Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [steiner] Islam Lacks a "rock of Peter"

Expand Messages
  • LilOleMissy
    Dear Mathew, What are your sources for this? A bibliography would be appreciated. Sheila Mathew Morrell wrote: The fact is that Islam saved the Middle East,
    Message 1 of 5 , Feb 16, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Mathew,

      What are your sources for this? A bibliography would be appreciated.

      Sheila


      Mathew Morrell wrote:
      The fact is that Islam saved the Middle East, but especially ancient 
      Persia, from the devastating effects of pseudomorphosis, that lay-
      wasting sickness of the soul that happens when civilizations, 
      devastated by warfare, assume the identify of alien cultures.  
      Before Islam, the Persians were forced into the alien expression-
      forms of Greece, then of Rome, and finally Christianity, before 
      finding its own artistic center.  Then and only then was the Persian 
      soul capable of actualizing itself in art.  Through the arabesque, 
      and not through Roman iconography, the Persian artist discovered 
      himself; he saw his world-view mirrored, not in the Greek Corinthian 
      columns, but in the great domed mosques of Tehran; not in statuary, 
      but in rich abstraction, the Persian found a mode of self expression 
      appropriate for conveying the complexity of Islam.  In all these 
      expression forms---down to the minimalism of his garb---you'll find 
      the essence of the Arabic soul that screamed to be unleashed 1800 
      years ago.  This essence is the spirit of universalism, of being 
      children of the Cosmos, not fragmented bands divided by tribal 
      warfare, laywasted by pseudomorphosis, but a nation transcending 
      human differences, stretching forth beyond the idea of "tribe", 
      beyond even race and creed, and above all reaching beyond the 
      personal Self.  In Islam, the self has value only to the extent that 
      it serves the universal principles represented by Allah.  
      
      "There is no God but Me:  therefore fear Me," are Allah's words in 
      the Koran.  This is the voice of God the Father, the One True God, 
      at once vengeful and wrath-filled, loving and compassionate.  His 
      words resonate within all of us equally regardless of nation because 
      they're based on a universal/archetypal principle.  Allah is a god 
      whose heart is the firmament, who created the firmament out of his 
      own self.  This is not a passive god who delights in nothingness, 
      but a God of Creation, not an abstract ideal, i.e. a Platonic Form, 
      but the impersonal force of the Cosmos.  Allah is a living, active 
      being of pure will, whose very essence angrily rejects worldliness 
      and demands submission.  
      
      Historically, why then are Islamic nations so violently divided?  
      Why can't Islamic nations live in peace, at least among themselves?  
      We can answer this question by first observing the fact that no 
      dominant branch has emerged from Islam capable of creating a 
      marginalized consensus among its followers.  Instead you have 
      opposing schools of thought dividing Islam into different factions, 
      say, for instance, the factions Sunni Muslims and the Shiites 
      fighting over Iraq.  Fortunately, Christendom does not suffer the 
      degree of division that plagues Islam.  Although Christianity today 
      has different branches---i.e. Catholics and Baptists---early 
      Christianity was brought under one unified banner:  minimalizing the 
      influence of the monophysites, Nestorians, coptics, etc.  This had 
      to be, because it was God's Will.  In the Bible, Jesus smartly 
      specified which doctrine his church shall be built upon, 
      Peter.  "And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and, and upon 
      this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not 
      prevail against it."
      
      Maybe somebody can come forward and tell us what it is about the 
      Petrine doctrine that made Jesus build his `church' there.  We can 
      see distinctions unique to each gospel in the Bible.  What is unique 
      about the gospel of Peter?    
      
      
      
        

    • sarah
      Matthew, If disunity and warfare is due to lack of centralisation in Islam, then how do they explain the relatively peaceful Bhuddism and Hinduism? Even
      Message 2 of 5 , Feb 18, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Matthew,
        If disunity and warfare is due to lack of centralisation in Islam, then how do they explain the relatively peaceful Bhuddism and Hinduism? Even Judaism? They have never been centralised either. Islam is a very war-orientated ideology and it's only logical that the problems must stem from that.
         
        Sarah
        Dolls and Cooperative Boardgames;
        http://www.geocities.com/harmonytoys/index.htm
      • DoctorStarman@aol.com
        In a message dated 2/16/2005 1:18:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, ... *******I think the rock on which the Christ was to build His church was not Peter
        Message 3 of 5 , Mar 6 4:31 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 2/16/2005 1:18:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, tma4cbt@... writes:

          Maybe somebody can come forward and tell us what it is about the
          Petrine doctrine that made Jesus build his `church' there.  We can
          see distinctions unique to each gospel in the Bible.  What is unique
          about the gospel of Peter?  



          *******I think the "rock" on  which the Christ was to build His "church" was not Peter himself, but the spirit-realization Simon showed a moment before, when he said, You are the living Christ. That direct knowledge of the Christ was the 'Rock' (in Greek, petrus).
            And I agree that unfortunately Muhammed apparently bought into the false Gnostics' idea that Jesus didn't really die on the cross, etc.---- so that Islam leads people away from knowledge of the Christ as badly as orthodox Judaism does, making Jesus into a man or at best just one of the Prophets.
          -starman
          www.DrStarman.net
        • Mathew Morrell
          In the early Christian movement there were those who believed in Jesus as God , those who believed in Jesus as Prophet, and those who believed in Jesus as
          Message 4 of 5 , Mar 6 6:07 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            In the early Christian movement there were those who believed
            in "Jesus as God", those who believed in "Jesus as Prophet," and
            those who believed in "Jesus as God and Man." There was much
            argument and debate over this issue, as to what was Jesus' true
            nature. Was Jesus mortal, was he God, or was Jesus God in flesh
            (the "living" Christ)? Islam and most Gnostics (even to this day)
            deny Jesus' divine nature, emphasizing instead his mortal role as
            teacher. Thankfully, the Church father's rejected the Islamic-
            Gnostic doctrines and later overcame the Monophysites, a counter-
            movement that rejected the reality and completeness of Jesus' human
            body, his consubstantiality with us. The chart below might help us
            grasp the differences in black and white terms.


            Nestorians: One person, two hypostases, two natures.
            Catholics: One person, one hypostasis, two natures.
            Monophysites: One person, one hypostasis, one nature.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.