above that got overlooked

Pope is the Head of Roman Catholic Church and also Bishop of Rome. He is the spiritual leader of the Christian community of the world.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at October 4, 2006 12:21 PM

This "journalist" has struck a new low in deception for the cause of Islam.

The well known historical fact about the Pope at time of Mohammed's conquest of Mecca, Honorius I (625 - 638) is that he died in exile because of his adoption of a heretical position in one of the endless Christological struggles of the early Church. He wasn't even in Rome at the time of his death, but in Chersones in the Crimea.

What a devious little snake this guy is!

Posted by: templar at October 4, 2006 12:25 PM

(Not that the people of a nation as backward and ignorant as Bangledesh will ever be in a position to know the difference. They'll believe it hook, line and sinker. How sad).

Posted by: templar at October 4, 2006 12:31 PM

Does this mean that the Moslems don't have to kill us now?

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at October 4, 2006 12:39 PM

It says it all in Robert's article here:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15701

Posted by: Silvester at October 4, 2006 12:41 PM

Here they have gone and insulted Pope Honorius, the "spiritual leader of the Christian community of the world", and yet there is no rioting by Christians across the world. There are no burqa-clad women shot in the back. No mosques burned. No beheadings.

I'm beginning to think the "Religion of Peace (tm)" actually exists, the term has just been misapplied.

Posted by: special_guest at October 4, 2006 12:43 PM

My Oxford Dictionary of Popes says that at the time of the conquest of Mecca (630AD) the Pope was Honorious I. He was an admirer of Pope Gregory who actively supported the mission to the English. He kept up a friendly correspondence with the patriarch of Constantinople and is said to have infused fresh vigour into the papacy. When he died he was interred in St Peter’s and his epitaph acclaimed him as “leader of the common people”. Slightly different to the information given by Templar but perhaps his body was brought back.

The story of a Christian leader converting to Islam sounds a little like the nonsense found on Muslim websites insisting that the King Offa of Mercia, (now part of the English Midlands) 757 to 796 AD converted during a pilgrimage to Spain. The only evidence Muslims can produce to support this is a gold coin of his reign with Arabic writing on. Easily explained as a copy of an Arabic coin minted to be acceptable during international trade with the east (home currency being silver and copper).

The story of a Pope being beaten to death by an angry mob is similar to the legends of Pope Joan. Who was said to be an intelligent Englishwoman (of course) who disguised herself as a young man and entered the church in order to get the kind of education women would not receive. Her abilities lead to her rising in the church, she had to keep up the pretence, and eventually she became Pope. It was discovered during a procession that she was a woman and, so the legend has it, she was set upon by the crowd.

Balderdash all of it. Except the bit about the intelligence and resourcefulness of Englishwomen. Ahem.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at October 4, 2006 12:48 PM

I like how he doesn't even know the name of the pope who was in office at the time. It'd be comedy if they didn't want us all to die.

Posted by: SR at October 4, 2006 12:49 PM

This just proves Islam is a mental disorder.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at October 4, 2006 1:01 PM

Wow! I'm sure this fantastic tale will be made into a movie so all Muslims can see the truth of it all. Just like that marvelous movie that showed them all the facts about the Zionist plot to rule the world a couple of years ago.

P.S. All you Protestants bow to the Pope! After all, he's also your leader according to this tale.

And here I thought Islam had no humor.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at October 4, 2006 1:02 PM

Alarmed Pig Farmer, you ask: "Does this mean that the Moslems don't have to kill us now?"

LOL, LOL. That's the best laugh I've had in two days. Thanks.

Posted by: texan at October 4, 2006 1:02 PM

Of the many things not to expect from any imam, anywhere, anytime, is adherence to the abstract conception of Truth.
Given this inability, or at any rate fierce unwillingness,
to tell a story straight, one wonders how an imam can cope
with the rest of life.

How on earth does he make a cup of coffee?
Does he grind the water, boil the beans, and gently spew the whole thing back into the pot?

Posted by: Malinois at October 4, 2006 1:04 PM

Parody of perhaps this . . .Remember that controversial speech the pope gave?

Dr. Andrew Bostom, the Pope stopped short of revealing a very telling tidbit.

At the end of the 26-round marathon dialogue of seven centuries ago alluded to by Pope Benedict, the Muslim “muderris” (theologian), overwhelmed by continuous glimpses of Christian truth, hovers at the threshold of abandoning Islam and embracing Christianity. The muderris openly marvels at the magnificence of Christ and the Christian teachings, while proclaiming his readiness to journey to Constantinople (the last significant stronghold of the once mighty Byzantine Christian empire), and study with the theologians there. The drama of the dialogue thus concludes with the muderris’ effective inner conversion to Christianity, and his promise to Manuel II to pursue this profound change of heart.

Posted by: justamomof4 at October 4, 2006 1:16 PM

"In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Peace be on him, who believes in Allah. I am of the faith that Isa (Jesus A.S.) son of Marian (Mary) was the spirit of Allah and His word! Allah infused him in the Pious Mariam."

Nice of the Bangladeshi journalist to bring up the curious and theologically messy labeling of Isa as the "Word of God" by Muhammad, both in muddying the waters on the Islamic definition which would insist on no divine nature, and in the fact that it is rooted in and explained by the Gospel of John. That calls into question the notion of the Qur'an's complete and self-contained wisdom.

Thanks, Mr. Moslem Ali.

Posted by: MarisolJW at October 4, 2006 1:27 PM

the Muslims claimed that [Neil Armstrong] saw a crack on the moon made by Mohd.

Perhaps Neil was referring to the crack on the moon made by some guy named Mohammed who was deep in prayer, prostrate with his prostate in the air.

Posted by: remote_control at October 4, 2006 1:29 PM

"the spirit of Allah".

So then there is the "spirit of Allah" and Allah himself?

Sounds like a polytheist to me.

Posted by: Mr Ape Pig at October 4, 2006 1:44 PM

I seriously doubt that this is true, although there may have been some cooperation going on.

