Announcement

Collapse

Comparative Religions 101 Guidelines

Welcome to Comp Religions, this is where the sights and sounds of the many world religions come together in a big World's Fair type atmosphere, without those delicious funnel cakes.

World Religions is a theist only type place, but that does not exclude certain religionists who practice non-theistic faiths ala Buddhism. If you are not sure, ask a moderator.

This is not a place where we argue the existence / non-existence of God.

And as usual, the forum rules apply.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Papa Francis prays facing Mecca in mosque

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by mossrose View Post
    I find myself agreeing with Pap here in the sense that there cannot be any "meeting of the minds" between Christanity and other faiths.

    I have huge issues with ecumenism.

    And the god that Islam worships is not the God of Christianity in any way, shape, or form.
    When Jesus quotes the prophet Isaiah in saying that the Jewish temple should be a house of prayer for all nations, exactly what faith do you think Isaiah or Jesus was requiring of these foreign believers? A Jewish covenant? A Christian new covenant? If the latter, do you also reject ecumenism among the various branches of Christianity? Must we all join a particular denomination in your view?
    Last edited by robrecht; 12-27-2014, 10:54 AM.
    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον
    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Paprika View Post
      Okay.

      Not at all. For example, a seeking agnostic without a firm belief in God can validly critique the coherence of certain forms of theism.
      By critiquing incoherence, he is affirming a value in coherence, or perhaps disagreeing with a false sense of coherence claimed by these theists.

      Originally posted by Paprika View Post
      It's not a matter of feeling. And that is not what I think.
      So you do not think that the pope was thereby worshiping anyone other than the one true God--is that correct?
      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον
      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
        1. Pap, you expect people to explain it away as if it's scandalous without making any sort of argument as to why it's scandalous.
        Indeed, I have had the hope that some people would also agree that it appears scandalous, and thus try to explain the apparent scandal away; I don't think I will be greatly disappointed.

        Hilaire Belloc characterized Islam as a Christian heresy that appeared beyond the borders of Christendom.
        To quote Belloc, "where this new heresy struck home with a mortal blow against Catholic tradition was a full denial of the Incarnation". It is an interesting view, but I fail to see its relevance.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by robrecht View Post
          By critiquing incoherence, he is affirming a value in coherence, or perhaps disagreeing with a false sense of coherence claimed by these theists.
          Indeed.

          So you do not think that the pope was thereby worshiping anyone other than the one true God--is that correct?
          No.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Adrift View Post
            Yep.
            So answer me: was he "purposefully praying towards Mecca as part of inter-religious dialogue"? Or do you perhaps wish to suggest that without much thought it was done on the spur of the moment?

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Paprika View Post
              Indeed.

              No.
              So perhaps you could better explain your own objection to the pope's actions.
              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον
              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                So answer me: was he "purposefully praying towards Mecca as part of inter-religious dialogue"? Or do you perhaps wish to suggest that without much thought it was done on the spur of the moment?
                I think he went into a mosque and prayed to God as part of inter-religious dialogue. Mosques are oriented towards Mecca, but that is not the same as saying that the Pope ritualistically turned towards Mecca to pray. I see a difference there, even if you don't. Did he mentally factor into consideration the direction that mosques face when he prayed to God? I have no idea. Unlike the Muslims he prayed with, I imagine it had far less significance to him.

                Again, I think the difference is similar to what we see in 1 Cor. 8, where eating food offered to idols in pagan temples doesn't necessarily condemn a person, but being a stumbling block to someone weak in the faith does. I imagine that if the people Paul had in mind also performed some sort of ritualistic religious act in addition to eating food offered to idols, then he'd have a bigger problem with it, but just eating the food in the temple doesn't mean that you worship another God.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                  When Jesus quotes the prophet Isaiah in saying that the Jewish temple should be a house of prayer for all nations, exactly what faith do you think Isaiah or Jesus was requiring of these foreign believers? A Jewish covenant? A Christian new covenant? If the latter, do you also reject ecumenism among the various branches of Christianity? Must we all join a particular denomination in your view?
                  The OT Israelites started out worshipping God. They strayed over and over again. By the time Jesus came on the scene they were far, far away from the worship that God intended. Jesus created a new covenant, which the Jews rejected.

