Conversion to Islam: "the natural conclusion of any intelligent theologian's journey"?

13

Comments

  • stonespringstonespring Shipmate
    edited November 2018
    Anteater wrote: »
    I sometimes wonder how much difference there is between golden rule Christianity and Islam. A belief in an overarching God, a code of practice that codifies how to live a good life and believe that if the code is followed then God mercifully accepts us. The more centrality of this type of behaviour within Islam makes it seem like a natural progression
    That's not how I understand Islam as it is practiced, and what knowledge I have comes from Islamic sources, and (I hope) I am reading them fairly, since I am critically sympathetic to Islam.

    But it all depends on what you mean by a code of practice.

    As I understand Sunni Islam, conduct is bound up with maximal conformity to the example of the Prophet, and this is governed by whichever legitimate denomination you belong to, which predominantly in the UK is, I believe, Hanafi. I see two problems with this.

    The first is that Muhammad obviously had serious flaws. I do not think this puts him in any other category that others who are revered in all the Abrahamic religions. He reminds me very much of King David. But nobody is suggesting the Christians can model their life on David or Abraham. Nor is even the imitation of Christ, in the details of his life, the main point of Christianity. I have never heard of a prominent Islamic speaker, at the same time, both revering Muhammad for what he did that was good whilst at the same time being honest about the bad things he did. That would be a great step forward.

    The Quran is interpreted via the Hadith and then again via the Sunna, which is the collection of recognised opinions by Islamic jurists (the Ulama) and covers all aspects of life, and can be sampled on sites dealing with, say, hanafi Fiqh. And this can get very legalistic especially for devout Muslims. I have accessed islamqa.org, and if somebody can say this is an extremist sites, then I will stand corrected - but I don't get that impression. And it seems quite legalistic. Take a look.

    I think one can be pretty condemning of (Modern or Ultra-) Orthodox Judaism or Pre-Vatican II (or even Post-Vatican II) Roman Catholicism using similar logic - and that gives me pause when I am tempted to think of Islam in that way. In whole parts of the Islamic world, Sufism has been the predominant strain (at least in practice) until recently, syncretism has been the norm among the people if not among the scholars, and the legalism that any in the ulema (the community of scholars/teachers of religion and religious law) might want to impose has been subject to the whims of dynastic rulers (who often themselves claimed religious leadership, if not the caliphate itself) who have been much less accommodating of extremism than the Saudis have. Again, sorry if people have brought this up already.

    The reason parts of the Islamic world (the Saudi religious leadership included) have not accommodated its legal scholarship to life in the modern world, complete with a modern understanding of human rights, is not only that many of the economic and political developments that gave rise to Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment thought have not occurred (or have only occurred in part) in those areas, but also that such thought has been linked to Western Imperialism, and that most of those people who are advocates of social and political liberalism have incorporated secularism at the same time as they have incorporated other ideas from the West.

    Of course, it is maybe a bit imperialistic of me to say that the idea of "human rights" - or the idea of secularism, for that matter - originated in the West. That is a gross oversimplification. But while I am making gross oversimplifications, I could charge that, while strict legal rulings that reach into every single part of someone's life are nothing new in Islam, at least some of the obsession with making teaching and enforcement of these rulings uniform for rich and poor everywhere is something that, whether the Prophet or the religious leaders that succeeded him may have wanted it or not, has only been possible since the advent of modern forms of communication and draws from similar Western Fundamentalist movements that have emerged following each breakthrough in communications technology.
  • It seems to be the only way to avoid beheading if one is in Pakistan. Freedom of religion, anyone?
  • It seems to be the only way to avoid beheading if one is in Pakistan. Freedom of religion, anyone?

    Of course there were times when the nice Christians would happily burn you at the stake, a most horrific way of dying compared to which beheading is a kiss, for being the wrong type of Christian.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    It seems to be the only way to avoid beheading if one is in Pakistan. Freedom of religion, anyone?

    Of course there were times when the nice Christians would happily burn you at the stake, a most horrific way of dying compared to which beheading is a kiss, for being the wrong type of Christian.

    Yes, I'm perfectly well aware of that. It doesn't change the horrific nature of the current case, and in spite of my best efforts, I can't stop it from colouring my attitude to this statement. It acquires a definite menace, to go with its tendentiousness.
  • I looked up Islam. There are many, many varieties or denominations if that's the right word. Some of the denominations are as crazy as some of the denominations of Christianity.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    It seems to be the only way to avoid beheading if one is in Pakistan. Freedom of religion, anyone?