I do find it very strange that both Islam and Catholicism have prayer beads, Fatima, pilgrimages. I also heard that the Crusaders were promised a direct pass to heaven - no stopping in pergatory - if they went to war.

One thing that I find very irritating is the Vatican's use of the term 'holy lands'. It's I.S.R.A.E.L.

Posted by: The Goobs at October 4, 2006 1:56 PM

Hey all JWers, are you forgetting the basics of islam. mohammad said that "all prophets were true, but I am the last and the final".

The thug supercedes all. Till date.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at October 4, 2006 2:08 PM

Infidel Pride said

I once had a Muslim classmate who told me the story about how Neil Armstrong, on setting foot on the moon, saw 'Allah' inscribed there...

...and as Neil deliberately dragged his foot through the dust, obliterating 'Allah', 'Allah' watched helplessly as once again, the mortal and frail infidels overpowered and outsmarted Him.

Posted by: special_guest at October 4, 2006 2:13 PM

Goobs,

The Holy Land has been called that for centuries, long before Israel was a nation.

Hindus have prayer beads too. Fatima is a PLACE in Portugal where 3 children had visions of the Virgin Mary. Protestants have pilgrimages too. Does that also make them in cahoots with Muslims? Haven't you read anything about the history of Islam? How Mohammed took bits and pieces of Christianity and warped it to make a new heretical religion?

And you contradict yourself in accusing some kind of "collaboration" between Catholics and Muslims: if the Crusaders were given a "free pass" to heaven for fighting Muslims, wouldn't that be seen as INCENTIVE to go to war with them?

Have you been living in a cave? Uh oh. So has Osama bin Laden. You must be a collaborator with him, then.

Idiot.

Posted by: atheling at October 4, 2006 2:15 PM

Well, this thread has given me several quite satisfying belly laughs.

Currently reading Spencer's Muhammad book. It's fascinating. A guy made a whole bunch of stuff up and then other guys after him made up even more stuff in order to explain the first guy's made up stuff. Just like the telephone game! ROFLOL!

Posted by: Stand fast in the liberty at October 4, 2006 2:18 PM

The Goobs: are you drunk?

Templar: you got your Popes, your Christologies and your Emperors mixed up. Pope Honorius was never exiled to anywhere. He was foolish enough to support the reigning Emperor, who was a heretic (monothelite), but did not suffer for this except after death, when the Church condemned him for failing to condemn the Monothelite heresy - that is, for not doing his duty as Pope. His successor, Pope St.Martin I, did condemn it, and as a result was arrested and exiled to the Crimea, then a Byzantine province, where he died of ill-treatment. He is accounted the last of the martyred Popes of Rome - for the time being. Nothing of this had anything to do with Islam and nothing had anything to do with angry mobs.

Considering that there are people in the dar al Islam who firmly believe that Pope John Paul II converted to Islam before he died, this is not particularly surprising.

Posted by: Paolo at October 4, 2006 2:19 PM

Oh, don't be so hard on Goobs, you guys.

Posted by: Stand fast in the liberty at October 4, 2006 2:22 PM

the Muslims claimed that [Neil Armstrong] saw a crack on the moon made by Mohd.

Perhaps Neil was referring to the crack on the moon made by some guy named Mohammed who was deep in prayer, prostrate with his prostate in the air.

Posted by: remote_control at October 4, 2006 01:29 PM

Ha Ha... fighting jihad can be fun.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at October 4, 2006 2:22 PM

Granny Weatherwax:

The information I provided above about Honorius is not entirely accurate. Sorry about that. My theological studies are getting to be quite some number of days behind me now and the Christological controveries in the Church of the fifth through the eighth centuries are so rarefied, complex and subtly nuanced that when one reads about them it is extremely difficult to keep track of who's saying what and what it all means. I had to look some of these matters up again, something I've not bothered with in years, to refresh my memory and provide this correction. It really takes theologians quite specialized in these matters to keep it all straight.

Actually, Honorius was exiled by the Byzantine emperor Heraclius for opposing a compromise position that the emperor had proposed in order to end the schism with the Churches of the East which had adopted the so-called "Monophysite" (one nature in the person of Christ) doctrine. The emperor's position was seen as heretical and based on the pursuit of purely political ends. At one point, however, Honorius waivered slightly on part of this, or was seen as having waivered, in a letter that he wrote on the matter to the Byzantine patriarch, Sergius, and as a result he was subsequently denounced by several church councils. So he suffered a double wammy, getting it from both sides - exile imposed by the civil authority (which resulted in his death) and ecclesiastical censure.

Notwithstanding any of this he was seen as having served the people of Rome very well in terms of his civil governance of the city (which had, by that time become part of the role of the Popes) and as having conducted his personal affairs in a manner above all reproach, so his personal reputation remained very much intact and he was therefore very well respected. In light of that I think we can assume that the information you present above is likely quite correct.

In any case, the story told by our Bangledeshi Muslim journalist friend clearly is pure, unadulterated nonsense!

Posted by: templar at October 4, 2006 2:37 PM

This site is Jihad Watch. It has a specific purpose and intent. Even though we all believe in free speech and are not inclined to rampage through the streets when someone says something with which we disagree, at this time, I do feel the need to speak out against the anti-Catholic spewings of idiots(goobs)which sometimes find their way on this site. You may disagree with Catholicism. So be it. Keep it to yourself. Unless we Catholics (or any other religious group)form an ideology intent on killing or subverting you, keep your prejudices relegated to your pathetic chat rooms and inner circles.

Posted by: hassan_bin_sobar at October 4, 2006 2:38 PM

I am sober. I am sincerely sorry if I have offended people on this board. I simply think that it is interesting that Islam and Catholicism have some things in common. You aren't going to behead me for mentioning it are you?

You suggested that the only reason that Islam has anything in common with Catholism was because it copied catholicism.

