Re: [steiner] Islam Lacks a "rock of Peter"
What are your sources for this? A bibliography would be appreciated.
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?
- 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;
- 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.
- 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.