    Of course there were times when the nice Christians would happily burn you at the stake, a most horrific way of dying compared to which beheading is a kiss, for being the wrong type of Christian.

    Yes, I'm perfectly well aware of that. It doesn't change the horrific nature of the current case, and in spite of my best efforts, I can't stop it from colouring my attitude to this statement.
    This is essentially an admission of not caring what the facts are if they don't fit a prejudice. It is human, something nearly everyone does, but not a good thing.

  • Anteater wrote: »
    I have accessed islamqa.org, and if somebody can say this is an extremist sites, then I will stand corrected - but I don't get that impression. And it seems quite legalistic. Take a look.


    IslamQA is Salafi, i.e. same school as Saudi Arabia.
  • ThunderBunkThunderBunk Shipmate
    edited November 2018
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    It seems to be the only way to avoid beheading if one is in Pakistan. Freedom of religion, anyone?

    Of course there were times when the nice Christians would happily burn you at the stake, a most horrific way of dying compared to which beheading is a kiss, for being the wrong type of Christian.

    Yes, I'm perfectly well aware of that. It doesn't change the horrific nature of the current case, and in spite of my best efforts, I can't stop it from colouring my attitude to this statement.
    This is essentially an admission of not caring what the facts are if they don't fit a prejudice. It is human, something nearly everyone does, but not a good thing.

    Not what I meant. My point was more that theology starts to look like a fig leaf if death is the alternative to conversion.

    As far as the historical comparison is concerned, it is true but doesn't justify the current situation.
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    Anteater wrote: »
    I have accessed islamqa.org, and if somebody can say this is an extremist sites, then I will stand corrected - but I don't get that impression. And it seems quite legalistic. Take a look.
    IslamQA is Salafi, i.e. same school as Saudi Arabia.
    Which is, as these things go, pretty darned extremist.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    It seems to be the only way to avoid beheading if one is in Pakistan. Freedom of religion, anyone?

    Of course there were times when the nice Christians would happily burn you at the stake, a most horrific way of dying compared to which beheading is a kiss, for being the wrong type of Christian.

    Yes, I'm perfectly well aware of that. It doesn't change the horrific nature of the current case, and in spite of my best efforts, I can't stop it from colouring my attitude to this statement.
    This is essentially an admission of not caring what the facts are if they don't fit a prejudice. It is human, something nearly everyone does, but not a good thing.

    Not what I meant. My point was more that theology starts to look like a fig leaf if death is the alternative to conversion.

    As far as the historical comparison is concerned, it is true but doesn't justify the current situation.
    Of course it doesn’t justify anything, it wasn’t meant to. It was meant to put a context on the Islam is teh evilz rubbish. Christianity can be, has been and still is used to justify awful shit.
    Pointing this out isn’t meant to make Islam look better or even to make Christianity look worse.
  • Ricardus:
    IslamQA is Salafi, i.e. same school as Saudi Arabia.
    So I do indeed stand corrected as I would agree that they are extreme.

    Even so, I still think mainstream Islam relies very heavily on following the example of the Prophet. My main source, not the only one, is "Misquoting Muhammad" by Jonathan Brown, a US convert to Islam from pretty liberal Episcopalianism who seems to occupy a role in interpreting Islam to the West, and he is not uber-liberal, although not SFAIK Salafi.

    It's a really interesting and very readable book, and his discussion of the role of canonical scripture within a community is of as much relevance to Christianity as to Islam. Highly recommended.

    I can certainly see the attraction of Islam, although I would never says it is rationally anything like clear. Especially for liberal Christians.

    I remember a telling comment (IIRC by Dennis Nineham) in the book Myth of God Incarnate. In an endnote he says that personally he finds it odd that liberals (I suspect he would include himself) can debunk all the miraculous as unbelievable, and hold to a Christ who is perfectly "the Man for Others": whereas he himself finds it no easier to believe in the existence of anyone totally unaffected by character flaws (aka Sin) than in someone who turns water into wine. And I do see his point.