Prayer beads were a part of Islamic devotion to Allah long before an apparition of the Blessed Lady taught St. Dominic to pray the rosary beads in the thirteenth century. Prayer beads, by the way, are a stock item in ancient and modern paganism. On an ironic note, Catholic Church historians credit the prayers of members of the Confraternity of the Rosary for a major naval victory over the Turks, which "saved Europe from the Mohammedan peril."

With respect to pilgrimages: I don't know of any in protestant organisations, unless of course you are refering to the CoE, which is basically similar to catholicism because it came from catholicism.

Catholics and Muslims regard pilgrimages as a means of obtaining favour from God. The hadj, one of the five pillars of Islam, is a required (one-time) journey to Mecca.

For Catholics, pilgrimages historically have been acts of religious purification, often induced by the promise of indulgences. Multi-millions of Catholics travel yearly to hundreds of shrines (nearly all dedicated to Mary) located throughout the world.

With respect to the Crusaders: The Crusades were indulgence-stimulated attempts to regain Jerusalem from the infidel Muslims in order to re-establish Catholic pilgrimages. The Church of Rome offered the crusaders full pardon from purgatory should they die trying to liberate the 'Holy Land'. Similarly, Islam offers rewards in and assurance of Paradise to those who die in religious battles (jihad), including suicide bombings.

With respect to Fatima. Isn't it at all interesting that Muhammad's daughter was named Fatima? The hadith teaches that Muhammad selected Mary as his first wife upon entrance into Paradise. One of the most popular Catholic apparitions of Mary is referred to as Our Lady of Fatima.

Roman Catholicism recognizes Allah as the God of the Bible. In 1985, Pope John Paul II declared to an enraptured audience of thousands of Muslim youths, "Christians and Muslims, we have many things in common as believers and as human beings....We believe in the same God, the one and only God, the living God...."

As for the use of the term 'holy land', yeah, it's been around for centuries, but why not call it ISRAEL now that it is Israel?

Posted by: The Goobs at October 4, 2006 2:46 PM

@MarisolJW

"Nice of the Bangladeshi journalist to bring up the curious and theologically messy labeling of Isa as the "Word of God" by Muhammad, both in muddying the waters on the Islamic definition which would insist on no divine nature, and in the fact that it is rooted in and explained by the Gospel of John. That calls into question the notion of the Qur'an's complete and self-contained wisdom."

The koran is not just muddy water on the subject of Jesus, it's a complete croc of doodoo.

Re: koran, Issa was "The Messiah" and born of the Virgin Mary, but He supposedly didn't die on the cross, wink, wink.

Ridiculous! But Yahweh's Revelations continue and give the lie to the koran:

http://www.shroudstory.com/

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at October 4, 2006 2:55 PM

goobs,

You really are bent on spewing your anti Catholicism on this site aren't you?

Do you know that Robert Spencer is Catholic?

What is your point, Goobs? I'm sick and tired of you anti Catholic nutjobs who love to find every reason possible to slander and defame the Church and its one billion members.

Why don't you just join the Muslims and go on a Catholic killing spree? That's what you're all about, aren't you?

Posted by: atheling at October 4, 2006 3:00 PM

I'm not anti-catholic. I have family and dear friends who I love and they are catholics!

Saying that there are similarities between the reigions is not anti-catholic!

Yes, I know that Robert is Catholic.

Geesh! Am I not allowed to mention it? I thought it was interesting.

You're starting to sound as angry as the muslims who hate anyone telling them anything about Islam.

Sorry!

Posted by: The Goobs at October 4, 2006 3:04 PM

Hassan & others

Well said in regards to Goobs assertions. We should present a united front to the jihadists. As for Goobs point about Catholicism & Islam. Did you ever think Goobs that God might have used events like Fatima, Zeitoun etc to bring Muslims back to the faith their ancestors worshipped before the Islamic invasions of the 7th century and beyond? I refer to this in my upcoming book "The Tide Is Turning Toward Catholicism" coming out later this year.

Posted by: Dave at October 4, 2006 3:06 PM

"This just proves Islam is a mental disorder. "

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106
******************************

Glory be...I hope Merck comes up a pill soon

Posted by: bondservant at October 4, 2006 3:09 PM

Bullsh*t, goobs,

Your initial post was DELIBERATELY provocative and slanderous. Now you pretend that you were just making some innocent comparisons?

Yeah, right, you accuse me of going Muslim? Did I just issue a fatwa against you? Did I threaten to kill you and your family? If anyone is guilty of murderous intent it was you, with your libel and slanderous remarks. The spirit of slander and libel is MURDEROUS, don't you know?

You're full of it, and your putrid anti Catholicism is showing.

Posted by: atheling at October 4, 2006 3:14 PM

Not only is Robert Spencer Catholic, Goobs, but he'll also send you his agents when you don't expect them (no one does), and then he'll give you the Guantanamo treatment (a special kind of chair) 'til you recant. Now THAT IS SCARY!

Posted by: ZionistYoungster at October 4, 2006 3:14 PM

How a funny muslim joker journalist!!! He made me laugh a lot!!! Maybe the Green Aliens From Mars(TM) are also muslims. That's why they are Green, you know, green, the color of Islam!!! And their high-tech UFOs are based on very careful study of the Quran :)))))))))

PS.
By the way, take a look at the link below:
http://www.historyofjihad.org

PS2.
I saw many threats against that site from mujahadeens. One is saying "I HAVE INFORMED YOUR SITE AND ITS CONTENT TO SADUI AUTHORITIES AND TO ALL MUSLIM UMMAH .. BETTER BE READY TO FACE THE FACT. ALLAH HAFIZ"
What a stupid muslim.

Posted by: AllahIsDead at October 4, 2006 3:25 PM

"Unless we Catholics (or any other religious group)form an ideology intent on killing or subverting you, keep your prejudices relegated to your pathetic chat rooms and inner circles"
**********************************
Talk about prejudices ! and because we disagree with you we are called "pathetic" ?

Geez I guess the Catechism and Council of Trent stating that those who do not hold to Rome are anathema and there is no "salvation" outside the catholic Church. You haven't killed me physically but spiritually speaking your Church declares I am anathema and unsaved,hell bound.

