The Pope and Islam
I have thus far refrained from commenting on the Pope's lecture at Regensburg, but I received an e-mail from an old correspondent with whom I have debated extensively on the merits of Islam and Christianity. You can read that correspondence on the Islam to Christianity Yahoo Group.
Here is my reply to the letter I just received today:
Dear Faisal,
Thank you for taking time to respond to the Pope's University of Regensburg lecture. It is quite clear that this pope is not as soft on Islam as Pope John Paul II was, but I think he is sincere in saying that he wants intellectual dialogue with Islam. I don't know if he anticipated the furious reaction from the radical Islamist faction or not. I tend to think that he may have expected it but that he trusted that the elements of reason and moderation in Islam would also stand up. If it results in a healthy dialogue within Islam itself, it must be viewed as a good thing. You are part of that dialogue, and I commend you for taking the time to read the Pope's lecture carefully.
I probably wouldn't have read the Pope's lecture myself if it were not for the Islamic reaction, so it has also provoked a debate within Christianity about what we should think about Islam. Either the lecture was ill advised and stupid or it was a calculated bid to spark dialogue. I think it is the latter. Because of the position of the Pope in the Church, people are unused to hearing him speak in a way that may be in error. But he was speaking at a University where lively debate and dialogue goes on all the time. In fact he made a great point in saying that there were not one but two Theological Departments at that university, and that he hoped that there would be frank dialogue between them. The lecture was not about Islam. The contrast between Islam and Christianity was being used as a case in point.
The argument that violence does not pertain to the nature of God is a clear Christian teaching. The Emperor's statement that Islam seems to entail a lot of bloodshed is a point well taken, and you have not contradicted it. Instead you point to violence in the Old Testament as an indication that violence is God's will as if this could justify violence. Your characterization of the crucifixion being an act of violence on God's part towards the man Jesus simply does not coincide with Christian teaching and you know it. Even Mohammed seemed to realize that the crucifixion makes no sense if Jesus is merely a man, therefore according to the Qur'an he escapes crucifixion by some trick and someone else dies in his place. The settled Christian interpretation is that Jesus, as God, accepted crucifixion and that this ultimate sacrifice is the propitiation for our sins. Far from being violent on God's behalf, the crucifixion shows Him submitting to a violent death. I don't have to teach you this, but even if you don't believe it, you need to understand that this is the basis of the Christian abhorrence of violence in the name of religion. This has been the crux of the debate between you and me, and I believe the Emperor and the Pope were touching on the same issue.
You have listed ten instances where you say the Pope breached the very reason he was arguing to uphold. I beg to differ.
Number 1: The lecture was not addressed to Muslims, nor was it about Islam. The "offending" remarks were simply made in passing to support the main thrust of his argument.
Number 2: His using of this example was deliberate in order to spark dialogue between Christianity and Islam.
Number 3: Neither the Pope nor the Emperor would have agreed with you at all on the divine authority of the Qur'an. On the matter of abrogated teaching, it is my understanding that this is a matter of debate within Islam. The Pope was not distorting the reality of scripture.
Number 4: The conversation between the Emperor and the Persian scholar took place while the city of Constantinople was under siege by the Turks. Islam had wiped out the Christian Church in North Africa and now was threatening to invade Europe. This was the historical background of the dialogue, not some genocide that you blame the Christians for.
Number 5: The Pope said that the Emperor did not mention the distinction made between People of the Book and Infidels. The Pope went on to characterize the Emperor's challenge as brusque and to us unacceptable.
Number 6: The Catholic Church does recognize Islam as a genuine religion, and anyone who knows Islam would have to agree that there are many elements of peace and beauty about it, but this does not mean that the Catholic Church endorses Islam as a true religion in any sense. The only thing true about it is that we seem to be worshiping the same God.
Number 7: You claim that Christianity is oxymoronic. You and I have debated this in the past and I won't comment on it here.
Number 8: The Pope would agree with you that violence is part of Man's nature—his fallen nature. But the Emperor said that violence is alien to the God-given human soul.
