Interesting. Also for me, this was helpful in terms of understanding Islam better, still, I find in Islam also some mystical traditions, e.g. the sufis, which understand the nature of God as love, and do not at all believe in violence in the way Rashid describes. In general this is similar to what happens in Christianity, for even though e.g. Theresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross, are considered saints, it is very clear that their inner experience was hard to reconcile with the church, and especially John of the Cross twisted himself into a pretzel to stay clear of the inquisition.
In Chreistiantiy, it was clear to me very early that the religiion taught more or less the opposite of what Jesus taught, and Paul and Peter c.s. turned the teachings on their ear, even if in some of his brighter moments Paul does seem to get it, but still, the overall gist of his work is completely at odds with what Jesus taught. Jesus also is quoted as saying that there is much they will not understand till later.
Also take note of this Gnostic tradition from Basilides:
The late 2nd-century Christian writer Irenaeus wrote about the teachings of a Gnostic leader of his time named Basilides, who claimed:
“He did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead; so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them. For since he was an incorporeal power, and the Nous (mind) of the unborn father, he transfigured himself as he pleased, and thus ascended to him who had sent him, deriding them, inasmuch as he could not be laid hold of, and was invisible to all,” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book I, Chapter 24, Section 4). (https://carm.org/islam/the-quran-the-crucifixion-and-the-gnostics/)
And of course in a more modern tradition, A Course in Miracles, Jesus explains that he did not die on the cross, for that was after the resurreciton and he knew he was not his body. This conversation was frequent in early Christianity, with many groups arguing that the resurrection was at the Baptism in the River Jordan, so that the resurrection preceded the crucifixion. These traditions were later suppressed, when Christianity was forced into a mold ultimately under the Emperor Constantine with the Council of Nicea.
It seems to me like the Sufis were probably just people pretending to be Muslim to avoid getting killed, while the Roman Catholic Church was basically a corruption. Islam seems to have problems in its origins, while Christianity has good origins and only had problems in its corruption.
I'm not one of those people who would blame "gnosticism" for everything, since I even heard mainstream sources call John the gnostic gospel (as opposed to Matthew, Mark, and Luke being the synoptic gospels) but I'd still be cautious taking too many extrabiblical sources as (literally) canon. Some of the extra books just seem like historical documents and it doesn't hurt that much to take them out or put them in, but some of them seem to really mislead and confuse people even if they might have accurate information on one level.
I Listened to this Conversation several days back and meant to comment, but am only finding the Time now.
This is Such an Important conversation for people who Really Want to Understand the Nature of the Rift between Western society and that of the East.
I've tried in my own writings to Illuminate where this Rift has come from, and what it looks like, and Most Specifically, how the Eastern Mystical ways of thinking about Humanity have Returned, not only from the teachings of the Islamic Faith, and as Always, to be Clear, I'm criticizing the Ideology, and the more specifically the Psychology contained within, but on the other side, the 'Enlightenment', and the Failings contained within.
But Well done Kate. Your content lately is head and Shoulders above the rest in my Humble opinion.
I have noticed a bit of a flurry of people embracing Christianity a bit more, presumably as a result of the current situation. I was raised without religion, though I tried very, very hard to believe while I was going to a born-again horse riding camp, since my friends there were very enthusiastic about it. It just didn't take, for me. In general my feeling is that while there are definite positives, socially, to religion, I am not sure they outweigh the negative. None of this nightmare would be happening without fanatical believers. Christianity is mostly pretty benign now, but obviously it wasn't always. Any group which believes it alone holds "the truth" is likely to be dangerous.
I made a couple of trips to India and spent most of that time in an ashram, which had a temple devoted to Shiva. I was talking with the woman who ran the program for visitors about all the gods (not just the Hindu ones) and she just smiled and spread her arms and said "It is all one". She wasn't a proselytizer, and I'd be more comfortable with religion if everyone was like that.
I am never quite clear what people mean when they say they are "spiritual but not religious". I can relate to Dawkins, when he describes the awe he feels at the wonders of this planet and this universe. I feel there is precious life in every living thing, regardless of how it came to be.
All three Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—promote a doctrine of warfare against non-believers. Just look at the Old Testament. Religion is not the solution to the problem; religion is the problem. Great article and fascinating discussion with Brother Rachid, thank you!
However, the modern focus on human life and ‘flourishing’ is not the same as’Let God’s will be done’, as noted by Charles Taylor.
When Jesus on trial , examined by Pilate, he made clear declaration of his purpose, theme, goal -
“My Kingdom is no part of this world. If my Kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my Kingdom is not from this source.”
So Pilate said to him: “Well, then, are you a king?”
Jesus answered: “You yourself are saying that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth.’’
The key to Christian message is the coming kingdom, for both heaven and earth.
This was lost by fifth century.
Nevertheless, he promised -
“And this good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.’’
To change the Christian ‘Gospel’ the good news ‘of the Kingdom’ into the need for human happiness creates definite dangers. As we see.