"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved." (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

CANON 9: "If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema."

FOURTEENTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF PENANCE: "If anyone says that God always pardons the whole penalty together with the guilt and that the satisfaction of penitents is nothing else than the faith by which they perceive that Christ has satisfied for them, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance, Canon 8).

TWENTY-SECOND SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS: "If anyone says that in the mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God; or that to be offered is nothing else than that Christ is given to us to eat, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 1).

SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON BAPTISM: "If anyone says that in the Roman Church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on Baptism, Canon 3).

SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON BAPTISM: "If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on Baptism, Canon 5).

THIRTEENTH SESSION, CANONS ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST: "If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Canon 1).

FOURTEENTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF PENANCE: "If anyone says that in the Catholic Church penance is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ the Lord for reconciling the faithful of God as often as they fall into sin after baptism, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance, Canon 1).

FOURTEENTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF PENANCE: "If anyone denies that sacramental confession was instituted by divine law or is necessary to salvation; or says that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Catholic Church has always observed from the beginning and still observes, is at variance with the institution and command of Christ and is a human contrivance, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance, Canon 7).

FOURTEENTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF PENANCE: "If anyone says that the confession of all sins as it is observed in the Church is impossible and is a human tradition to be abolished by pious people; or that each and all of the faithful of Christ or either sex are not bound thereto once a year in accordance with the constitution of the great Lateran Council, and that for this reason the faithful of Christ are to be persuaded not to confess during Lent, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance, Canon 8).

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

Posted by: bondservant at October 4, 2006 3:32 PM

atheling
That person you remonstrated about his anti-Catholic posts has been jacked up many times before for the same shit. He continues to do it and still pleads that he doesn't mean to offend. I don't know whether this person is an idiot or a liar but he/she might be both.

Posted by: pismopal at October 4, 2006 3:33 PM

Hello Templar. Thanks for coming back on the subject. What you say since is very interesting and is consistent with his entry in the Oxford reference work. It's not my period at all so I was relying completely on the Oxford Dictionary, which is written by an Anglican Canon!

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at October 4, 2006 3:34 PM

A historical note: the prayer rope is considered a forerunner of the Rosary and appeared in the fourth century.

A short history of prayer beads/stones/etc. can be found here, including pre-Islamic use by Christians. In addition, Buddhists and Hindus use a set of beads called Japa Mala.

There has also been an Anglican adaptation of the Rosary.

So, among other things, Islamic culture can't take credit for prayer beads.

Posted by: MarisolJW at October 4, 2006 3:35 PM

bondservant:

That's why there is a purgatory.

Posted by: atheling at October 4, 2006 3:40 PM

bondservant:

That's why there is a purgatory.

**************
oh gee you are right, silly of me to think Christs sacrifice was enough to save me...he must have been fibbing when He said " it is Finished"

Posted by: bondservant at October 4, 2006 3:50 PM

pismopal:

In light of your comment then we may assume that goobs is a liar and a coward - with very bad manners. He/she comes to a Catholic person's website and proceeds to insult and defame that person's faith.

Posted by: atheling at October 4, 2006 3:51 PM

Projection.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at October 4, 2006 3:53 PM

Hello again, Granny Weatherwax:

Don't thank me too readily. Turns out Paolo (who posted before you but whose comment I hadn't noticed when I made my response) is quite right. It was not Honorius who was exiled but Martin I.

LOL. Perhaps this explains why I set aside the study of Theology. These Christological controversies are among the most confusing episodes history has to offer, from what I've seen.

Posted by: templar at October 4, 2006 3:55 PM

I would suggest that this would be a good point to get back to the article and its topic of disinformation and historical revisionism, lest the thread become an extended interfaith airing of grievances.

Posted by: MarisolJW at October 4, 2006 3:56 PM

bondservant
You show me in the Catechism a statement anything close to the one you claim is there "those who don't hold to Rome are anathema". There is no such statement in the Catechism. I have a copy in my home, give me the page where it is written, "there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church." You further quote Pope Innocent III (1215) who you claim said there is no salvation outside the Church. What outside Church was there? Martin Luther was not born until nearly 300 years later. If you are interested in what the Church actually says, get a copy of the new catechism and read it from front to back as I did 8 years ago just before I converted to the Holy Catholic Church. If you provide an address I will send you one for your very own. Save your energy for the real war..my friend you and all of us will need it.

Posted by: pismopal at October 4, 2006 3:56 PM

I did'nt read the article because it can only be b.s. and it's a waste of my time.

Posted by: mustang65 at October 4, 2006 3:58 PM

To all the anti-papists and the defenders of the holy roman empire.

This is Jihadwatch, not CuriaWatch.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at October 4, 2006 3:59 PM

Paolo:

You're right about my initial mix-up of Popes and Christologies. I corrected some of this in a second post addressed to Granny Weatherwax, which you may have read, though I remained in error on the matter of which Pope was exiled. However, I want to respond to this comment of yours about, apparently about Martin I:

"Nothing of this had anything to do with Islam and nothing had anything to do with angry mobs".

This was precisely the point I was making about Honorius, who definitely was the pope at the time of Mohammed's conquest of Mecca, so I hope you're not suggesting that I was drawing a connection to Islam in regard to the death of this or any other pope, which I definitely was not. Hopefully that's clear.

Notwithstanding my rusty Christology and Church history we're all agreed on the central issue in this thread. No pope has ever come close to converting to Islam.

Posted by: templar at October 4, 2006 4:09 PM

Plague,

I have every right to defend the faith when some bigots defame and slander it. It was goobs who changed the thread's topic to anti Catholicism.

Posted by: atheling at October 4, 2006 4:15 PM

goobs and bondservant and the rest of your ilk,

Think whatever you prefer about Catholicism, I really couldn't care less. If denigrating the only religion founded by Christ makes you feel good about yourselves, and if that is what you need to feel like superior human beings, then by all means go ahead and do it.