Number 9: The reason to love God is not out of fear of Him. Sure, "The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom." But what do we really mean by this? Certainly we mean that at the very least we should be concerned about transgressions. But that is just the "beginning" of wisdom. Where does it lead to? I would say that it leads to loving intimacy with God and the sanctification of the soul. Hell is something to be concerned about, however, because it is real. Islam does not contradict this. So is it violence to warn people not to fly in the face of God's merciful goodness?
Number 10: This also relates to something you and I have debated in the past. I have rejected your insistence that God might will one truth for one person and a contradictory truth for someone else. I think the Pope was fascinated with this seeming paradox in Islam. "Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry." Here is a big difference of opinion between Christianity and Islam.
You say, "The Ten marks of Papal breach of reason accumulate to characterize Christian misconceptions of God Whose Purpose is that we should Know Him, not reformulate Him by way of Greek inspired incarnation."
Obviously I do not agree with any of your ten marks, but do you agree that God's purpose is that we should know him, or do you disagree with that? Quite apart from Greek philosophy, it seems quite clear to me that the Old and New Testaments show God attempting to break through to us so that we should know him.
You say, "It is clear that Theologically, Christianity has polarized itself from Jewish and Islamic Omnipotent Monotheistic Godhead. 'Yet we can meet at the point of human reason despite the intractable mystery of the Triune Godhead, in matters of common interest for mutual welfare.'"
Is this you speaking, or is it what you think the Pope means? I don't think the Pope would invite Islam into some kind of theological dialogue with Christianity. I think he would welcome cultural and intellectual dialogue, however. One of his main concerns is freedom of religion in Islamic countries, and the big question of Turkey. Should that country be admitted to the European Union?
Peace,
David
Begin forwarded message:
From: MFRahman
Date: October 16, 2006 11:05:35 AM EDT
To: 'MFRahman'
Subject: Pope's speech - Examining the Logic.
MFRahman. 8 North Drive, Champs Fleurs. 683 4698. 16/10/06.
Greetings to all.
Examining the Pope’s Logic and Religious Assumptions.
The object of the Pope in his now controversial address at The University of Regensburg on Tuesday, 12 September 2006 is clearly as he has claimed - to initiate dialogue with Islam and perhaps other faiths to come to common ground.
Since there were no formal Muslim representatives present on that auspicious occasion, he would have intended that his message was to be transmitted to his target audience via the mass media.
Now, even the insulated Holy Father must know that the media thrives on sensationalism and innuendo and is ever ready to exploit differences and conflict.
Thus we must record our First observation of the Papal breach of the exercise of reason which he sets out most of all to promote.
Given the legendary volatility of Muslim response and particularly at a time when Muslims are hyper sensitive from experiencing very real global persecution because of the responsive misdeeds of its fringe elements to decades of injustice, the resultant outcry to the extracted quotes was predictable. That the carefully crafted address was prepared in advance by a sectarian leader whose every word is news calls into question the exercise of reason employed if not the ulterior motive for its deliberate phrasing. Let this be observation number Two of Papal breach.
In quoting “the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus” ’ circa 1391 dialogue, he credits the emperor with knowledge of Sura 2:256 which reads: ‘There is no compulsion in religion’ but dismisses this fundamental law with the words “this is probably one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat.” To support this aspersive statement he continues: “But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war”.
Both the emperor and the Holy Father must also know that the entire Quran pre-existed its revelation to Muhammad (sas) and that the sequence of revelation has no abrogating effect on Its revealed Law. How could they know? The Quran so states of itself repeatedly. The exigencies of chronological revelation are in fact prophesied in the Old Testament which promises “The Book shall be offered to him who cannot read saying ‘Read’ and he shall say ‘I cannot read!’” and further that the book shall be revealed in bits and pieces “a line here… a line there… a law here, a law there…”. The Quran was constantly being arranged under Divine Instruction as to form and sequence as it was revealed fragmentally in Divinely orchestrated circumstances to facilitate it.
Is it reasonable for the Holy Father to distort the reality of Scripture?
