Us and Them: The Christian/Islam Edition
As you know, we sometimes like to play a little game here…find a description of an attitude that’s a Great Virtue when OUR team exhibits it, and a Horrible Vice when the OTHER team does.
Without further comment:
Exhibit A, on how Islam demands of its enslaved followers total submission to the will of Allah:
Allah is perceived as having an absolutely arbitrary will, completely unfathomable and impenetrable to the human mind, a will which in all cases and in every way directly determines and even continually creates everything that is, everything that happens to us, and everything we “decide†to do.
Exhibit B, on how Good Christians joyfully suborn themselves to Divine Revelation.
…Moral laws aren’t the creation of personal conscience. They are discerned and internalized as something external to one’s thought, not the product of one’s thought. I hope that makes sense. It may seem like the Church dictates moral laws, but that is not how faithful, educated Catholics perceive the Magisterium’s role. Catholic doctrine, in its substance, is not the fruit of the Church’s mind. It corresponds to Divine Revelation, or notions implicit in Divine Revelation.
Completely different stuff, really. To start with, the Vatican outfits are ever so much more colourful.
This entry was posted by
balbulican on Saturday, October 6th, 2007 and is filed under
Religion.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the
RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
I’m unclear as to what your objection is. Catholics aren’t saying don’t submit to God. The argument is about the Muslim perception that God’s will is absolutely arbitrary. The first passage isn’t about behaviour but the nature of God.
“Shtroumpf vert et vert Shtroumpf”
Same thing all around with regard to religious fundamentalism – it doesn’t matter which specific religion one is speaking about.
It is all about control …
I have no “objection” at all, S. I had been reading a number of Catholic or extremely conservative US bloggers commenting on the fact that Islam demanded absolute submission of its followers, thus making it a religion uniquely like to serve as a springboard for fascist political movements.
This brought to mind our discussion of a few weeks ago, in which you suggested that you could could never conceive of being at odds with the magisterium because as a good Catholic you were so closely attuned to God’s will. It struck me that that is probably precisely the mindset of a member of the Taliban: and it reminded me that Catholicism had been quite at home in Franco’s Spain.
All religions demand submission from their followers on a number of given points. Perhaps the objection comes from what is asked of its followers, rather than being submissive itself. All educated Catholics understand that submission to some kind of divine authority is the foundation of revealed religion.
This brought to mind our discussion of a few weeks ago, in which you suggested that you could could never conceive of being at odds with the magisterium because as a good Catholic you were so closely attuned to God’s will.
The more precise way of putting it is that I cannot conveive of being at odds with the Magisterium because the pope and I think the same way. Divine Revelation can show God’s will on some things. It cannot show God’s will on everything.
“All educated Catholics understand that submission to some kind of divine authority is the foundation of revealed religion.”
Really? Are all educated Catholics unaware of the tenets of Buddhism? What divine authority is being submitted to in that faith?
‘The more precise way of putting it is that I cannot conceive of being at odds with the Magisterium because the pope and I think the same way.”
Precisely…because you, the human arbiters and interpreters of God’s will, and God Itself are in glorious spiritual harmony. Right? And do you imagine that the Taliban feel any differently?
Are all educated Catholics unaware of the tenets of Buddhism? What divine authority is being submitted to in that faith?
Is it considered a revealed religion, i.e. one in which God reveals truth?
because you, the human arbiters and interpreters of God’s will, and God Itself are in glorious spiritual harmony. Right? And do you imagine that the Taliban feel any differently?
I know they believe they are doing God’s will, and I believe I am doing God’s will (more or less). I do not believe the issue here is criticizing the Taliban because they think they are doing God’s will.
I’m still trying to understand the double standard, here, especially in light of the quotations you cited.
“Is it considered a revealed religion, i.e. one in which God reveals truth?”
Not by you, I assume?
“I’m still trying to understand the double standard.”
Ah. Well, many Conservative Christians criticize Islam for its emphasis on submission to the will of God: but as you point out, their own religion requires the same degree of submission.
Clearer?
“Is it considered a revealed religion, i.e. one in which God reveals truth?â€
Not by you, I assume?
There are probably different interpretations in Buddhism. I’m just asking.
Ah. Well, many Conservative Christians criticize Islam for its emphasis on submission to the will of God: but as you point out, their own religion requires the same degree of submission.
I don’t know why a Catholic would do that, unless he was criticizing some aspect of that submission. It could also be the degree of submission, in the sense that some Islamic beliefs violate the natural law.
But I didn’t see that criticism in the blurb you read to me. I saw a critique of the Islamic conception of God. Not quite the same thing.
On the question of “revealed religion”, I meant the phrase in the sense of “a religion based on a spiritual relevation”. I think as used by some theologians, though, the phrase means specifically “a religion based a divine revelation by God”: and by that definition, you’re right – I suppose Buddhism wouldn’t count.