Just don't do it here. This is not the forum for such espousals. Not only are you are doing the readers and members of Jihad Watch a disservice, but also in a way you are doing the whole of Western civilization a disservice by taking the focus off of the jihadists who are trying to kill you and me.

That is why you really should contain your (born again?) apologetics to your private chat rooms. Then you all pat yourselves on the back at you level of spiritual superiority.

The fact that thus-far you haven't chosen this route is why you're pathetic.

Posted by: hassan_bin_sobar at October 4, 2006 4:17 PM

Goobs wrote: "Prayer beads were a part of Islamic devotion to Allah long before an apparition of the Blessed Lady taught St. Dominic to pray the rosary beads in the thirteenth century."

Long before Muhammed was even born Orthodox and Catholics had the Chotki (Komboskini in Greek), a prayer rope of 25, 33, 50, 100 or 103 beads, used to focus one's thoughts on the "Jesus Prayer" which is "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner". It was on this that St. Dominic based the Rosary.

Goobs also wrote: "With respect to Fatima. Isn't it at all interesting that Muhammad's daughter was named Fatima?"

The town in Portugal was named for Mo's daughter during the Islamic occupation. So what??? It has been a completely Christian town since the 1400s.

As for Allah being the God of Scripture, the word "Allah" is simply Arabic for "the God". Do Muslims worship the same God as Christians and Jews? Yes and No!

Yes, ONLY in the sense of claiming to worship the Creator of the Universe. Absolutely NOT in the sense of understanding the Divine nature of that Creator. Muslims believe that God is so transcendent and different than humans that he can be completely capricious. Jews and Christians believe that God is also immanent and loving.

Posted by: Provoslavni at October 4, 2006 4:24 PM

I received a letter from the government questioning my citizenship. I am 3rd generation American. I don't know weather to be happy or sad. Are they finally cracking down on illegals.?

Posted by: mustang65 at October 4, 2006 4:24 PM

Dear Goobs and Bondservant:

Islam came after Catholic Christianity.

Just as Christianity borrows a lot of its liturgy and traditions from Judaism so has Islam borrowed a lot from a limited understanding of both Christianity and Judaism.

Re: The Council of Trent

Read the current Catechism along with the document Dominus Iesus.

In it you will find the current understanding of the Church regarding no-Salvation outside of the Catholic Church.

I will attempt, on a basic level, to explain as well as I understand the concept.

Essentially, ALL salvation can come ONLY through the one mediator who is Jesus Christ. Period. This is our faith. Under no other name under heaven or earth can a man be saved.

However, where parts of the Church, i.e. the Truth are found outside of the Catholic Church, i.e. Protestant denominations and other Christian sects... the Truth is still the Truth.. Christ is still Christ.. Christ saves. Baptism, preaching of the Gospel, the Lord's Supper.. all of these derive from the Catholic Church.. and in the manner that they are present.. so too is the Church; so too is Christ present.

This isn't even touching upon the concept of ignorance. Where, if a person hasn't heard about Christ and the Church or doesn't fully understand through no fault of their own.. that they are then judged by the heart. Even Paul talks about this in Romans.

To summarize: Among Christians we are all one in the body of Christ. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ. Our salvation comes from Christ alone period. So no.. you are not "damned" if you are Southern Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist or Lutheran to name a few denominations. One is "damned" because they have reject God and his grace. We can either love God or choose not to love God. That is our choice and God respects that choice, hence the choice of hell in choosing to reject God, or the choice of heaven in choosing to be with God.

Regarding non-Christian religions, (Not touching Judaism - as I myself am still trying to understand the current teaching on it - other than to say that God has not revoked the covent and they are still God's choosen people - Paul talks about great mystery for the sake of the Gentiles in this regard)

Dealing with Islam.. there is only one TRUE God. Jews, Christians, and Muslims proclaim the existance of One God who is creator of all. That is a truth. There is only ONE God. God is our creator. Truth.. is truth.. even when found outside of Christianity. Can not God lead whom he chooses? If Muslims believe in One God.. this is good. For God is one. If they believe in a judgement day.. this too is good for there will be a judgement day.

The Church recognizes what is holy and true.. what is held in common with the church. This is no different than Paul seeing that the Greeks worshipped the unknown God at Athens. Paul used that as a jumping off point to tell them about this unknown God that they worshipped. Later Christians would use the Greek concept of LOGOS ... the Word... look at the Gospel of John.. as a common belief to preach the Gospel. Matthew, in his Gospel, relates to the Old Testement in order to preach ths Gospel.

Point is I am open to discussions, but please don't ignore 500 years of Catholic theology when trying to make a point.

I must apologize about the grammar and any errors that may be in this post.

Anyway..Peace all of you! :) (Goobs and Bondservant too!) :o)

Posted by: Monkeywho at October 4, 2006 4:29 PM

From, Zionistyoungster's link:

Prisoners at Guantanamo who behave well get more exercise time. The most compliant get up to 12 hours a week, including access to treadmills, stationary bikes and other fitness equipment, Durand said. Guantanamo officials say compliance is gauged solely by whether a detainee follows detention center rules and avoids causing disturbances, and has nothing to do with whether he is providing information to interrogators

One prisoner has ballooned to over 400 pounds, living on a Cuban beach, eating everything not nailed down. They have it rough, don't they?

Posted by: Carolyn2 at October 4, 2006 4:34 PM

Where did the comma come from?

Posted by: Carolyn2 at October 4, 2006 4:36 PM

Bigcatgirl3106; I love Michael Savage too. Yes, islam is a mental disorder. And lefties as well. I am in transition right now. My sister has a BIG cat named Evie. When I walk by her,she wants to kill me. No reason , cause I love animals.

Posted by: mustang65 at October 4, 2006 4:50 PM

I rmember to Concert for Bangladesh way back around '70 or '71. Now I wonder, Why?

Posted by: Pelayo at October 4, 2006 5:42 PM

I'm wondering if that Bangladesh journalist confuse the identity of this unnamed pope with Byzantine Emperor Heraclius? There seems to be a number of similarities, but ultimately Heraclius did not become a Muslim, although some Muslims say that he secretly did. Heraclius also wasn't killed by a mob.