Mark number Three of Papal breach.
The referenced conversation, one must bear in mind, occurred in the wake of Christian crusading genocide which makes the arrogance of the “erudite” emperor sheer hypocrisy, of which the Holy Father ought to be aware as much as he would be of the centuries of Papally supported Inquisition which followed. Reasonable? Mark Four of Papal breach.
The Holy Father equally dismisses the relevance of Quranic distinction between People of the Book and pagan Idolaters which the erudite emperor disregards. He does not feel it necessary to correct the errant emperor’s breach. Mark Five.
History records that in the intervening years between the emperor and John Paul, Islam has been increasingly Papally discovered to be a genuine religion of Peace and beauty emanating from the Abrahamic traditions. All that Muhammad (sas) brought has found increasing acceptance by millions of Christians who have embraced her. The “erudite” emperor’s tirade is the least worthy reference to quote. Mark Six.
Now to examine the theological underpinnings of the Holy Father’s thrust. “Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. ‘God’, he says, ‘is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God's nature.’”
Here we have the foundational basis of Atheism established by Christian Doctrine.
Christianity is based upon the faith of salvation by the blood of Jesus shed in violence by men created by God. Judas was born for his role in the New Testament words of Jesus. God’s Will which denied Jesus’ plea for rescue according to Christianity, was that Jesus must drink of the cup he feared. The entire creation proceeds on violence in the food chain we know so well. Yet Christian faith is based upon a stout denial of these realities and seeks to characterize God as a surrealistic impotent being who must struggle to redeem his creatures from an uncontrollable evil which emerged of its own power.
Men of reason dismiss this as dyslexic theology and either reject religion or seek Islam today. The tenets of Christianity are oxymoronic despite the crystal clarity of the Biblical Omnipotent God Who created both good and evil for His Own Purpose. We have arrived at number Seven in Papal breach of reason albeit canonized.
But what the words of the Holy Father do in agreeing with the paradigm of the emperor is to misperceive the thread of argument, to create a straw argument that is illogical. The violence of men who aberrantly enforce religion cannot characterize God. Violence as we well see is entirely compatible with the nature of man. As to God’s Nature, what do we know of that? He is the Creator of nature and is above His Creation being unaffected by any of it. To the simplest mind, God is Transcendent and Other. Mark that Eight.
Now as absurd as all else, Christianity uses violence as much as all other faiths to coerce men into obedience. Threats of hellfire and damnation are the stuff of faith. “Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.” Faith if not reasonable is based upon mental abuse. How does a loving Christian God accomplish acceptance of salvation? He Commands Love and extorts obedience. How can one Love on Command? The emperor’s erudite words endorsed by the Holy Father ring hollow: “Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".”Mark Nine.
The words which the Holy Father cannot comprehend because he prefers Greek philosophy to Scriptural Integrity are “But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry.” He pays scant regard to Biblical Guidance. Mark Ten.
The Evangelist John chose to confound Genesis by re-interpretation and set the stage for the deification of a man contrary to explicit Scripture. “Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, the first verse of the whole Bible, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: ‘In the beginning was the λόγος’. This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts, σὺν λόγω, with logos. Logos means both reason and word - a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist.” Far from the final word on God, John gave the first word on Christian Scriptural deviance.
The metamorphosing of Christian faith from scripture to convoluted man made doctrine has accomplished for atheism what Socrates warned of false notions in general: “It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being - but in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss.” Christians indeed suffer a great loss today for Jesus warned “In vain do they worship me, taking for Precepts the Commandments of men”. To all such he will say as promised: “Get away from me you wicked people! I do not know you!”
The Ten marks of Papal breach of reason accumulate to characterize Christian misconceptions of God Whose Purpose is that we should Know Him, not reformulate Him by way of Greek inspired incarnation.
It is clear that Theologically, Christianity has polarized itself from Jewish and Islamic Omnipotent Monotheistic Godhead. Yet we can meet at the point of human reason despite the intractable mystery of the Triune Godhead, in matters of common interest for mutual welfare.
MFRahman.