                  Followers of Christ are part of the new covenant. When Jesus said, "No man comes to the Father except through Me", He wasn't kidding. He did not mean Allah, or Buddha or Confucious or anybody else, including the false worship of His contemporary Jews.

                  So, yes, Christianity is the ONLY way to introduce people to the ONLY WAY to redemption.

                  As for different denominations within Christianity, yes, I have issues with some, but I am not going to get into that here. I will simply say that there are irreconcilable differences between evangelical protestants and others who call themselves Christians, including but not limited to Mormons, etc.


                  Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by mossrose View Post
                    The OT Israelites started out worshipping God. They strayed over and over again. By the time Jesus came on the scene they were far, far away from the worship that God intended. Jesus created a new covenant, which the Jews rejected.

                    Followers of Christ are part of the new covenant. When Jesus said, "No man comes to the Father except through Me", He wasn't kidding. He did not mean Allah, or Buddha or Confucious or anybody else, including the false worship of His contemporary Jews.

                    So, yes, Christianity is the ONLY way to introduce people to the ONLY WAY to redemption.

                    As for different denominations within Christianity, yes, I have issues with some, but I am not going to get into that here. I will simply say that there are irreconcilable differences between evangelical protestants and others who call themselves Christians, including but not limited to Mormons, etc.
                    Do you think Isaiah was only speaking prophetically of a new covenant within Christianity?
                    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον
                    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                      Do you think Isaiah was only speaking prophetically of a new covenant within Christianity?

                      He was speaking of a new covenant with the Messiah. That would embrace all the nations.

                      We call that Christianity.


                      Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                        Indeed, I have had the hope that some people would also agree that it appears scandalous, and thus try to explain the apparent scandal away; I don't think I will be greatly disappointed.
                        The underlying premise apparently being that giving any approbation to Islam qua Islam is bad, or that Islam is necessarily bad all the way through. I don't embrace that premise; you'll have to argue for it.

                        To quote Belloc, "where this new heresy struck home with a mortal blow against Catholic tradition was a full denial of the Incarnation". It is an interesting view, but I fail to see its relevance.
                        Some readings of the quranic passages that seem to be critiquing Christianity make more sense as denunciations of Christian heresies; Islam is a Christian heresy that began as an attack on other Christian heresies, then later misread its critiques of these heresies as critiques of Christian orthodoxy.
                        Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                          If a building is oriented in a certain direction, does it mean that however you stand in it you're necessarily facing that direction?
                          In a lot of public buildings, like churches and auditoriums, it makes it far more likely when you are engaging in the group activity the building is there for.
                          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                          My Personal Blog

                          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                          Quill Sword

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                            So perhaps you could better explain your own objection to the pope's actions.
                            The Pope prayed facing Mecca in a mosque. What is the context of this action? Praying facing Mecca in a mosque is one of main ways Muslims carry out a key praxis of Islam - Salat, one of the 'Five Pillars'.

                            Francis's actions within this context hence make him out to be participating in such a praxis - especially with the significance of him being the leader of a large community of Christians, it is a poor witness to be seen as participating in idolatry. His intentions - whatever they may be - are not very relevant; what matters is what he has done.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                              I think he went into a mosque and prayed to God as part of inter-religious dialogue. Mosques are oriented towards Mecca, but that is not the same as saying that the Pope ritualistically turned towards Mecca to pray. I see a difference there, even if you don't.
                              Could you then explain the difference? You've been saying that "purposefully praying towards Mecca as part of inter-religious dialogue" is bad, but also that the Pope has not been "ritually" turning towards Mecca - whatever that means or signifies - and hence implying that the Pope was not "purposefully praying towards Mecca".

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                                The underlying premise apparently being that giving any approbation to Islam qua Islam is bad, or that Islam is necessarily bad all the way through. I don't embrace that premise; you'll have to argue for it.

                                I don't embrace those premises; you'll have to argue for it.

                                Some readings of the quranic passages that seem to be critiquing Christianity make more sense as denunciations of Christian heresies; Islam is a Christian heresy that began as an attack on other Christian heresies, then later misread its critiques of these heresies as critiques of Christian orthodoxy.
                                And how is this relevant?

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X