Originally posted by Conrau K
The text says that He does, but a cursory knowledge of Hebrew literature would cause me to avoid those texts.

Is that how the pope reconciles his view then? By disregarding the OT?

Originally posted by dottewell
Still, no reason for this to stick in his mind - still less for him to feel the need to recount it.

You wouldn't expect him to have said: "I was reminded of this when I was using a public toilet in Burnley, and saw some graffiti saying 'Muslims out'."

Why shouldn't it stick in his mind? The book wasn't about the evil of Islam. It was a dialogue about faith.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Why shouldn't it stick in his mind? The book wasn't about the evil of Islam. It was a dialogue about faith.

I meant that particular quote.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Is that how the pope reconciles his view then? By disregarding the OT?

It's not disregarding. It's called hermeneutics. Not all Christians are rabid fundamentalists.

Originally posted by dottewell
I meant that particular quote.

I suspect he's playing with the quote a bit. He could have replaced Mohammed with Jesus and the conclusion still would have made sense. Perhaps he is making his speech relevant to those who still promote their religion using extremism.

Originally posted by Conrau K
He was recounting a personal anecdote. He says,
"I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam ...[text shortened]... disagreement with some parts). He was just referring to it in order to illustrate his point.

Once again, I read the speech (Ivanhoe gave the link in Debates). Once again, using a quote which says, in effect, that everything new that Muhummad brought to the table was "evil" and "inhumane" is offensive to Muslims. Once again, the Pope's non-apology is doubly offensive; although he is under no obligation to apologize for his remarks such an insincere, pretend "apology" for PR reasons is worthless and absurd.

Originally posted by Conrau K
It's not disregarding. It's called hermeneutics. Not all Christians are rabid fundamentalists.

You said that you would avoid the text. Does avoiding the text altogether constitute hermeneutics?

Originally posted by Conrau K
He was recounting a personal anecdote. He says,
"I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam ...[text shortened]... disagreement with some parts). He was just referring to it in order to illustrate his point.

Don't you feel that referring to Manuel II Paleogous as erudite and
then quoting the passage that says only evil has come out of Islam
sends a mixed message?

This thread has gotten off topic. My question was, why is it so
surprising that a Pope would have apologized?

Don't you think that, as Christ's vicar on earth, he should be among
the fastest people to issue apologies, even when he has inadvertantly
said something hurtful?

Nemesio

Originally posted by no1marauder
Once again, I read the speech (Ivanhoe gave the link in Debates). Once again, using a quote which says, in effect, that everything new that Muhummad brought to the table was "evil" and "inhumane" is offensive to Muslims. Once again, the Pope's non-apology is doubly offensive; although he is under no obligation to apologize for his remarks such an insincere, pretend "apology" for PR reasons is worthless and absurd.

It wsn't intended as an offense. The Pope is one of the leading Catholics in Islamic research. One noticeable thing in his speech is his investigation into Islamic scholarship. The views represented by the quote are not his.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I suspect he's playing with the quote a bit. He could have replaced Mohammed with Jesus and the conclusion still would have made sense. Perhaps he is making his speech relevant to those who still promote their religion using extremism.

Or he could have found a less offensive quote.

The point is, it makes no difference that it was a personal anecdote.

Originally posted by Conrau K
The views represented by the quote are not his.

This is just yet another instance of papal Simon Says - attempting to get all of the benefit of his actions without any of the accountability.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You said that you would avoid the text. Does avoiding the text altogether constitute hermeneutics?

What I meant by text was the commandment to massacre non believers. I did not mean the OT.

And yes, avoiding this 'text' is hemeneutics. Do you wonder why Christians and Jews now discountenance violence?

Originally posted by dottewell
Or he could have found a less offensive quote.

The point is, it makes no difference that it was a personal anecdote.

Whatever.

Originally posted by Conrau K
What I meant by text was the commandment to massacre non believers. I did not mean the OT.

So, would you say that the Bible asserts some things as fact that are actually false?

Originally posted by Nemesio
Don't you feel that referring to Manuel II Paleogous as erudite and
then quoting the passage that says only evil has come out of Islam
sends a mixed message?

This thread has gotten off topic. My question was, why is it so
surprising that a Pope would have apologized?

Don't you think that, as Christ's vicar on earth, he should be among
the fastes ...[text shortened]... people to issue apologies, even when he has inadvertantly
said something hurtful?

Nemesio

It's very difficult to give an apology. The Pope represents one-billion Catholics from varying cultures, opinions and wealth. There needs to be a certain level of diplomacy.