Posted by: yaqub at October 4, 2006 5:58 PM

pismopal...Certainly you can read for ourself the declarations for yourself by the Council of Trent stated above in prior post. When "church " is referred to it is the Roman Catholic Church,so lets not play that game, its not referring to the Body of Christ which the Bible speaks of who would include ANYONE who believes Jesus Christ paid entirely for thier sins on the Cross and accepts Him as Savior. The Council of Trent also declares anathema anyone who says that by grace ALONE one is saved ( RCC teaches that grace is dispensed THROUGH the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church).And yes I am a former catholic so I know what is taught. All Vatican Councils have affirmed all that is in the Council of Trent which would include all the anathemas.
It is not even debatable that Protesants believe in salvation by faith and grace ALONE, the RCC teaches faith AND grace , and that "grace" is dispensed THROUGH the Sacraments of the Catholic Church. That's RC 101. If one does not belong to the RCC how then will they receive the "grcaes" only given by RCC sacraments esp. the Eucharist ? Trent also declares if one does not believe the Eucarist is the actual Body & Blood of Christ he is anathama, just what do you think taht means ? Protestanst do not believe in transubstantiation. We do not believe Christ is sacrificed anew in an "unbloody" manner on the altar of the RC every Mass. The sacrifice was completed by Christ oneca nd for all on Calvary, not over and over every Mass.

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.
CANON XIV.-If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema

Posted by: bondservant at October 4, 2006 6:01 PM

Im pretty sure pope john paul reverted at some point.

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at October 4, 2006 6:10 PM

I rmember to Concert for Bangladesh way back around '70 or '71. Now I wonder, Why? Posted by Pelayo

I was a big fan of George Harrison, but I agree with you - that just wasn't worth it. Same thing for support that Bangladesh received from countries like India - completely undeserved. Today, looking at Bangladesh, who would know that they were at one time a major enemy of Fuckistan? They are as much a hotbed of Jihad as anywhere else in dar ul Islam.

This should serve as a salutary lesson to those - particularly Indians here - who think that dismembering Pakistan is a good idea. After all, what was the 1971 war - wasn't it the dismemberment of Pakistan? What has the result been for India? Millions of migrants - both Hindu and Muslim - from Bangladesh moving into India. What would the difference have been had they still been East Fuckistan?

There have been some on JihadWatch who have supported a Baluchi independence. Given that Baluchistan has no borders with India, that itself wouldn't be a bad thing; same would go for Waziristan and other areas of Pakhtoonistan. But if Sind becomes independent, India would in the long term gain a new enemy, because such a country would be a part of dar-ul-Islam, and be a base for Islamizing India (as if there isn't enough of it already) just like Bangladesh is.

Pakistan has nukes, so I understand why India can't take them on. But for gods sake, take on Bangladesh. Start shooting infiltrators at sight, round up every Bengali speaking Muslim and deport them, and the next time Bangladesh rifles fires on Indian border guards, treat that as an act of war and invade and take terretory, expelling Bangladeshis deeper into their country, but not annexing them. Make East India Muslim-free, and go from there. Or, if they don't want to do that, annex Bangladesh completely. You'll still have an intolerable number of Muslims, but at least, their land is no longer a breeding ground for Jihad (any more than Indian mosques currently are).

Posted by: Infidel Pride at October 4, 2006 6:11 PM

Goobs,
Prayer beads among Christians appeared very early, long before good St. Dominic's alleged apparition. In the authentic lives of St. Dominic written by those who knew him, no mention is made of the rosary's origin as having had any connection with him.
The beads (or knotted cords) were used by monks to count the 150 psalms which they memoprized by heart (as monks in Egypt & Ethiopia do to this day). They memorized the Psalms NOT because the evil hierarchy had chained up Bibles (commonly spouted nonsense), but because they COULD NOT READ.

As for pilgrimages, Webster's Unabridged Dictionary says that a pilgrimage is a "journey to some distant place, sacred and venerable..." Any Muslim, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Presbyterian or Amish person who travels to the Holy Land (oops) Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria)is making a pilgrimage. The Puritans who landed on America's shores called themselves Pilgrims and their chief reason for existence was that, the C of E, having been forcibly cleansed of most elements of Catholicism, was still not pure enough for them.

I myself made a pilgrimage to Fatima (!!!) many years ago. It was a gift from a priest. I was not even remotely interested in Fatima at the time, but I figured "what the heck? Why stare a gift horse in the face?" I did not go for purification or to get released from any purgatorial indebtedness I may have incurred. However, I did have a very important conversion experience to the BIBLE. To briefly explain: I wandered around the grounds of Fatima taking pictures. Off in the distance I saw an arcade with huge mosaics. I assumed they were depictions of the events regarding the apparitions. As I got close enough to see them I found myself saying "Oh crap, they're just scenes from the Gospels." As soon as I said/thought that, I realized what a terrible thing I had said! Then, walking allong the arcade I realized that these scenes from the Gospels were the 15 Mysteries of the Rosary. Ta DAH!
Jesus Himself said that charity covers a multitude of sins. Hmmm, could He have been referring to good works? Such as liberating one's fellow-Christians from Muslim oppression? Nah! He probably meant charity-as-a-sentiment.
As for the name of Allah, for better or worse, it IS the Arabic name for God. Just as Bog is the Polish name for God and Deus is the Latin name for God, and so on and so forth.
And as for Pope John Paul the Great referring to the One and only God, sounds a lot like St. Paul in the Areopagus, methinks.
Most anti-Catholicism comes from certain interpretations of scripture which barely go back 400 years or so.
When Jesuit missionaries arrived in India they discovered two distinct Christian communities (the Malabarese and the Malankarese). These communities had had NO contact with Rome or Constantinople for over a thousand years. They had 7 sacraments, venerated the saints, especially the Mother of God, prayed for the dead, and believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Where did they get all these "Romish" notions? My guess would be the Apostles who arrived in India with St. Thomas (of the 12).

