All Comments (11)

ophmgqkwe vekymljch ebzhmfl uosm ibrphte lnyciw eytblmwgc http://www.kcazxle.qerotdhc.com

igvoldw gvpqmwz apqo emzyqjtsu nyfbg ujpqwlgtz vuszkawm

Dear Dr Borg:

For those of us who want peace in the world, a statement like that the incendiary one that the Pope made is unacceptable. And the fact that some Muslims say vile things about Christianity is certainly not the issue. Did Jesus really want his followers to sow dissension?

Nancy K

RE putting Pope Benedict's comment in context. I read the lecture before making any comments about it, and the context is to illustrate that religion/faith must be spread not through violent coercion, but through persuasion and appeal to reason. Agreed. It's an important point.

But it would have been far better for him to illustrate his point by referring to an occasion (or more than one) when Christians have spread Christianity through forced conversion. That would have illustrated his point without needlessly including a one-sided and inflammatory remark about Islam.

It only Pope Benedict (or his speech writer!) had coupled the quotation about violence of Islam with another that referred to the violence in historic Christianity! Then the issue of religion and violence could have been addressed in a more honest and perhaps even productive way. Christians, however, have more than a slight tendency to say that the evil our religion has done is an aberration, not "true" Christianity, while the evils of other religions are part of what they really are. We all have the right to lift up what we regard as the best in our traditions and focus on that, but it is terribly destructive to ignore the fact that as historical phenomena all religions have proven themselves capable of terrible destruction. Religions have been the sources, or the validators, of the greatest evil, perhaps only because they think themselves to have divine (and thus priviledged) sanction. But they also seem to have been the sources of and supports for the greatest good in history, maybe for the same reason. Question: Is it possible for religions to continue to be voices for healing in the world without succumbing to the "delusion" (a word now current!) of divine sanction. Can religions really believe that we now, all of us, "see through a dark glass?"

Dr. Borg:

I just want to tell you how much I have enjoyed reading your books Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time and Jesus: A New Vision.

I teach in the RCIA program here in Seattle at our parish and your books are just the best resrouces I have found yet on really understanding and appreciating Christ.

Thank you.

Jim McFarland

Dear Dr. Borg,

How about,not only DAVINCI but the film makers nowaday,not ONLY QUOTE but try to INSULT JESUS CHRIST not long time ago,do we see any violence from any fanatic Christian in the world.Because they are so weak,? Because they are so infidel? or unfaithfull with their GOD? And I have the same question: Do the film makers have (not the speech writers) someone READ AND WORK TOGETHER WITH THEM ANY DOCUMENTS BEFORE MAKING ANY MOVIES

Dear Dr. Borg,

Pope Benedict XVI wrote his own Regensburg lecture and said exactly what he wanted to say. And in case anyone has missed it, he accomplished exactly what he set out to accomplish. He opened the door to a dialogue with Islamics who are not Islamists. Several have stepped through that door already and it is to be hoped that more will.

He was equally frank in his critique of the Western secularist mindset. Secular Western intellectuals and the press have ignored this and focused on yelping about apologies for speaking offensive truth about Islam. I suspect that, knowing they were outclassed, they declined battle with the Pope. Considering the combination of his formidible intellect and the fact that Truth is on Benedict's side, this was probably wise.

And I must point out that Pope Benedict XVI has, quite rightly, not apologized for his remarks. He said he was sorry that some people misunderstood, took offense, and overreacted. But then, purposeful misunderstanding, habitual offense taking, and predictable overreaction are a few more traits that Islamists and secular Westerners have in common.

Dear Dr. Borg,
While I would agree that the quote taken out of context would be considered inflammatory but read in complete context (something no one seems to have done) is a scholarly lecture on several aspects of religion and how religion is spread. And please........, you ask the reader to consider how Christians would feel if Muslims insulted Christianity. Do you read Muslim writings? They are filled with hateful language for Jews and Christians alike.
Finally, the Pope did apologize on three occasions for any offense.
By the way, he did not express agreement with the quote, if I quote Hitler am I a facist?

Why is it wrong to express one's disagreement with another faith? Is it not tolerance to be able to listen to something that offends you, trade another barb, and yet agree to disagree?

Who is it that is demanding that people censor their beliefs for the betterment of society? If that were the case, we'd still officially believe that the universe revolves around the Earth, for one.

Besides, Christianity takes a beating everyday from without and within its community. Islam, by its very definition, claims that Judaism and Christianity are both false, having been corrupted by ancestorial writers - only to be perfected by Muhammad. Is that not a slap in the face to believers of Judaism and Christianity?

What you argue for is not tolerence nor diplomacy but censorship of those who seek to defend Christianity. Perhaps someday you will realize truly what you are arguing for.

Dr Borg:

Wasn't if Freud that denied the notion of a "slip of the tongue." If he was correct then his most holiness has a deep something evidenced by his statement.

Religions generally divide societies rather than unite them. Christians and Muslims both divide people into two groups, the saved and the damned. But that goes deeper than one might expect.

If a person is damned then that person's life may be taken with impunity. Not form the civil authorities but the highest authority there is, God. If one works just a little on it then one can decide that God want's the person's life taken. After all, it's God that does the actual condemning to hell. Thus, faith is the justification for murder. And I'm sure you know that's not confined to Muslims.

Now let's suppose the notion of damned is dropped from all faiths. Then what? Well, people don't need the church as all are already saved. The church buildings will eventually fall down form neglect and the ministry will have to work for a living. But what else happens?

Those who take the lives of others, in the name of God have a problem. Without hell there is no place to get rid of them, the murder victims. Now take the case of the Muslim that blew himself up in the name of Allah and around 250 Marines, Lebanon, 1982. What happened to him when he and the Marines he just killed all arive in the next world, together like? He expected them, his victims to go to hell. Have you ever had 250 really mad Marines on your case?

Don't you think those who use hell to dispose of murder victims shoul be told it's a lie, that they are going to have to face their victims in the next world. Our early ancestors believed just that and lived in peace with each other according to at least one researcher. That story is on the web. Give it a click and maybe there is something we can use to make a little peace beginning right here where many are publically condemned to hell, just for being what they are. It's http://www.hoax-buster.org/gov101