    So in this sense Islam has the advantage that you don't deify the founder, and I don't think you have to believe in his perfection. But in practice I get the impression that Muslims really do think of Muhammad as perfect and are unwilling to admit flaws in, say, the massacre of the Banu Qurayza, not to mention his desires for sex, which are similar in my view to Brigham Young's - in several cases not at all based of carnal desire, but in others almost certainly e.g. Rayhana. All this can be disputed historically, but the main source Ibn Ishaq is no critic of The Prophet, in fact a devout follower.

    As I said previously, this is no reason to disrespect Muhhamad, and the parallel to King David, including the time when he lived more or less as a bandit, like David in the Cave of Abdullah, is for me striking. But the religion would be far more attractive to rational thinkers if more critical thinking was applied to the person of Muhammad.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited November 2018
    Anteater wrote:


    I remember a telling comment (IIRC by Dennis Nineham) in the book Myth of God Incarnate. In an endnote he says that personally he finds it odd that liberals (I suspect he would include himself) can debunk all the miraculous as unbelievable, and hold to a Christ who is perfectly "the Man for Others": whereas he himself finds it no easier to believe in the existence of anyone totally unaffected by character flaws (aka Sin) than in someone who turns water into wine. And I do see his point.


    Well, take whatever age you think people become capable of sinning, in the sense of doing something they know to be wrong. Now, imagine someone makes it to that age, but dies a few weeks later, before he's commited any sins. In other words, for as long as he was capable of sinning, he chose not to do so.

    Presumbaly, Jesus was just someone who managed to do that for his whole life. That would be pretty remarkable, but still theoretically possible, in a way that water-into-wine isn't.





  • Actually water-into-wine is theoretically possible, just not physically possible.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited November 2018
    By what theory? And Sunni Islam is the most perfectly evolved religion to date and the next ten thousand years. I bet it will even transcend that order of magnitude rule of thumb and be thriving in a hundred thousand, dragging Arabic, unchanged at core, with it. Nothing can touch it anywhere in the long run except a Darwin's Radio event.
  • Of course, it is maybe a bit imperialistic of me to say that the idea of "human rights" - or the idea of secularism, for that matter - originated in the West. That is a gross oversimplification. But while I am making gross oversimplifications, I could charge that, while strict legal rulings that reach into every single part of someone's life are nothing new in Islam, at least some of the obsession with making teaching and enforcement of these rulings uniform for rich and poor everywhere is something that, whether the Prophet or the religious leaders that succeeded him may have wanted it or not, has only been possible since the advent of modern forms of communication and draws from similar Western Fundamentalist movements that have emerged following each breakthrough in communications technology.
    I think the TV soundbite, the pithy kernel of info which makes everyone an expert on everything, facebook, twitter, et al and now fake news are all part of. Perhaps it's a repeat of the advent of the printing press; our current history rhyming with that of of the 15th century. And the 14th century hecatomb to come after versus before: Black Death then, and now, environmental collapse and all the dying that shall come with it. (The death toll needs to be 1½ billion (1500 million) this time to rhyme with the death toll of 600 years ago, perhaps more. And this time, we're both the rats and the fleas.)

    Anteater wrote: »
    I remember a telling comment (IIRC by Dennis Nineham) in the book Myth of God Incarnate. In an endnote he says that personally he finds it odd that liberals (I suspect he would include himself) can debunk all the miraculous as unbelievable, and hold to a Christ who is perfectly "the Man for Others": whereas he himself finds it no easier to believe in the existence of anyone totally unaffected by character flaws (aka Sin) than in someone who turns water into wine. And I do see his point.

    So in this sense Islam has the advantage that you don't deify the founder, and I don't think you have to believe in his perfection. But in practice I get the impression that Muslims really do think of Muhammad as perfect and are unwilling to admit flaws in, say, the massacre of the Banu Qurayza, not to mention his desires for sex, which are similar in my view to Brigham Young's - in several cases not at all based of carnal desire, but in others almost certainly e.g. Rayhana. All this can be disputed historically, but the main source Ibn Ishaq is no critic of The Prophet, in fact a devout follower.

    As I said previously, this is no reason to disrespect Muhhamad, and the parallel to King David, including the time when he lived more or less as a bandit, like David in the Cave of Abdullah, is for me striking. But the religion would be far more attractive to rational thinkers if more critical thinking was applied to the person of Muhammad.