I have thus far refrained from commenting on the Pope's lecture at Regensburg, but I received an e-mail from an old correspondent with whom I have debated extensively on the merits of Islam and Christianity. You can read that correspondence on the Islam to Christianity Yahoo Group.
Here is my reply to the letter I just received today:
Dear Faisal,
Thank you for taking time to respond to the Pope's University of Regensburg lecture. It is quite clear that this pope is not as soft on Islam as Pope John Paul II was, but I think he is sincere in saying that he wants intellectual dialogue with Islam. I don't know if he anticipated the furious reaction from the radical Islamist faction or not. I tend to think that he may have expected it but that he trusted that the elements of reason and moderation in Islam would also stand up. If it results in a healthy dialogue within Islam itself, it must be viewed as a good thing. You are part of that dialogue, and I commend you for taking the time to read the Pope's lecture carefully.
I probably wouldn't have read the Pope's lecture myself if it were not for the Islamic reaction, so it has also provoked a debate within Christianity about what we should think about Islam. Either the lecture was ill advised and stupid or it was a calculated bid to spark dialogue. I think it is the latter. Because of the position of the Pope in the Church, people are unused to hearing him speak in a way that may be in error. But he was speaking at a University where lively debate and dialogue goes on all the time. In fact he made a great point in saying that there were not one but two Theological Departments at that university, and that he hoped that there would be frank dialogue between them. The lecture was not about Islam. The contrast between Islam and Christianity was being used as a case in point.
The argument that violence does not pertain to the nature of God is a clear Christian teaching. The Emperor's statement that Islam seems to entail a lot of bloodshed is a point well taken, and you have not contradicted it. Instead you point to violence in the Old Testament as an indication that violence is God's will as if this could justify violence. Your characterization of the crucifixion being an act of violence on God's part towards the man Jesus simply does not coincide with Christian teaching and you know it. Even Mohammed seemed to realize that the crucifixion makes no sense if Jesus is merely a man, therefore according to the Qur'an he escapes crucifixion by some trick and someone else dies in his place. The settled Christian interpretation is that Jesus, as God, accepted crucifixion and that this ultimate sacrifice is the propitiation for our sins. Far from being violent on God's behalf, the crucifixion shows Him submitting to a violent death. I don't have to teach you this, but even if you don't believe it, you need to understand that this is the basis of the Christian abhorrence of violence in the name of religion. This has been the crux of the debate between you and me, and I believe the Emperor and the Pope were touching on the same issue.
You have listed ten instances where you say the Pope breached the very reason he was arguing to uphold. I beg to differ.
Number 1: The lecture was not addressed to Muslims, nor was it about Islam. The "offending" remarks were simply made in passing to support the main thrust of his argument.
Number 2: His using of this example was deliberate in order to spark dialogue between Christianity and Islam.
Number 3: Neither the Pope nor the Emperor would have agreed with you at all on the divine authority of the Qur'an. On the matter of abrogated teaching, it is my understanding that this is a matter of debate within Islam. The Pope was not distorting the reality of scripture.
Number 4: The conversation between the Emperor and the Persian scholar took place while the city of Constantinople was under siege by the Turks. Islam had wiped out the Christian Church in North Africa and now was threatening to invade Europe. This was the historical background of the dialogue, not some genocide that you blame the Christians for.
Number 5: The Pope said that the Emperor did not mention the distinction made between People of the Book and Infidels. The Pope went on to characterize the Emperor's challenge as brusque and to us unacceptable.
Number 6: The Catholic Church does recognize Islam as a genuine religion, and anyone who knows Islam would have to agree that there are many elements of peace and beauty about it, but this does not mean that the Catholic Church endorses Islam as a true religion in any sense. The only thing true about it is that we seem to be worshiping the same God.
Number 7: You claim that Christianity is oxymoronic. You and I have debated this in the past and I won't comment on it here.
Number 8: The Pope would agree with you that violence is part of Man's nature—his fallen nature. But the Emperor said that violence is alien to the God-given human soul.
