Duelling Dual Muslims?

Are there two interpretations of Islam in the world today?

Modern Islam and Caliphate Islam?

Does the interpretations pose a problem for non-Islamic people?

If ISIL believes it is the true Islam, if modern Islamic persons believe they have a valid interpretation of Islam, what are the outside observers to do?

If ISIL believes it is the true Islam, then the problem is both more simple and more complicated than first thought.

It’s simpler because we can identify the “good” (not 7th century) Muslems from the bad (7th century).

It’s more complicated because it means the 21st century Muslems will have to become very political and even engage in military efforts against ISIL.

It is more complicated, also, because it means the Shi’a/Sunni divide will have to be eliminated more quickly than it is currently being eroded.

What outsiders can do is virtually nothing. We can encourage the moderns, we can protect ourselves against the caliphates. Only the members of the Islamic faith can solve the problem.

Cheer the moderns; contain the caliphates until they self-destruct--as they must.

It's Time

When will monotheistic religions take steps to end sectarian strife?

When will monotheistic religions of "The Book" acknowledge that their scriptures were written at a specific time and for people living in specific circumstances? And the writings should be viewed as Philosophical guides, not laws for modern times.

When will religious educators inform students of, and stress, the metaphorical nature of scripture?

When will All religious leaders condemn violence which is inflicted in the name of the deity?

The time was yesterday. The time is now!

Is Science Revelation?

The relationship between the Church and science is a strange one.

On the one hand, there is no legitimate religious Christian sect which still holds the six 24 hour days of creation to be a fact.

No church still holds that the sun rotates around the earth. Nor does anyone yet believe that the sun "stood still" at the Biblical battle of Jericho.

Why, then, is there such reluctance to have religious organizations accept the sciences of the body and the mind as we have come to know them?

How difficult would it be to acknowledge that the metaphor of a "Father" is a potential for behavioral mischief? If a competent psychologist were to look objectively at some of the attributes imposed upon "God" by writers of the Old Testament, wouldn't the diagnosis be that the Old Testament God was a bit of an egocentric bully with evidence of temperamental pettiness?

At that point wouldn't anyone have to ask, "Why?" Why would God be petty? What need would there be to proclaim the first commandment?

If the answer is, as it surely must be, "None," the reason to the strained relationship between the Church and science begins to clarify--Church is in danger of devolving into irrelevancy, and that devolution could threaten whatever moral underpinnings of human behavior there are which are based on Church teachings.

How to prevent this collapse is the great question for religious leaders.

It needn't be difficult. Just accept that "revelation" is an on-going process and with each forward step in science our understanding of "God" increases and we must adjust to that understanding.

It doesn't end

Revelation, if there is such a thing, didn't end with the last conversation an angel had with a human being.

Every day, scientists learn just a tad more about their specialties, and with that additional knowledge we understand a little more about the universe in which we live, and that understanding is part of the on-going "revelation."

Reason demands that revelation is on-going.

Respect for the universe demands that revelation is on-going.

The continuing existence of humanity demands that revelation is on-going.

Eleanor McCullen--A Lover? Of what?

Eleanor McCullen has made quite a name for herself. Her little journey to the Supreme Court has certainly stirred emotions across the land.

To watch her television interviews on the day of the oral arguments makes one wonder about the degree of certainty with which she sails forth declaiming "love" several times in the broadcast clip. How can she be so certain that God is on her side in this discussion?

Richard Rodriguez, in Darling, writes: “The blasphemy that attaches to monotheism is the blasphemy of certainty. If God is on our side, we must be right. We are right because we believe in god. We must defend God against the godless.” p 46.

"The blasphemy of certainty" is quite a pregnant phrase. It encapsulates the usually unspoken question, "How do we know what God wants? Scripture? Are we sure about that? We are implying that God has never again  "spoken" to believers since the Bible has been closed to change, that words to Muhammed were the last uttered in revelation, that the Torah has existed for three thousand years as the ultimate Word. 

How do we know there has not been revelation since? Can God not add to what has been written? Are we so sure of the silence--that it has been and will forevermore be as it was hundreds of years ago? 

Is is not blasphemous to proclaim that the Divinity has decided enough has been revealed? How does one know the mind of God? 

If it is not blasphemy then it certainly is arrogance.

"Love," Ms McCullen? How can you be so certain?

Permission

 

After 3 days of near-catatonic existence, it was time to accept the fact of his determination. It was time to grant permission.

“It’s OK, Bud. Whatever you want to do is OK. It’s OK to let go.

“Susan loves you. Connie loves you. Ann Marie loves you.

“We found your paper; we know your wishes; we’ll do as you asked.

“It’s OK. It’s OK.”

Marlin (Bud) Peck Cruse

August 4, 1932—August 12, 2013.

What an adventure.

Strange logic

This lovely jewel appeared on my Facebook page recently.

Pretty, eh wot?

Ms Griffin's foolish statements aside, one wonders about the tenor and Christian viewpoint of the total posting.

What do people think when they plan postings like this?  While they write copy? What do they think they've accomplished when they post this?

What do others think when they read it and then agree with it to the point that they "share" it with others?

Do "Jesus believers" really think this represents, in any way, the philosophy of Jesus? Does it read like the philosophy of Jesus?

Remember WWJD? Well, how about changing that a little to WWJE--What would Jesus EDIT?

Most of the above, I'd say.

Spread hatred like Muslims (and that's a bit of a generalization) spread hatred? Jesus would say "OK" to that?

Any "Jesus believer" who thinks this particular attack on Ms Griffin is an attack Jesus would endorse doesn't believe in Jesus. That person believes in the most adulterated version of Jesus the contemporary Christianist can manufacture for his own nefarious political ends.