Interesting. Also for me, this was helpful in terms of understanding Islam better, still, I find in Islam also some mystical traditions, e.g. the sufis, which understand the nature of God as love, and do not at all believe in violence in the way Rashid describes. In general this is similar to what happens in Christianity, for even though e.g. Theresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross, are considered saints, it is very clear that their inner experience was hard to reconcile with the church, and especially John of the Cross twisted himself into a pretzel to stay clear of the inquisition.
In Chreistiantiy, it was clear to me very early that the religiion taught more or less the opposite of what Jesus taught, and Paul and Peter c.s. turned the teachings on their ear, even if in some of his brighter moments Paul does seem to get it, but still, the overall gist of his work is completely at odds with what Jesus taught. Jesus also is quoted as saying that there is much they will not understand till later.
Also take note of this Gnostic tradition from Basilides:
The late 2nd-century Christian writer Irenaeus wrote about the teachings of a Gnostic leader of his time named Basilides, who claimed:
“He did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead; so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them. For since he was an incorporeal power, and the Nous (mind) of the unborn father, he transfigured himself as he pleased, and thus ascended to him who had sent him, deriding them, inasmuch as he could not be laid hold of, and was invisible to all,” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book I, Chapter 24, Section 4). (https://carm.org/islam/the-quran-the-crucifixion-and-the-gnostics/)
And of course in a more modern tradition, A Course in Miracles, Jesus explains that he did not die on the cross, for that was after the resurreciton and he knew he was not his body. This conversation was frequent in early Christianity, with many groups arguing that the resurrection was at the Baptism in the River Jordan, so that the resurrection preceded the crucifixion. These traditions were later suppressed, when Christianity was forced into a mold ultimately under the Emperor Constantine with the Council of Nicea.
Interesting comment, thank you!
It seems to me like the Sufis were probably just people pretending to be Muslim to avoid getting killed, while the Roman Catholic Church was basically a corruption. Islam seems to have problems in its origins, while Christianity has good origins and only had problems in its corruption.
I'm not one of those people who would blame "gnosticism" for everything, since I even heard mainstream sources call John the gnostic gospel (as opposed to Matthew, Mark, and Luke being the synoptic gospels) but I'd still be cautious taking too many extrabiblical sources as (literally) canon. Some of the extra books just seem like historical documents and it doesn't hurt that much to take them out or put them in, but some of them seem to really mislead and confuse people even if they might have accurate information on one level.
I Listened to this Conversation several days back and meant to comment, but am only finding the Time now.
This is Such an Important conversation for people who Really Want to Understand the Nature of the Rift between Western society and that of the East.
I've tried in my own writings to Illuminate where this Rift has come from, and what it looks like, and Most Specifically, how the Eastern Mystical ways of thinking about Humanity have Returned, not only from the teachings of the Islamic Faith, and as Always, to be Clear, I'm criticizing the Ideology, and the more specifically the Psychology contained within, but on the other side, the 'Enlightenment', and the Failings contained within.
But Well done Kate. Your content lately is head and Shoulders above the rest in my Humble opinion.
I have noticed a bit of a flurry of people embracing Christianity a bit more, presumably as a result of the current situation. I was raised without religion, though I tried very, very hard to believe while I was going to a born-again horse riding camp, since my friends there were very enthusiastic about it. It just didn't take, for me. In general my feeling is that while there are definite positives, socially, to religion, I am not sure they outweigh the negative. None of this nightmare would be happening without fanatical believers. Christianity is mostly pretty benign now, but obviously it wasn't always. Any group which believes it alone holds "the truth" is likely to be dangerous.
I made a couple of trips to India and spent most of that time in an ashram, which had a temple devoted to Shiva. I was talking with the woman who ran the program for visitors about all the gods (not just the Hindu ones) and she just smiled and spread her arms and said "It is all one". She wasn't a proselytizer, and I'd be more comfortable with religion if everyone was like that.
I am never quite clear what people mean when they say they are "spiritual but not religious". I can relate to Dawkins, when he describes the awe he feels at the wonders of this planet and this universe. I feel there is precious life in every living thing, regardless of how it came to be.
All three Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—promote a doctrine of warfare against non-believers. Just look at the Old Testament. Religion is not the solution to the problem; religion is the problem. Great article and fascinating discussion with Brother Rachid, thank you!
Watched the YouTube interview. Disturbing and fascinating. Thank you so much
Kate
Always find your reports interesting.
However, the modern focus on human life and ‘flourishing’ is not the same as’Let God’s will be done’, as noted by Charles Taylor.
When Jesus on trial , examined by Pilate, he made clear declaration of his purpose, theme, goal -
“My Kingdom is no part of this world. If my Kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my Kingdom is not from this source.”
So Pilate said to him: “Well, then, are you a king?”
Jesus answered: “You yourself are saying that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth.’’
The key to Christian message is the coming kingdom, for both heaven and earth.
This was lost by fifth century.
Nevertheless, he promised -
“And this good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.’’
To change the Christian ‘Gospel’ the good news ‘of the Kingdom’ into the need for human happiness creates definite dangers. As we see.
Thanks
Clay