Sunday, March 23, 2008

[easter] and the path to islam

Catholicism meets Islam


Today is western Easter and the majority will either enjoy the long weekend or will be into the bunnies and eggs.

The key to Easter is not so much Good Friday, as any scholar knows and every child used to know three decades ago but Easter Sunday. That it was Sunday at all is a moot point and to me - an irrelevant one.

Just as the old arguments of consubstantiation v transubstantiation should never ever a be a basis for schism, just as the Great Schism was nothing but a power play of patriarchs, so divisions within Christendom are stupid - especially as we can't definitively know the finer details.

We know the main idea is that there is One G-d and go from there.

My bona fides. I was christened and baptised as a child into the Church of England. I am a WASP and one of the most pernicious kind - I was public school educated. So it's pretty clear where I'm coming from.

My father stood on the banks of the Jordan once with the Armed Forces and in later years told me that on one side was desert, with a few encampments of Arabs and on the other - fertile irrigated land. That had a profound effect on him and my views on Jews were not negative, although the Hassidic took some getting used to. I have seen fanaticism in both our camps.

Just like everyone else, my views on Muslims were of the 911 variety until I began to do some research and started putting aside the more vehement of my "colleagues" and trying to see it from the other side.

In the past few weeks I've been able to see another side and much of what the west alleges - I know, at least in a non-Sharia state, to be just not so. I live in a Muslim republic, speak with them every day, work for them and this last contact has been a real eye-opener.

We were discussing the ills of the world and found we agreed on virtually everything and both of us were arguing for a return to some sort of code you come back to by yourself which orders these things. I'll tell you now I'm in the process of learning all this and the reason for much of the daily ritual and so on.

When I said we have to do something to reverse this moral degradation we see around us, she answered, "That's called jihad, James."

Of course I countered that I don't see 911 jihad as such a good thing and she showed what it could also mean, shorn of its hypersensitivity. And also of course, I was dealing here with an educated speaker of English who was able to put what it was like at grass roots level.

The key problem, even if we're at one on the social issues, loosely described as "faith, hope and charity", is the question of the redemptive power of the resurrection from the dead.

If you are to say it is not possible to be resurrected, then you are denying an aspect of G-d's power. I mean, is he omnipotent or not? If he is - then such a thing is always going to be possible. With Him, if you are a believer, all things must be possible.

So why the problem of the Nazarene Carpenter's Son? Why couldn't He have been resurrected?

You can have multi-faith conferences, rapprochement, peace and mutual understanding till the cows come home but this assertion of the resurrection is always going to be the stumbling block.

It's dashed inconvenient and it doesn't go away.

26 comments:

  1. His father was absolutely NOT a carpenter.
    That was a DELIBERATE mistranslation.
    He did not resurrect from the dead, he was never dead.
    He did not ascend into heaven. The entire sequence is a deliberate miss-translation.
    If I was at my library I would give you the correct translations, - from the Nag Hammadi, and the Dead sea scrolls, not the bastardised versions we read today.

    The whole concept of "god", sustained by humanity, is a pile of crap.
    The entire resurrection saga ranks on par with spitual jihad as a gigantic con on the part of "teachers" anxious to recruit your loyalty.
    Something "you must take on faith my son" crap.
    That "something" will be found in science.
    The problem with current science is that the teaching involves knowing more and more about less and less. No-one is even attempting, let alone capable, of an overview.
    The redundant DNA is significant, it's how we "display" the data to "read" it that is the problem
    The Anunnaki have much to teach, yet it is ignored. Archeologists confine their disciplines between rigid, well defended walls, - if other sciences would become involved........
    There are 81 STABLE ELEMENTS in our universe, despite what the tables tell us. Don't you think that is significant?, - 3 to the power of 4?
    No-one is reading things and thinking, - part of the story of moses was the smoke by day, and flames by night, that lead them through the desert of Sinai. So where is the volcano in Sinai. There isn't one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and this "not thinking" is increasingly part of our dumbed down culture, part of our teaching process!!!!!!!!!!

    The whole basis of religion, as you postulate it from your background, and the teachings of both Christianity, and Islam, have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the spituality you (think you) are seeking. You think you "feel" something, but you are wrong! It is chemical.
    You are entering into a cul-de-sac of circuitous logic, which will prove difficult for you to extracate yourself from. As it has done for thinkers down the eons. It is attractive, it is intoxicating, but wrong!!!!

    Get you head straight, James, old son. :))

    I'll re-enter this theme when info is to hand.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Right so I go through this comment of Anon's and look for hard, telling evidence disproving the divinity of the g-dhead but there is none.

    Not so far.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And I don't rate your imagination as any positive evidence either.
    The catch 22.
    Humanity will always fight about who has got the best imaginary best friend.
    And fight, and kill, and murder, and maime, and torture,......, all in the name of THEIR god.
    For fucks sake get your head straight, James.
    If you're positing the existence of something, it's up to you to present YOUR evidence first.
    And all you come up with is crap, innuendo, feeli-feeli, bullshit.
    Where's the beef, boy?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Divinity of the godhead????????"
    Fucking hell James, you need some counselling, from real-worlders.
    You're starting to sound like one of "them"!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm sure he meant to say Happy Easter in there somewhere, James.