    Mostly the filtering of Jesus through the lens of humanism has put him as just one of the many examples of a Good Life and of a Good Man. With many thinking about those magically thinking Christians who illiterately believe the stories as written down, but affirm their own pop psychology and authentic experiences when they travel as affirming a sense of something "bigger than myself". I've had several conversations with cultural Muslims from Iran who talk of their parents and home country religion the way I hear Christianity spoke of: as a problem, and somewhat ridiculous. Religion in general has given way to entertainment and ideas of self fulfilment, where we pay others to do things for us. Unless we opt for a fundie version.

    I suspect that Sunni-Wahabi-Salafi Muslims have more in common with some of the fundamentalist-literalist-evangelical Christians than they do with others within their faiths. Which isn't exactly new, it was John Prine's point in his 1971 song Pretty Good:
         I heard Allah and Buddha were singing at the Savior's feast
         And up the sky an Arabian rabbi
         Fed Quaker oats to a priest
         Pretty good, not bad, they can't complain
         Cause actually all them gods is just about the same
    
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Anteater wrote: »
    I have accessed islamqa.org, and if somebody can say this is an extremist sites, then I will stand corrected - but I don't get that impression. And it seems quite legalistic. Take a look.
    IslamQA is Salafi, i.e. same school as Saudi Arabia.
    Which is, as these things go, pretty darned extremist.

    I think Wahhabism, (Saudi version), is a distinct subset of Salafi - and more fundamentalist than most.
  • It is leavening Islam everywhere from Indonesia to Leicester.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Anteater wrote: »
    I have accessed islamqa.org, and if somebody can say this is an extremist sites, then I will stand corrected - but I don't get that impression. And it seems quite legalistic. Take a look.
    IslamQA is Salafi, i.e. same school as Saudi Arabia.
    Which is, as these things go, pretty darned extremist.

    I think Wahhabism, (Saudi version), is a distinct subset of Salafi - and more fundamentalist than most.
    And they spread radicalism. Saudi Wahhabi groups offer to fund mosques in impoverished areas with the proviso that their own preachers be allowed to preach.

  • mousethief wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Anteater wrote: »
    I have accessed islamqa.org, and if somebody can say this is an extremist sites, then I will stand corrected - but I don't get that impression. And it seems quite legalistic. Take a look.
    IslamQA is Salafi, i.e. same school as Saudi Arabia.
    Which is, as these things go, pretty darned extremist.

    I think Wahhabism, (Saudi version), is a distinct subset of Salafi - and more fundamentalist than most.

    I had thought that Salafi was what Wahhabis prefer to be called but after doing some extensive research (i.e., I looked it up on Wikipedia) it seems you are right.
  • And we have to love its adherents.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    And we have to love its adherents.

    We certainly love their oil.
  • Islam has been superseded by the teachings of Mirzah Husayn Ali who reformed Islam and, in doing so, created a new religion.
    His "word" of initiation:

    "Blessed is the one who acknowledges the Creator and His wonders, and who confesses that He is not to be questioned about what He does."
  • Wow, 14 months. That's one hell of a resurrection.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    This is a cultural expression isn't it. Like the various smocks, hassocks and copes priests wear. Which haven't really anything to do with the religion itself. But interpretations of religion within a human cultural context.

    Or just a different expression of the checked shirts, moleskins and Williams boots that were near-standard wear for countrymen here.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Any intelligent person has their coffee black, by the way.

    No they don't.
    But surely we can agree that any intelligent person MUST drink coffee?

    Not instant, though, surely?! Blasphemy, as any intelligent coffee drinker knows.

    Drinking instant coffee is one of those things where the punishment is inherent in the crime. Like drinking Carling.

    I'd rather drink my own pee, warm, without a dash of lime.
  • DavidDavid Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »

    I'd rather drink my own pee, warm, without a dash of lime.

    You might embrace urophagia, but I remain urosceptic.
  • David wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »

    I'd rather drink my own pee, warm, without a dash of lime.

    You might embrace urophagia, but I remain urosceptic.

    It's just such urosceptism that led to Brexit. Oh wait, Euro. Euroscepticism. Sorry.
  • edited January 27
    Seems apropos for a poem quote. Antonio Beccadelli, Hermaphroditus 1.18:

    Adae oculis legere domum Charitesque Venusque,
    ridet et in labiis ipse Cupido suis.
    Non mingit, verum si meiit, balsama mingit ;
    non cacat, aut violas, si cacat, Alda cacat.

    which is:

    The Graces and Venus chose to live in Alda’s eyes –
    even Cupid himself smiles through her lips.
    She never pisses, but if she ever does, it is pure balsam;
    she never shits, but if she ever does shit, she shits violets.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited January 27
    mousethief wrote: »
    David wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »

    I'd rather drink my own pee, warm, without a dash of lime.

