 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 12th, 2007 10:52 pm |
|
I was reading an article in a Catholic publication comparing Islam and Christianity. I saw a sentence I thought was incorrect about Christianity and I wanted to check before I consider asking the editor. I am paraphrasing, but it is like this... 'Islam does not believe that all of our actions are ordained by God (a belief Christian theology did not agree with until recently)
I would think that Christianity was not just wring about this until recently. Nor do I think it always believed every single one of our actions is ordained by God. I understand that we think God's will is perfect and unchanging, but I thought we never definitively answered how that works with our free will. Does anybody know what the article was intending to say? was it right or wrong? Has Christianity only recently changed its understanding of God ordaining our actions?
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1715 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 12th, 2007 11:12 pm |
|
Like you, I believe the statement is suspect. Could you give us a reference? Which publication? Context?
David
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 12th, 2007 11:53 pm |
|
I avoided referencing it because I maybe misquoted, and I do not want to badmouth an otherwise good publication. It is a magazine I think based in Ireland dedicated to spreading the Divine Mercy devotion. The magazine is called Divine Mercy in Action. I was reading it at a friend's house. So if you want more info I would need to go read it again. It seems like a good enough magazine...however, it looks maybe a little, well I don't know. here is the website which is the closest I can get you to the source, but it will not have the magazine on its site or much of the articles. But I was considering asking them about the statement. http://www.divinemercy.org
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1715 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 13th, 2007 10:43 am |
|
All right, then. The website and its companion for HUDT seem clean enough. You are saying that the quotation is inexact, and it seems to say the opposite of the known facts. Perhaps you simply misunderstood. I would forget it and move on.
As to the assertions you mention, it is not true that Islam “does not believe that all our actions are ordained by God.” Quite the opposite. Muslims are great believers in God’s foreordaining each person’s life, even to the point of being fatalistic.
Catholic Christianity and those traditions that are similar accept both free will on the one hand and divine providence and, in a certain sense, predestination, on the other. Thomist theology has produced an ideology that depends on secondary causality to avoid contradiction between divine determinism (which we do not accept) and human free will (which we do accept, but not in an absolute manner, because of our condition as creatures).
Predestination, in this view, is not the same as determinism. It is simply God’s eternal knowledge of the free choices we humans will make. He provides us everything we need to make the right choices, but it is up to us to make them. Predestination to glory (heaven) is the only kind of predestination we accept, for God “wants all men to be saved” (1 Timothy 2:4). But it is God, and not we, who know our final destination. Therefore, if anyone ends up in hell, it is by his own free choice, and not by God foreordaining it.
There is a competing theology, called Molinism, in which free will is more prominent. It is similar to, but not identical with, the Protestant free will theory called Arminianism. The Church has not spoken definitively on this topic, but has allowed a number of theories to exist side by side while our theology matures.
David
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 14th, 2007 12:40 pm |
|
Well, I figured there was no harm in inquiring what the meaning was so I asked them. The response cleared things up.
In reply to your query on the article on Islam, you have, I believe, misread the sentence if you read it again you will see that the sentence is:” a view that was not shared with Christian theology until recently” not as you seemed to have read it “by Christian theology”
That makes sense. So he is saying that Christian theology has always held this, but only recently has Islamic belief been compatible..still, the way it was worded was confusing because he does not imply which view is considered changing and which one is considered consistent on the matter. He does not say how the change from agreement to disagreement came about so I took it to mean that Christian theology recently changed their belief on the matter and now it is the same. All is well again. And my apologies to the publication.
|
|
|
Steven Barrett
Member
|
Posted: Wed Mar 21st, 2007 11:55 am |
|
One of the major stumbling blocks between Christianity and Islam, and Judaism, for that matter, is the tribal Arab origins of Islam. For example, Jesus' death on a cross was utterly incomphrehensible to a prominent Arab such as Mohammed. That a chief, sheik, king, prince, or any other head of state, tribe or religion would willingly allow himself to be sacrificed for the salvation of others -- well, it was out of the question! Moreso in the sense that the same individual claimed to be God's Son!
One can only wonder at how different world history would have turned out if Mohammed accepted Jesus for Who He was and what He actually accomplished on the cross. It's great that Jesus is revered as the "last great prophet" before Mohammed; that Mary's venerated and likewise, Moses. But it all hinges on Mohammed's inability to accept Christ's sacrifice and what it means for all of us.