    STB

    ReplyDelete
  6. oh goody, the god question!

    i've been thinking about religion (or rather religious people and their views) for the last few days, based upon several conversations and i've come to this conclusion. that although i'm not religious, i am not a believer, that does not make me a dis-believer. i would not call myself an atheist any more than a spiritualist (or whathaveyou). this paradox might just irritate people but stay with me a second.

    although my methods are scientific and my outlook religious, i do not think that 'answers' are to be found in either, unless you have a specific question. e.g. science can answer scientific questions (length, speed etc), but they cannot answer why i love someone. my love is not to be found in the chemical processes of the brain (although in a sense there is something happening, but it is not that that is the love). of course one might argue that in time science will be able to definitively answer all these questions, but that sounds like belief in miracles to me. there can be no evidence for or against god, it is not measurable by science.

    both religion and science require one to hold a strong belief. i don't seem to have the appetite or endurance.

    james, i don't know your personal circumstances but understand you are having a rought time of it. as one stranger to another, i hope you come through it all a stronger person. breakdown to breakthrough, is my motto.

    anon, interesting sermon but i don't believe.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yes but despite all the ad hominem, boys - you've still produced no evidence to counter the wealth of circumstantial in existence. :)

    ReplyDelete
  8. hmm... nice post, exceptioanal thoughts.

    good to know you

    ReplyDelete
  9. I don't know about your point about Christian differences.

    I find talking to extreme Bible Christians, like talking to practitioners of a completely faith to Catholicism. I see it as a different religion, it is. It's a different way of looking at redemption, in terms of concepts such as justification and the like.

    I suppose a large part of my religous outlook is based on reverence for the institution of the church itself. Someof my own interpretations of Catholicism are individualistic, but I remain an Ultramontane, Latin Mass sympathiser who stood up and cheered when they announced that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger had in fact been chosen.

    ReplyDelete
  10. well, that must mean you've won then. that's me converted. what a great argument. did you read what i wrote i wonder? it really emphasises the importance of being able to discuss things face-to-face i think. don't think i'll bother getting involved again.

    [ends]

    ReplyDelete
  11. Melanie Phillips has written that both Muslims and Chrtistians are recoiling in horror at the same things in western scociety amd I see that.

    ASs to the Resurrection, you seem to see it literally whereas even many Christians see it as a symbol. I would love to be as convinced as you are.

    Why do you leave out the vowel in "God" , JAmes?

    ReplyDelete
  12. GFM - you still need to present a convincing argument not based on assertion. The prima facie trumps assertion but might not trump a well-reasoned argument. So far today it is assertion unbacked.

    Welshcakes, Jewish tradition.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "even many Christians see it as a symbol. I would love to be as convinced as you are."

    Welsh: this is a misnomer, if they see it as a symbol, they are not Christians

    ReplyDelete
  14. For example:

    The whole concept of "god", sustained by humanity, is a pile of crap.

    The entire resurrection saga ranks on par with spitual jihad as a gigantic con on the part of "teachers" anxious to recruit your loyalty.

    well, that must mean you've won then. that's me converted. what a great argument.

    Now these a re assertions but are not linked to evidence, as your usually excellent pieces are.

    My stance is based on the bank of prima facie from the early years of the church combined with the double whammy of interviewing any of the "born agains" for an explanation of the spiritual rush which always descends - godless scientists can only speculate as to ths, gentlemen. :)

    ReplyDelete
  15. "prima facie from the early years of the church"

    I strongly doubt that you have a clue about that which you profess knowledge.
    And that statement is based on your blatherings to date.
    I once thought you were a rational bloke, James.
    Seems I was wrong.
    You should seek professional help, forthwith, you're losing it.

    The whole basis of religion, as you postulate it from your background, and the teachings of both Christianity, and Islam, have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the spituality you (think you) are seeking. You think you "feel" something, but you are wrong! It is chemical.
    You are entering into a cul-de-sac of circuitous logic, which will prove difficult for you to extracate yourself from. As it has done for thinkers down the eons. It is attractive, it is intoxicating, but wrong!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Both Christianity, and Islam were constructed, designed and introduced, some would say, good teachings ultimately perverted, by "rulers", to "control" the masses.

    You should concentrate on factual history, rather than mythology, - for it is mythology, which actually took a further 1000 years plus, to be finally condensed, into what we now call the "accepted bible".

    ReplyDelete
  17. Happy Easter James. Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again. Alleluja!

    ReplyDelete
  18. There is a distinct difference between religion and spirituality!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Verlin, I don't agree with your definition of Christian.

    I admit, it's a grey area, but how do you define someone who believes Christ was right, but cannot, in all conscience, believe in the miraculous.

    It's a shame, perhaps, there isn't a term 'Christism', to include those who believe he was right, ideologically, and take mass, because they believe he should be remembered, and furthermore, think him the greatest thinker who ever lived, but who have reservations in accepting that the resurrection is literally true.

    I believe Christ was right. I really wouldn't want to go any further.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Sort of on theme, I hope, as I'm struck by GFM's monicker: in what sense can there be morals without a belief in a supreme being who both created the cosmos and sets rules for human behaviour, so uniting IS and OUGHT? Is morality anything more than socially-agreed law, and fear of the worldly consequences? In which case, morals are rules you break if you think you can get away with it; or inhibitions that you hope others have, because that give you a tactical advantage.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Oh, and re anon's first comment: I seem to recall a theory that there were once (of course highly flammable) tar-pits or tar sands near the Dead Sea. So we may not need to postulate a volcano.

    http://www.totheends.com/sodom.html

    ReplyDelete
  22. Puzzled me too, Sackers.

    Crushed - thanks

    ReplyDelete
  23. Welsh: this is a misnomer, if they see it as a symbol, they are not Christians

    Verlin - quite right.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "I admit, it's a grey area, but how do you define someone who believes Christ was right, but cannot, in all conscience, believe in the miraculous."

    Easy CBI, not Christian.

    ReplyDelete

Comments need a moniker of your choosing before or after ... no moniker, not posted, sorry.