    You might embrace urophagia, but I remain urosceptic.

    It's just such urosceptism that led to Brexit. Oh wait, Euro. Euroscepticism. Sorry.

    You're taking the piss again. It's been an hour I s'pose.
  • Roses are red
    Violets are.....what the...?!
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    David wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »

    I'd rather drink my own pee, warm, without a dash of lime.

    You might embrace urophagia, but I remain urosceptic.

    It's just such urosceptism that led to Brexit. Oh wait, Euro. Euroscepticism. Sorry.

    You're taking the piss again. It's been an hour I s'pose.

    Apparently it’s the new balsam.

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    LOL. Quietly. But couldn't repress it, pained the diaphragm.
  • np wrote:
    Mostly the filtering of Jesus through the lens of humanism has put him as just one of the many examples of a Good Life and of a Good Man. With many thinking about those magically thinking Christians who illiterately believe the stories as written down, but affirm their own pop psychology and authentic experiences when they travel as affirming a sense of something "bigger than myself".

    I once met someone who identified as Christian; but didn't think Jesus was the Son of God, a good Teacher, or even a particularly good man. I didn't get to know them further, so I don't know how that worked for them. I'm not quite sure if that even counts as culturally Christian. I don't think they identified Jesus as any of those things, even within the gospel stories. (I.e. even if a person thought the stories were totally fiction, they still might think Jesus was a good guy in the stories.)
  • Taking personal responsibility for inclusive humanism would fit the bill? Of what Jesus was the pivot for? You don't have to like R.D. Laing as a man (and I perversely do, I like my heroes flawed) to agree with his implementation of that.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    I was particularly struck by part of her announcement:
    This is the natural conclusion of any intelligent theologian’s journey. All scripture study leads to Islam. Which makes all other scriptures redundant.

    Do you agree with Sinead O'Connor's assertion? Why (not)? Does her reasoning mirror that of other converts to Islam from non-Muslim backgrounds? What's the appeal of Islam? Is it really theological, or is it something else?

    I'm just kind of freewheeling here, but Christianity does seem like the messiest of the Abrahamic faiths. Partly there's the whole Trinity thing, which rather tries the patience of Islam and Judaism. Partly there's the nature of the New Testament, a rather messy series of accounts and letters that converge but don't entirely cohere and are clearly human and historical documents rather than the directly-dictated word of God, as the Koran is widely held to be.

    For me this messiness and incoherence is a feature not a bug. But I can see how somebody with a low tolerance for ambiguity would be drawn to Islam's cleaner lines and clearer monotheism.


  • And it's clearer damnationism. Atheism is unforgivable even if you repent of it in this life, whereas shirk only unforgivable if you don't.
  • its... unforgivable
  • See? Assuming this is correct, are the clear rules a feature or a bug?

    It's at least very easy to tell where you stand, and what you need to be doing to stand on the right side. As opposed to this messed up Christian situation where, say, Origen can be simultaneously a Church Father and an anathematised heretic.

  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    That's why I like him. :wink:
  • Timo Pax wrote: »
    See? Assuming this is correct, are the clear rules a feature or a bug?

    It's at least very easy to tell where you stand, and what you need to be doing to stand on the right side. As opposed to this messed up Christian situation where, say, Origen can be simultaneously a Church Father and an anathematised heretic.

    The clear rules take away agency, intelligence for the 'good' of the group.
  • I'm not sure if Origen is a church father. Certainly an important historical witness.
  • On a whim, I did a Duck Duck Go search "list of Abrahamic religions", figuring there might be more than the Big 3. Perhaps Druze, for example. Someone in a group has a different idea, and others join in, and thus a splinter group or an altogether new religion. They don't always get publicity.

