“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 …

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.

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?

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.

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.

Special Dispensation For SUZANNE:

Disregard quotes if you do not feel they adequately address the key point, and ponder penultimate paragraph, response 7.

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?

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).

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.