Posted by: Sansantiago at October 4, 2006 6:11 PM

Oh, I forgot to stick to the topic:
Maybe when Mr. Armstrong arrived on the moon the crack he saw may have been the pit whence came the (in)famous black stone of the Kaaba.
Personally, if I landed on the moon I would say "There is no God but the Most Holy Trinity and Long live Benedict XVI!"

Posted by: Sansantiago at October 4, 2006 6:16 PM

Dying here.

This rates as the all time funniest article I've ever seen on the internet.

ROTFLMAO..And on top of it, they believe that Neil Armstrong converted to Islam on the moon.

There is no end to the insanity..at least Islam is good for some comedic relief, even if it is deadly and hazardous to living two legged creatures.

Posted by: Nariz at October 4, 2006 6:33 PM

Bondservant: you were never Catholic. The Church we know, the Church we live in, the Church we can judge, is the Church of today. This is the Church that wrote Dominus Iesus and that encyclopaedic masterpiece that is the Catechism, whose quotations alone amount to a compendium of Christian thought. This is the Church with which you pervicaciously refuse to engage. You refuse to touch Dominus Iesus as if it were a live rail; you flee from any discussion of the Catechism. Instead of which you insist on quoting passages in thirteenth-century councils, expecting them to silence any interpretation and refute any later statements. This is Protestant idolatry of texts, sola scriptura in a peculiarly wilful and pointless fashion. You do not even have the excuse that the texts you idolatrate and which, by idolizing, you falsify, are Holy Books. What is evident is that you are looking for reasons to hate and condemn the Church. This parade of torn-off fragments of ancient Conciliar decisions is nothing more than your excuse for your hatred - a hatred whose reason escapes me, but which I have no particular desire to understand. As Scripture says, they went away from us, and thus they proved that they were never of us.

Templar: I did not mean to say that you had given any credence to the Bangladeshi's moronic notions (expressed - has anyone noticed? - in the most execrable English; astonishing, since journalists in the Subcontinent often surpass native Britons in the purity and loveliness of their language). I was just saying that there was nothing whatsoever about them that even came close to being credible. Indeed, oddly enough, violent popular riots to do with Papal elections and behaviour took place before (fourth, fifth, early sixth centuries - from the "election" of Damasus I to the Laurentian schism) and after (eighth, ninth, tenth, etc. century) the seventh century, but not at any time during it. For some reason, probably to do with the close Longobard threat, the Roman populace from about 520 to about 790 were quite remarkably calm.

Posted by: Paolo at October 4, 2006 7:07 PM

Hey! Has anyone noticed? A rant-free letter from... *drum roll* ... Nariz! With no anti-right polemics, no divisive issues, only a heartfelt and deserved laugh at the expense of our Bangladeshi twit. For that alone, said twit deserves a vote of thanks.

Posted by: Paolo at October 4, 2006 7:10 PM

Sigh, my last comments failed to be recorded because "I was not signed in", even though I was signed in.

Paolo, you have made some excellent comments to Bondservant. I thoroughly endorse your comments.

However, I must admit that the one reason that we will not be displaying a three year old temper tantrum on the streets, is that the remarks are just too funny, and we would have to stop ROTFL to spill out on the streets, to burn flags, loot, riot, burn effigies, burn down mosques, and shoot a few burqa wearers in the back. ;-)

I hope to be able to get back to my blog called "History of the World sans revisionism" and blog on what this Bangladeshi has written. It is this type of revisionism that gets my back up. Thanks to those who identified Pope Honorious I because I can give context to the period in question and to comment upon the real controversy at the time; and as a Catholic I can also explode the Loraine Boettner myths that are spread amongst the anti-Catholic bigots at the same time.

Posted by: Maggie4Life at October 4, 2006 7:16 PM

Infidel Pride: Catholics are indeed about 50% of all Christians.

Posted by: Paolo at October 4, 2006 7:17 PM

(expressed - has anyone noticed? - in the most execrable English; astonishing, since journalists in the Subcontinent often surpass native Britons in the purity and loveliness of their language)

I wouldn't exactly characterize it that way, but still, there is a world of difference between the English spoken by Indians vs. that spoken by Pakis and Bangladeshis. The latter are known to totally butcher English pronounciations, particularly the vowels.

Hey! Has anyone noticed? A rant-free letter from... *drum roll* ... Nariz! With no anti-right polemics, no divisive issues, only a heartfelt and deserved laugh at the expense of our Bangladeshi twit. For that alone, said twit deserves a vote of thanks.
Posted by: Paolo

Posted by: Infidel Pride at October 4, 2006 7:18 PM

from above:

The Pope (presumably Honorious I) realized the inner meanings of the letter, and maintained a soft corner for the Prophet (S.W.A.S.). He convened a meeting in the Cathedral. While addressing the congregation, he disclosed the contents of the letter and testified that " there is no God save Allah and that Muhammad (S.W.A.S.) is the servant and Prophet of Allah". This declaration angered and infuriated the people who beat him to such an extent that he died.
............

Oddly, though, Honorious I did not die until 638, six years after Muhammed himself . Damn that slow Levantine mail service!

But hmm--this story sounds oddly familiar. In 629 Mohammed supposedly wrote to the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius, who was on campaign in Syria. It said, ‘If you accept Islam you will be safe and Allah will give you a double reward. If you do not, you will have to live with results of your decision.’ Heraclius was so impressed by this threatening letter that he accepted Mohammed as a true Prophet of Allah, and offered to wash his feet. He wanted to join Islam, but was afraid of how the Romans would react.

A second letter went out to Syrian Bishop Daghatir, who converted immediately upon reading it. He preached to the people gathered in the church. ’O Romans, a letter has come to us from Ahmed (another name for Mohammed), in which he calls us to Allah. I bear witness that there is no Divinity but Allah and that Ahmed is his slave and messenger.’ But on hearing this the crowd grew angry and attacked Daghatir, beating him until he was dead.