Suzanne, I’m Russian Greek Orthodox and I must say, when I read some of the idiocy new (to Canada) priests (we get new ones every 3-5 years as they get shipped back to Russia) put in the newsletters about appropriate attire for church: “women must cover their hair” and “women must wear skirts of a modest length” and “dress as one would for an important meeting” and then I look at the last page, begging for paid memberships and… Sorry.
I’m only somewhat educated, in that while having graduated from high school, I haven’t a degree or diploma from anything other than the good old “school of hard knocks.” That being said, as a somewhat educated member of my church, I recognize idiocy when I see it. Obviously, I’m not as in tune with the leaders of my church as you are with yours.
Although, since, when idiocies are pointed out in our congregation, they are followed by “explanations” that pretty much allow for “wear whatever you want, provided you’re decently covered, just SHOW UP” then I would argue that my church leaders are perhaps a bit more in tune with their congregations than perhaps our Catholic cousins. Of course, the break between Orthodoxy and Catholicism is, to my knowledge, based on repudiation (on the Orthodox side) of the infallibility of the Pope (and I guess, also the Magisterium (sp?)), may have something to do with that.
In 30 words or less, Suzanne, quit with the cute crap. The post is pretty clear. If you don’t get the similarities, it’s because you don’t want to.
Candace. The first quotation addresses the nature of God. It says nothing about how Allah demands the will of everyone.
The second quotation is about how Magisteriual teaching corresponds to Divine Revelation. These two quotations address two different subjects.
Stageleft made a claim that they illustrate that Catholics apply a double standard: that it’s okay for Catholics to submit themselves to God, but it’s not okay for Muslims to do so. Those quotations do not back up what balbulican was saying.
It has nothing to do with being cute, it’s just reading what the quotations say. When you make a charge like that and you want to prove it, it’s best to have quotations that deal with the actual charge at hand.
Special Dispensation For SUZANNE:
Disregard quotes if you do not feel they adequately address the key point, and ponder penultimate paragraph, response 7.
Some conservatives may do so. I do not speak for all conservatives. From a Catholic perspective, as I said, the issue is not submission to God, as to what is being asked. If you have Catholics saying submission to God is a problem, then by all means, put forward your evidence. But I can’t imagine a knowledgeable Catholic being critical of being submissive to God, unless perhaps it’s a question of Allah being considered a different God (which some Catholics believe is true, although that is not what our catechism states).
Ultimately “submission” refers to the law of God, since his will is meaningless until someone tells us what it is or writes it down. Catholicism has a long and well-established tradition of inquiry into all matters of “submission” and Islam is sticking to the original playbook. Is that different enough for you?
“Catholicism has a long and well-established tradition of inquiry into all matters of “submission†and Islam is sticking to the original playbook.”
Sounds like an intriguing premise, but I don’t understand you. Could you elaborate on that a bit?
I understand his post to mean that in Catholicism, you can know something of the will of God on various issues through investigation of reason and divine revelation even if there is no direct statement on those issues. However in Islam, unless there is a statement that is based on Divine Revelation, it is impossible to know what God’s will is.
It sounds true to me (on the Islamic side).
I’m not clear on what would the the difference be. In both religions (it seems to me) there is an emphasis on interpretation of revelation by authority, accepted to a greater or lesser degree by adherents.
In Islam, there is no requirement for interpretation by authorities. Each follower has the power and duty to read the word of God directly and comply; he may seek the assistance of religious intermediaries but is not bound to do so. In Catholicism there is a formal hierarchy. So one difference is the number of levels to which “submission” is due: one in Islam, several in Catholicism.
But in Catholicism, the application of reason (from top to bottom of the hierarchy) to develop supplementary ideas is a long-standing tradition which in Islam is discouraged in favour of a literalism which neither adds nor subtracts anything. Islam requires a simple, direct, and total submission to the word of God; Catholicism systematically encourages deeper inquiry.
One illustration of the difference is humanitarian law. In Catholicism, it is an expanded body of work resulting from the application of reason to revelation. In Islam, it is whatever the Koran states.
That sounds about right, but maybe some Muslims might want to weigh in (if we had any).
In Catholicism, the pope and a Council is really supposed to be a “Supreme Court” of doctrine, not a law-giver (the Church has laws, but those aren’t always doctrines).
Catholics are supposed to follow that doctrine. But there is also a body of non-defined truths, and exploration of these doctrines is definitively encouraged, within the parameters or Church doctrine and Tradition. That’s how doctrine develops– when people apply their own reasoning to their beliefs.
I’m not even sure Islam really has a theology, i.e. a body of doctrine on divine revelation. Sure it has some doctrinal tenets, but I haven’t heard of any really developed explanation of God’s intervention in the world. It’s jurisprudence. Maybe that’s why wide range of philosophical beliefs are/were tolerated in Islam. Less so in Catholicism.
[...] Оригинал ÑÐ¾Ð¾Ð±Ñ‰ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ Ð¾Ñ‚ Stageleft:. Life on the left side тут… Posted by @ 11:43 am :: Review Comment RSS :: Trackback URI [...]