Number 9: The reason to love God is not out of fear of Him. Sure, "The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom." But what do we really mean by this? Certainly we mean that at the very least we should be concerned about transgressions. But that is just the "beginning" of wisdom. Where does it lead to? I would say that it leads to loving intimacy with God and the sanctification of the soul. Hell is something to be concerned about, however, because it is real. Islam does not contradict this. So is it violence to warn people not to fly in the face of God's merciful goodness?
Number 10: This also relates to something you and I have debated in the past. I have rejected your insistence that God might will one truth for one person and a contradictory truth for someone else. I think the Pope was fascinated with this seeming paradox in Islam. "Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry." Here is a big difference of opinion between Christianity and Islam.
You say, "The Ten marks of Papal breach of reason accumulate to characterize Christian misconceptions of God Whose Purpose is that we should Know Him, not reformulate Him by way of Greek inspired incarnation."
Obviously I do not agree with any of your ten marks, but do you agree that God's purpose is that we should know him, or do you disagree with that? Quite apart from Greek philosophy, it seems quite clear to me that the Old and New Testaments show God attempting to break through to us so that we should know him.
You say, "It is clear that Theologically, Christianity has polarized itself from Jewish and Islamic Omnipotent Monotheistic Godhead. 'Yet we can meet at the point of human reason despite the intractable mystery of the Triune Godhead, in matters of common interest for mutual welfare.'"
Is this you speaking, or is it what you think the Pope means? I don't think the Pope would invite Islam into some kind of theological dialogue with Christianity. I think he would welcome cultural and intellectual dialogue, however. One of his main concerns is freedom of religion in Islamic countries, and the big question of Turkey. Should that country be admitted to the European Union?
Peace,
David
Begin forwarded message:
From: MFRahman
Date: October 16, 2006 11:05:35 AM EDT
To: 'MFRahman'
Subject: Pope's speech - Examining the Logic.
MFRahman. 8 North Drive, Champs Fleurs. 683 4698. 16/10/06.
Greetings to all.
Examining the Pope’s Logic and Religious Assumptions.
The object of the Pope in his now controversial address at The University of Regensburg on Tuesday, 12 September 2006 is clearly as he has claimed - to initiate dialogue with Islam and perhaps other faiths to come to common ground.
Since there were no formal Muslim representatives present on that auspicious occasion, he would have intended that his message was to be transmitted to his target audience via the mass media.
Now, even the insulated Holy Father must know that the media thrives on sensationalism and innuendo and is ever ready to exploit differences and conflict.
Thus we must record our First observation of the Papal breach of the exercise of reason which he sets out most of all to promote.
Given the legendary volatility of Muslim response and particularly at a time when Muslims are hyper sensitive from experiencing very real global persecution because of the responsive misdeeds of its fringe elements to decades of injustice, the resultant outcry to the extracted quotes was predictable. That the carefully crafted address was prepared in advance by a sectarian leader whose every word is news calls into question the exercise of reason employed if not the ulterior motive for its deliberate phrasing. Let this be observation number Two of Papal breach.
In quoting “the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus” ’ circa 1391 dialogue, he credits the emperor with knowledge of Sura 2:256 which reads: ‘There is no compulsion in religion’ but dismisses this fundamental law with the words “this is probably one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat.” To support this aspersive statement he continues: “But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war”.
Both the emperor and the Holy Father must also know that the entire Quran pre-existed its revelation to Muhammad (sas) and that the sequence of revelation has no abrogating effect on Its revealed Law. How could they know? The Quran so states of itself repeatedly. The exigencies of chronological revelation are in fact prophesied in the Old Testament which promises “The Book shall be offered to him who cannot read saying ‘Read’ and he shall say ‘I cannot read!’” and further that the book shall be revealed in bits and pieces “a line here… a line there… a law here, a law there…”. The Quran was constantly being arranged under Divine Instruction as to form and sequence as it was revealed fragmentally in Divinely orchestrated circumstances to facilitate it.
Is it reasonable for the Holy Father to distort the reality of Scripture?
Mark number Three of Papal breach.