As Christians, we have our absolute teachings, etc., Every great faith has them. But the major difference between Judeo-Christian teachings and cultural traditions/intellectual heritage, is the fact that we do not buy into the fatalistism which has plagued Islam ever since it appeared on the scene.
There were moments during the Middle Ages when Islam was shaped by open-minded thinkers, but that was many years ago. And, it's not just the Crusades, which modern thinkers love to blame for many of today's misunderstandings between Islam and the West. As the so-called "nation of Islam" began to shrink politically, while European powers expanded, Islam, as a faith, also began to shrink as well. Especially in the aftermath of the extremist Wahabhi ascendancy, which still plagues us to this date. Osama bin Laden isn't the only Wahabhist we need to be concerned with.
After all, the very leaders of his homeland, Saudi Arabia, are not only the overseers of Meccan shrines, etc., they are also dedicated Wahabhists.
Any faith, even if it's one of "the book" which shrinks upon its original teachings, worldly insight and (genuine) desires to reach common accords with other faiths, especially Christianity and Judaism, is a faith worth being very wary about. Moreso when it has over a billion adherents and is Christianity's mortal enemy.
____________________
For anyone suffering from a mental illness or has a loved one with a mental illness, my book "Lead kindly Light: A Devotional For The Mentally Ill" might be of some help: http://www.lulu.com/ (Use search box at the top of page.)
|
|
|
Steven Barrett
Member
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26th, 2007 12:47 pm |
|
Speaking of books about Islam and this particular topic, I came across a very interesting book review through Christianity Today's (overall) website (plus links, etc.).
The book is Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11, by Lawrence Wright (Knopf) and reviewed by Stephen Prothero, "Who Gets to Define Islam," a "book of the week."
http://www.christianitytoday.com/books/features/bookwk/070319.html
Prothero's scary review of a very scary development is what Bush should've given us right after 9/11 instead of the soft-shoe approach and "go out and shop" exhortation he gave only days after he promised the enemy it'd hear from us while standing at Ground Zero. Our government's reluctance to give up its weak-kneed mental appeasment of Islam is a major stumbling block to winning this war. We can't have it all ways, anymore than the Allies could have it during WWI and WWII regarding the nature of our enemies then. Of course we knew not every German or Japanese person was either a Nazi or militarist, yet, even knowing that wasn't allowed to interfere with our determination to rid the world of militant monarchism, and fascism. The same went for the Russians during the Cold War.
Funny how we won those wars just by being clear-headed about our enemies. Not so funny is how we're losing this war thanks to our schizophrenic and sentimentalized nice-guy approach towards our present enemy: militant, west/Christianity & Judaism-hating-radical Islam.
Inasmuch as we, nice, easy-going and less given to provocation by offense, westernized Christians would like to say otherwise -- we have an enemy.
And, unfortunately, we have allowed the enemy to frame not only his true identity, but worse yet, his real goal(s.)
This doesn't mean we have to go off on wildly uninformed head-hunting expeditions such as what a few overly influential scholars within and without the government manipulated us into regarding Iraq, (and possibly Iran.) In fact, we have shored up our intelligence gathering ability -- with the exception of Iraq) to the point that al-Qaeda is having considerable trouble getting off any outrageous display of their prowess in terrorism within our borders.
That's not saying we're out of the woods. Not by a long shot. And, so long as our government keeps coddling the pro-Hamas American Arabs running cities such as Dearborn MI, we may never rid ourselves of these nests of dangerous traitors and potential traitors.
Nevertheless, we've got to wake up and see the enemy for what he and his goals really are; not what we hope they aren't or about to be.
More Americans reading books like Wright's (and terrorist-hunter Stephen Emerson's books outlining the terrorist cell networks in the US) will go a long way to waking this nation up to the insidiousness of our enemy and a realistic assessment of a war we may be fighting not only for a long time, but for our very Faith, freedoms and lives.
Mr. Moderator, I yield the balance of ....[url][/url]Last edited on Mon Mar 26th, 2007 01:24 pm by Steven Barrett
____________________
For anyone suffering from a mental illness or has a loved one with a mental illness, my book "Lead kindly Light: A Devotional For The Mentally Ill" might be of some help: http://www.lulu.com/ (Use search box at the top of page.)
|
|
|
Current time is 12:04 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