Prayer and reflection, Jesus believers. Prayer and reflection.

A quickie

A miscarriage certainly must qualify as an abortion.

Does one then extend the logic of certain anti-abortion activists to include "God" as an abortionist?

Not out of step…

Technorati Tags: Religion,Same-Sex Marriage,Conservatives,Culture Wars,Marriage Equality

Here’s an interesting article about same-sex marriage.

Here’s an interesting quote from that article: “…same-sex marriage, has shocked conservatives. But this innovation has moved so far so quickly only because it is not at all out of step with the institutions and ideas of our time.”

The author of the article is Andrew Sullivan; the author of the quote is “Marriage equality opponent Daniel McCarthy.”

The article is brief; it is well worth your time, as will be the discussions the article will engender.

Really? Still?

 

Technorati Tags: Benedict XVI,Religious,Marriage in the Priesthood,Women Priests

One would think, in the 21st century, after all the progress mankind has made in understanding creation, that statements such as this quote would not make it into the media at large.

 

In taking stock of the progressive stance of many in the United States, the pope issued a statement.

The pope promised…not to impose his own will on the church but to rather listen "to the word and the will of the Lord, to be guided by him, so that he himself will lead the church at this hour of our history."

Does anyone remember the skepticism, if not scorn, which greeted the public announcement from Salt Lake City telling us that the Elders of the Mormon church had prayed and received the OK from God to admit Blacks into congregations?

How does  this from Benedict XVI not merit the same reaction?

Jesus is really going to tell the pope that it’s OK to treat women as lesser creations?  Or that gay men and women cannot validate their love and commitment in the secular world?

Bad move. Jesus’ actions belie that.

Hope for Islam?

Technorati Tags: Religion,Islam,Marriage Equality

Try this news article.

It deals with a marriage between two gay members of the religion of Islam.

Interesting paragraph:

According to Al Arabiya, a gay Mauritian imam named Jamal presided over the marriage of Ludovic Mohamed Zahed, a French man of Algerian origin, and Qiyam al-Din in Din’s native South Africa earlier this year.

Love is everywhere, and so are gay people.

A question...

Why do you suppose that "Thou shalt not kill" is so difficult to understand for extremist religionists? How can fundamentalists of all the "religions of the Book" slaughter other human beings in the name of their particular understanding of the Deity?
Have they no fear of their own belief?

Really?

How does any religious leader justify a death as a recompense for the burning of a book? Books are metaphors and, sometimes, symbols; people's lives are real.

Surely the deity does not condone such actions.

Yes, indeed.

 

From Andrew Sullivan’s Daily Dish blog:

"There’s something fine about the fact that God learned Greek when he wanted to become a writer — and that he did not learn it better."

Ruminations

Absent a daily reminder of definitive proof of the existence of God, it is left to us to speculate on just how we got to the point at which we find ourselves in 2010.

Speculation:  It all started when tribes go too large to control through simple force. 

Leaders were eventually faced with unpopular decisions and they created stories which allowed them to pass responsibility to a force greater than themselves, and, at the same time, creating a class of assistants who were charged with finding and interpreting “reasons” for edicts such as “Don’t eat that great tasting meat.”

Eventually the assistants developed in the shamans who constructed elaborate stories to explain phenomena which affected daily life.

Story-telling utilized a supra-human entity, which had all the strengths and all the foibles of the people of the tribe as well as powers to control various elements of nature.

Give the species a few thousand years, and it all cumulates in organized religion.

But somewhere it went terribly wrong.

They forgot community and went for a literal supra-human.

Hitchens Gets It Correct

Technorati Tags: Slate.com,Christopher Hitchens,Freedom of Religion

Slate offers a column by Hitchens which contains this line:  “The taming and domestication of religion is one of the unceasing chores of civilization.”

Absolutely.

4.5 billion years ago…

 

“In the beginning…” there wasn’t religion.

And then later…there was.

If we go back far enough we’re likely to find that religion developed out of the necessity to develop a system of socialization which would serve to sustain human life.

As certain facts emerged, eating a particular food had unpleasant results—cramps, blindness, death—it became apparent that a list of don’ts would enhance chances of survival.

“Don’t!” however, very often results in “Why not?” and “Because” seldom is sufficient; “Because I said so” is often even less sufficient.  Further, too often the reason why isn’t grasped at all by the person who wants to impose the don’t.

What to do?  What to do?

Problem solved if an aura of mystery is added to the mix.

“A voice told me.”

It’s time to re-think what that voice actually told “me.”

 

It’s not all anachronistic bunk

Technorati Tags: Andrew Sullivan,Religion

Here’s a quote from a recent Andrew Sullivan blog entry:  “To dismiss all religion as mere anachronistic bunk is a closure of the mind, not an opening.”

Here’s my problem with Sullivan’s statement.  Do non-religionists really “dismiss all religion,” or do they (we?) merely question certain questionable, i.e., against nature, holdings by several major religions?

I would hold there is at least one element in religious history which should be embraced by all humanity—the idea of congregating. 

Beyond that, there are practices which should be abandoned.  Belief in ascensions, virgin births, raising from the dead, a “jealous” God (how is that not a reflection of human psychology?), having human beings become the earthly “voice” of God, and killing in the name of God (another human trait imposed on the concept of a deity) for starters.

We are a social animal; we benefit from associations with persons of a like mind.  Working within our own associations and with other associations we can all benefit.

That’s a “religious” concept which we should keep and cherish.

In the beginning...

...there was comfort in community.