The referenced conversation, one must bear in mind, occurred in the wake of Christian crusading genocide which makes the arrogance of the “erudite” emperor sheer hypocrisy, of which the Holy Father ought to be aware as much as he would be of the centuries of Papally supported Inquisition which followed. Reasonable? Mark Four of Papal breach.
The Holy Father equally dismisses the relevance of Quranic distinction between People of the Book and pagan Idolaters which the erudite emperor disregards. He does not feel it necessary to correct the errant emperor’s breach. Mark Five.
History records that in the intervening years between the emperor and John Paul, Islam has been increasingly Papally discovered to be a genuine religion of Peace and beauty emanating from the Abrahamic traditions. All that Muhammad (sas) brought has found increasing acceptance by millions of Christians who have embraced her. The “erudite” emperor’s tirade is the least worthy reference to quote. Mark Six.
Now to examine the theological underpinnings of the Holy Father’s thrust. “Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. ‘God’, he says, ‘is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God's nature.’”
Here we have the foundational basis of Atheism established by Christian Doctrine.
Christianity is based upon the faith of salvation by the blood of Jesus shed in violence by men created by God. Judas was born for his role in the New Testament words of Jesus. God’s Will which denied Jesus’ plea for rescue according to Christianity, was that Jesus must drink of the cup he feared. The entire creation proceeds on violence in the food chain we know so well. Yet Christian faith is based upon a stout denial of these realities and seeks to characterize God as a surrealistic impotent being who must struggle to redeem his creatures from an uncontrollable evil which emerged of its own power.
Men of reason dismiss this as dyslexic theology and either reject religion or seek Islam today. The tenets of Christianity are oxymoronic despite the crystal clarity of the Biblical Omnipotent God Who created both good and evil for His Own Purpose. We have arrived at number Seven in Papal breach of reason albeit canonized.
But what the words of the Holy Father do in agreeing with the paradigm of the emperor is to misperceive the thread of argument, to create a straw argument that is illogical. The violence of men who aberrantly enforce religion cannot characterize God. Violence as we well see is entirely compatible with the nature of man. As to God’s Nature, what do we know of that? He is the Creator of nature and is above His Creation being unaffected by any of it. To the simplest mind, God is Transcendent and Other. Mark that Eight.
Now as absurd as all else, Christianity uses violence as much as all other faiths to coerce men into obedience. Threats of hellfire and damnation are the stuff of faith. “Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.” Faith if not reasonable is based upon mental abuse. How does a loving Christian God accomplish acceptance of salvation? He Commands Love and extorts obedience. How can one Love on Command? The emperor’s erudite words endorsed by the Holy Father ring hollow: “Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".”Mark Nine.
The words which the Holy Father cannot comprehend because he prefers Greek philosophy to Scriptural Integrity are “But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry.” He pays scant regard to Biblical Guidance. Mark Ten.
The Evangelist John chose to confound Genesis by re-interpretation and set the stage for the deification of a man contrary to explicit Scripture. “Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, the first verse of the whole Bible, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: ‘In the beginning was the λόγος’. This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts, σὺν λόγω, with logos. Logos means both reason and word - a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist.” Far from the final word on God, John gave the first word on Christian Scriptural deviance.
The metamorphosing of Christian faith from scripture to convoluted man made doctrine has accomplished for atheism what Socrates warned of false notions in general: “It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being - but in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss.” Christians indeed suffer a great loss today for Jesus warned “In vain do they worship me, taking for Precepts the Commandments of men”. To all such he will say as promised: “Get away from me you wicked people! I do not know you!”
The Ten marks of Papal breach of reason accumulate to characterize Christian misconceptions of God Whose Purpose is that we should Know Him, not reformulate Him by way of Greek inspired incarnation.
It is clear that Theologically, Christianity has polarized itself from Jewish and Islamic Omnipotent Monotheistic Godhead. Yet we can meet at the point of human reason despite the intractable mystery of the Triune Godhead, in matters of common interest for mutual welfare.
MFRahman.
posted by C. David Burt | 4:37 PM
|
1 comments
