Does Islam Need a Luther or a Pope?

TCS ^ | 12-5-03 | EDWARD FESER

[fishtank]

"Does Islam Need a Luther or a Pope?"

Muslims need Jesus, not more Islam.

[Redbob]

Why a Luther or a Pope, when they have so many many Stalins and Hitlers?

[Redbob]

"St. MOAB" !!!
LOL!

Yup, ranks right up there with Saints Little Boy & Fat Man in my pantheon!

[A. Pole]

The fact of the matter is that those aspects of Islam that seem to put it unalterably at odds with the modern world are, for the most part, precisely those that it shares in common with Protestantism; and that those features of modern Western civilization most crucial to the maintenance of liberty and scientific reason owe far more to the Catholic Church than they do to Luther and Calvin.

Very interesting text!

[steve-b]

and (especially where the institution or practice is very ancient and widespread) the change can never be more than piecemeal, a tinkering around the edges that leaves the core of the practice or institution intact

If this were to be accepted as a generally valid principle, then abolitionism would have been rejected in favor of merely requiring slaveowners to provide improved working conditions and less severe discipline.

[Sabertooth]

Does Islam Need a Luther or a Pope?

That's like asking if a crazy dog would be smarter if it got a new tail.

Islam's head will always be Mohammed. So long as Mohammed was a liar, a conqueror, a murderer, an enslaver, and a pedophile who converted at swordpoint, the problems of Islam will not be solved.

[A. Pole]

If this were to be accepted as a generally valid principle, then abolitionism would have been rejected in favor of merely requiring slaveowners to provide improved working conditions and less severe discipline.

If you look at traditional Catholic countries you will see that slavery was abolished (gradually and peacefully) much earlier than in USA.

[ahumblefan]

The modern Catholic Church is what it is because of Protestantism. The Catholic Church was completely reorganized several hundred years ago during the Council of Trent because of the Reformation. Doctrines such as Papal infallibility and the supremecy of traditional Catholic teachings over the Bible's authority date from that period. I love my Catholic brothers, but theirs is a relatively recent version of Christianity compared to much of Protestantism. They speak from four hundred years of tradition. Bible believing Christians speak from nearly two thousand years of wisdom, experience and knowledge.

[gcruse]

"The authority of councils and Popes is at bottom merely the authority of the night watchman who guards a museum whose works he could not have created himself, and would not presume to tamper with."

And yet, the watchman feels adequate to interpret what the works mean and requires museum visitors to accept his version of things or stay out of the museum, even claiming infallibility as he does so.  Some think this is wholly unholy.

[steve50]

A yankee puritan bump

[A. Pole]

So although during those first ~1600 years there was no church other than the Catholic Church, those years nonetheless belong to Protestant tradition? Neat trick!

Don't you know that Saint John the Baptist was the first Baptist? :)

[gcruse]

That's if your are a Protestant.

[ahumblefan]

In lieu of a direct reply, I have posted a general, all-purpose overview of my posting philosophy in my bio. Peace unto you, brother.

[Ronly Bonly Jones]

What Islam needs is a Pope. >>>

No. What Islamics need is THE Pope. And conversion to the True Faith under his guidance.

[dyed_in_the_wool]

Neither.
It needs a John Locke and a Glorious Revolution.

[gcruse]

No, the pieces in the museum, ie scripture, do not require interpretation through the filter of a church. The night watchman is there to safeguard the museum pieces, not to be the arbiter of what they mean. Such interpretations as the Assumption and purgatory are ramblings of the night watchman, not sculptures from the sculptor.