Is he correct? Interesting comments...

The Asia Times Online columnist Spengler notes that Pope Benedict XVI is recently reported to have observed that Islam cannot reform itself along the lines the West is depending on. The reason is very simple: unlike Judaism and Christianity, which take the Bible to be the inspired word of God, mediated through humans and therefore subject to interpretation, Islam believes the Koran is the literal and direct word of God, dictated to the Prophet. If you believe this, then it's easy to see why diverging too far from the plain text of the Koran is blasphemous (and we know what happens to those deemed to have blasphemed against Islam). Spengler is amazed by the silence from the Western media over this remarkable statement attributed to the current Pope -- a statement Spengler endorses -- and he suggests that we shrink from acknowledging it because the consequences of the Pope being right about this is too horrible to contemplate.

[ January 10, 2006, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Someone obviously isn't familiar with the Southern Baptist's beliefs concerning the Bible. According to them, and I used to be one of them, the Bible is the inspired word of God sent directly to the writers and is literal and not open to interpretation outside of the interpretation that THEY offer. The funny thing is that they believe, or used to believe, that the "King James Version" of the Bible is the only one that is the true translation, even though it is full of translation errors. This is a relatively new directive from the SBC which was passed in the early 80's during an ultra-conservative take over of the Southern Baptist Convention. Until about 25 years ago, S. Baptists prided themselves on their doctrine of "the priesthood of the believer", which meant that each invidual had a personal relationship with God and had the power to interpret scripture for himself. With the rise of fundamentalism and the conservative right, starting in the 80's, all of that changed. That's what is so dangerous about fundamentalists, be they Christian or Muslim. The shit will hit the fan more and more the more these two groups come into contact with each other. WWIII = Armageddon?

I believe that radicals on both sides will dig in and it will come down to an US vs. THEM issue more than a matter of what each side believes in independently. Christians will identify themselves more as non-Muslims more than by their Christian beliefs and vice versa. It's already starting to happen.

I actually believe that the Pope has got a lot of nerve talking about the rigidity of another religion.

Those who wear white dresses shouldn't throw tomatoes!

[ January 10, 2006, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: UMRebel/Bucfan ]

That seems consistent with how I was taught about the Bible in Catholic school. You can't take every word literally. In fact, all the priests, brothers and nuns who taught me throughout the years consistently referred to goings on in the Garden of Eden as "the creation myth".

So, all Muslims are fundamentalists and all Christians are reforming free-thinkers? Thanks for the update, Your Holiness.

LXN

[ January 10, 2006, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: Lexington ]

I rather like that. Do I have your permission to use it? wink

Sure MIB, you know you can use anything of mine, any time! wink

Sects, sects, sects. Is that all you guys ever think about? wink

When Mr. Ratzinger decides to actually deal with the bishops who ensured that children around the world continued to be raped, not to mention defrauding parishioners and obstructing justice, perhaps then he will have the moral authority to discuss others' religions. Until then, he should shut his mouth and clean house.

Oh, and since the Catholic church is working with exactly the type of "Christian" fundamentalists that UMRebel/Bucfan talks about, at least in terms of the Catholic University/Traditional Values Coalition project to "protect" marriage. f**kin' hypocrite

That depends. Are you hot? Are you a ---?

Religions by definition cannot reform if adhered to as their creators intend, IMO.

They are belief in a system by faith alone without questioning by testing or reasoning.

Islam has claimed to be more scientific than other religions by some of its adherents because it has supposedly, traditionally encouraged the use of logic to arrive at its tenants. Historically that may have been true. No longer.

As an aside, I am reading a fascinating book called "The Closing of the Western Mind," which argues that the rise of orthodoxy in early Christianity, which was tied to the decision of Constantine to become a Christian and legitimize the formerly persecuted sect, put a halt to the Greek tradition of rational thought that had begun with Aristotle and continued through the years of Roman rule and after the rise of Christianity. In fact, there are friezes that show the triumph of faith over reason, and that theme certainly continues in today's fundamentalist "Christian" sects.

It is also interesting to see a historical analysis of early Christianity, including the context of writings such as Paul's letters, which again form such a major part of the fundamentalist theology, and the impact of those letters on the later writing of the Gospels.

There is no way that anyone could argue for a literal reading of what we now call the "bible" when one considers the flux of early Christianity and the glut of early writings and theological movements that sprang from the first followers of the rabbi Jesus of Nazareth.