Discussion in 'Non-Anglican Discussion' started by Gio, Jul 3, 2017.
Certainly Shia, have never heard him mentioned in relation to sufism
Yeah, I've looked into it more and apparently I pulled that out of my butt. Whoops.
Interesting and slightly heated conversation!
I am not religious, so don't have a horse in this race and I am in no way an expert but I thought I would comment anyway!
From my limited study, one thing I found interesting was the backgrounds of the writers of the Bible vs the writers of the Koran. Mohammed was writing from the point of view of a political and military leader trying to keep his power base protected. This helps give a background to some of the more violent parts.
A problem I see with Islam is the lack of separation of religion and government. It means when they take over an area or state EVERYONE under them has to conform. It goes back to my first point that Mohammed was political and religious leader in one.
I wonder if time is a great leveller, today people see Islamic extremism as an issue. In the time of the Crusades I wonder if people thought of the problem of Christian extremism?
Again, no horse in the race or great knowledge.... Just chatting ..
Huge difference. Crusaders were fighting to defend the one true faith against Muslim heretics. Islamic extremism involves heretics trying to enforce their way of life upon Christian countries
Well. OK then. That's so wrong on so many levels, I don't even know where to start, so I won't even bother trying!
The Crusades obviously went a bit farther than defense, not to mention the Rhineland Massacres. If it was only a defense of the Roman Empire and it's Anatolian claims, then I could give it a pass. That's very clearly not what it was though, especially considering the less than suitable treatment of the Eastern Christians and what was, essentially, a political jab at them (and a poorly planned one at that) in the creation of crusader states under Roman Catholic Western leadership.
We need to be open and honest about what happened there, not revise it to our own fancies.
I'm reading a fascinating book " The great Heresies " by Hilaire Belloc, a contemporary and friend of GK Chesterton. Belloc states that Islam is a Christian heresy. I've never heard this said before. I invite others' opinions
I have heard the same, and have seen the book at my local Books-a-Million, but whether I'll ever get it over something else is yet to be seen. It might make sense, I suppose, although I would say it falls too far outside of Christianity in denying the life, death, and life-again of Christ. That is the baseline thing, in my opinion, for a religion to be Christian. That's why I count Mormons and not Muslims.
I don't know if it is a "heresy" per se as it claims to be a unique revelation, but it certainly has many apocryphal stories from the Jewish and Christian traditions that it adopted. In fact the story of Jesus giving life to clay pigeons/birds is found in the Quran, but that is predated to the heretical Infancy Gospel of Thomas. I think that at least, in this case, the authors of the Quran picked up on widely circulating stories at the time an incorporated them into their religious text. This demonstrates that the Quran wasn't revealed in the way it was claimed, but is a product of its time. That's actual fairly normal for most historical works- but people are hyper sensitive about making any criticisms against Islam given the current climate.
Historical critique of Islam and the Quran is the new to the West. I believe that there is now more scholarly work being done in this field between older & younger copies of the Quran which shows discrepancies between the texts.
Montanism could be considered built off of unique revelations as well, if we want to split hairs.
Was the Gospel of Thomas branded heretical or merely rejected?
I believe (and may be mistaken) that it is part of corpus of Gnostic gospels, or at least in origin.
Were the alternative "gospels" all branded heretical or were some simply rejected for inclusion in the New Testament?
I don't care if some Muslims can interpret the Koran in a passive way and not be terrorists. Surely, we have the same thing with Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, yet we do not consider them orthodox in any sense of the word. The conflict between Sunni and Shi'ites is similar in fact to Protestant and Catholic debates, with Sunnis being the more Protestant-like group, and Shi'ites being more like Catholics, because they submit to the authority of the imams, who are much like popes. I am not trying to cause animosity between catholics or protestants, as many sunnis have been involved in terrorism and some shi'ites may not be involved personally in terrorism or radical causes, but being a born-again Christian who abides in the holy spirit is not just about whether you look down on women or don't commit terrorist acts.