Heraclius was afraid that the same thing would happen to him, so he spoke to his generals from a balcony saying, ‘O Romans! A man has written to me calling me to his religion I believe he is truly the prophet we have been told to expect. Let us follow him so that we can be happy in this world and the next.’ The Romans cried out in anger when they heard this, so Heraclius quickly said, ‘I was only pretending; I wanted to see how strong your faith was. I am pleased to see that you are true to your religion.’
.............

Let's just recycle the same story a few more times. If History doesn't work for you, just make shit up.

Posted by: gravenimage at October 4, 2006 7:21 PM

Maggie4Life said

Sigh, my last comments failed to be recorded because "I was not signed in", even though I was signed in.

If that happens:

1) hit the "Back" arrow on your browser
2) your comments will still be there at the bottom. Use your mouse to highlight all of your comments
3) do a CTRL-C to copy them to the clipboard
4) hit the "Forward" arrow on your browser
5) sign in to JW/DW when it asks
6) go to the bottom and click on the (now empty) comments window
7) do a CTRL-V to paste the clipboard into the comments window
8) click the "Post" button below the comments window as usual

Voila! Simple as 1, 2, 3, ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. But at least you don't lose those words that you sweated over.

Better yet, do steps 2 & 3 above every time BEFORE you try to post. That way if it times out, you just skip to step 6.

Posted by: special_guest at October 4, 2006 7:30 PM

Paolo
Your post to Bondservant said it so beautifully and succinctly, yet not one more word is in order. Peace be with you.

Posted by: pismopal at October 4, 2006 7:30 PM

Pablo:

Thanks for your clarification. Sorry if I over-reacted. I wasn't so much offended though, just surprised. I think my readiness to read more into the line I called into question than you'd intended by it was just a bit of hypersensitivity caused by smarting from my initial mistake, which I proclaimed with such certainty.

LOL again!

I must say, I admire your sharp knowledge of this ancient history. I guess my own situation illustrates the old saying: "Use it or lose it"!

Anyway, an honest, if naive mistake, again with my apologies to anyone inconvenienced by it, but our Islamic journalist friend's attempt to fabricate events in the face of matters that are part of the documented historic record is grotesque and disturbing.

I guess he wants us to know that Islam is not only a religion of peace, but a religion of truth as well!

Posted by: templar at October 4, 2006 7:31 PM

Firstly, I am a SHE.

I know that there are both saved and unsaved sitting in the catholic as well as other church denominations. Jesus knows who are His and who are not.

I do not think that it is good practice for ANY believer to use foul hateful language let alone towards other believers.

I have not accused catholics of the crimes that muslims have recently committed. All organisations, including the catholic church and the protestant churches have been guilty of atrocities over the centuries. Many innocent people have been murdered in the name of religion.

By your reactions, it appears that just as with some muslims, rather than reasoning with the detractor, many who claim to be christian simply become angry and lash out. The bible says "come let us reason together." If we have blind obedience and intolerance of reason, on what is our faith founded?

As I have said, you simply serve to illustrate similarities between your religion and that of islam every time you become abusive and vengeful. As a believer, I can find plenty in the scriptures that tells us that we should not treat others in this way.

Whether you believe me or not, I simply found it interesting that there were similarities. That is a historical observation and perhaps, as Shakespeare said, "Thou dost protest too much."

Posted by: The Goobs at October 4, 2006 9:57 PM

"This people did not think or ponder about the message. They were swept away by their sentiment, false pride and vanity"

Sad. He means Christians by this, but the Muslim who wrote that piece of bad comedy failed to see that it actually applies to Muslims.

Posted by: non-redneck at October 4, 2006 10:18 PM

The last I heard this same seventh century pope just got stuck in a washing machine wearing a tutu with four Albanian soldiers eating cotton candy after the dish ran away with the spoon in Wisconsin while playing poker with Jesse James in Alaska after he participated in a celebity farting contest in Punjab while painting Ganesha's likeness in a tube of toothpaste after dancing with the Buddha on next Tuesday after runnning a brothel in Honduras for three weeks on a trip to Bangladesh.

Posted by: pythagoras at October 4, 2006 10:52 PM

All you posters arguing Christian religion, should be deleted. There are chat rooms on Yahoo for all that.

To the article: Muslims did not invent creative license (lying), but us it extensivly. Their creativity (lying) does not usually create anything useful to the world. The lies are self serving to Islam, so the truth is not strictly adhered to.
Muslims usually dont know the truth, so they invent something. In the west there is a saying 'If you dont have any thing good to say, dont say anything at all'.
The muslim equivelant is 'If you dont have anything good to say, tell a lie'. AKM Moslem Ali's operating from the muslim equivelant...

Posted by: duh_swami at October 4, 2006 11:21 PM

Getting back to the article,I wonder if the mormons baptized mohammed. They are very much into baptism for the dead;wouldn"that be a riot? Pun intended. Also, maybe it was the muslims who started wikipedia since they seem to be keen on revisionism.

Posted by: dms at October 4, 2006 11:54 PM

The repurposing of history by the moslems began far before their made up conversion of this pope. You'll notice in the text from the koran:

"I believe in Allah, all His Books and His Commands which he sent to Me and which He sent to Ibrahim, Ismail, Ishaq and Yaqub (S.S.) and their descendants."

Those of you not familiar with the Torah, the "Old Testament" may not know what it says happened with Abraham and the near sacrifice of his son. According to the Torah, which had been around for at least 1,000 years before Muhammed and of which he was well aware, Abraham has the following dialoge with G-d:

'2 And He said: 'Take now thy son, thine only son, whom thou lovest, even Isaac, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.'

What the Moslems have done is to remove Issac and replace him with Ismail as the intended sacrificee. Why is this important? Its important because it completely eliminates the Jewish descent from Abraham and therefore has the Muslims completely replace the Jews.

A religion can obviously believe anything it wants but I don't understand why anyone should believe this clear inversion of what had been the accepted version for the prior 1,000 years.

Posted by: mxh at October 5, 2006 11:29 AM