    I've only checked a couple articles, so far. Wikipedia lists 7 other Abrahamic faiths:


    3.4.1 Bábism
    3.4.2 Baháʼí Faith
    3.4.3 Druze faith
    3.4.4 Mandaeism
    3.4.5 Rastafari
    3.4.6 Samaritanism
    3.4.7 Shabakism

    And something I find fascinating to ponder, in the article's Talk section:
    Why isn't Satanism included in the list?
    It's obviously another religion of abrahamic origin, basically a different view of same tale (or just another opinion on which dude is messiah in abrahamic terms)

    Simultaneously: LOL, and an argument can be made. Provided their guy is actually seen as Satan of the Bible. And IIRC shaitan in Persian. (Zoroastrian?)

    Of course, the excellent, wickedly-funny, poignant, and thought-provoking TV series "Lucifer" makes its own points. There's a lot of backstory, and amazing personal and spiritual growth. Seriously.
    :)
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    I have a cricket chum of Pakistani origin who is a muslim. We agree that we worship the same God. I do not wish to follow his faith but I don't say that he is wrong
  • If by Satanism you mean Anton LeVey, his god is Ayn Rand.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited February 26
    Golden Key wrote: »
    On a whim, I did a Duck Duck Go search "list of Abrahamic religions", figuring there might be more than the Big 3. Perhaps Druze, for example. Someone in a group has a different idea, and others join in, and thus a splinter group or an altogether new religion. They don't always get publicity.

    I've only checked a couple articles, so far. Wikipedia lists 7 other Abrahamic faiths:


    3.4.1 Bábism
    3.4.2 Baháʼí Faith
    3.4.3 Druze faith
    3.4.4 Mandaeism
    3.4.5 Rastafari
    3.4.6 Samaritanism
    3.4.7 Shabakism

    And something I find fascinating to ponder, in the article's Talk section:
    Why isn't Satanism included in the list?
    It's obviously another religion of abrahamic origin, basically a different view of same tale (or just another opinion on which dude is messiah in abrahamic terms)

    Simultaneously: LOL, and an argument can be made. Provided their guy is actually seen as Satan of the Bible. And IIRC shaitan in Persian. (Zoroastrian?)

    Of course, the excellent, wickedly-funny, poignant, and thought-provoking TV series "Lucifer" makes its own points. There's a lot of backstory, and amazing personal and spiritual growth. Seriously.
    :)

    I had a friend who was a pagan edging towards wiccan back when I was a Charevo. She would point out how my co-religionists got her wrong thinking they worshipped Satan; a Satanist, she'd say, is a Christian gone wrong.

    This was a time, you understand, when British Charismatics got most of their understanding of Wicca from From Witchcraft to Christ. We tended to consider SatanismWiccaOccultMagic a single entity.
  • Telford wrote: »
    I have a cricket chum of Pakistani origin who is a muslim. We agree that we worship the same God. I do not wish to follow his faith but I don't say that he is wrong

    Nor he you. It's not polite is it?
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    I have a cricket chum of Pakistani origin who is a muslim. We agree that we worship the same God. I do not wish to follow his faith but I don't say that he is wrong

    Nor he you. It's not polite is it?

    His name is Choudhury but I always call him Colin.

  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    I have a cricket chum of Pakistani origin who is a muslim. We agree that we worship the same God. I do not wish to follow his faith but I don't say that he is wrong

    Nor he you. It's not polite is it?

    That tolerance seems wholly admirable, and I would not wish either of you to approach your religion in any other way.

    And yet I wonder whether this involves some implicit acceptance that the differences are cultural and non-essential. And thus optional.

  • Russ wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    I have a cricket chum of Pakistani origin who is a muslim. We agree that we worship the same God. I do not wish to follow his faith but I don't say that he is wrong

    Nor he you. It's not polite is it?

    That tolerance seems wholly admirable, and I would not wish either of you to approach your religion in any other way.

    And yet I wonder whether this involves some implicit acceptance that the differences are cultural and non-essential. And thus optional.

    Politeness, the golden rule, the Kantian categorical imperative, isn't.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    I have a cricket chum of Pakistani origin who is a muslim. We agree that we worship the same God. I do not wish to follow his faith but I don't say that he is wrong

    Nor he you. It's not polite is it?

    That tolerance seems wholly admirable, and I would not wish either of you to approach your religion in any other way.

    And yet I wonder whether this involves some implicit acceptance that the differences are cultural and non-essential. And thus optional.


    CS Lewis said that it's the people at the center of each faith who have the most to say to each other. IOW, however their religions might be different, they have things in common. People who are loosely, culturally part of a faith (per CSL) don't have that shared coherence. Or something like that.
Sign In or Register to comment.