Moderate Muslims and Catholics-Nice But Dumb?

[David Sklansky]

First change "dumb" to "inconsistent". Shocking titles get more hits.

Secondly the two subjects I'm going to bring up are quite seperate and each is important in their own right. But I lumped them together because I see a common thread. A thread that can be applied to many things besides these two.

Moderate Muslims can often be seen denouncing Muslim extremeists who espouse violence with the words that the extremists are twisting the Koran's teachings. I have no idea if that is true. But I do know that there have been many western writers who state the it appears the Koran does indeed advocate what the extremists claim. Since that point is bandied about so much why do the moderates not make a major effort to engage extremists in a public debate showing once and for all that both the extremists and the western journalists are wrong? Is it because an accurate reading of the Koran shows them not to be wrong. Are the moderates simply picking and choosing certain things from the Koran to coincide with common sense and a desire to be nice? Nothing wrong with that but they should admit it.

The Catholic analogy relates to whether it is possible to not believe Jesus is the son of God, (even though he is known to you) and still have a chance at heaven. Apparently the Catholic answer is yes. But the fundamentalist Christian answer is no. The fundamentalists express human anguish at this state of affairs that allows a Jonas Salk to go to hell and a rapist to be saved. But on a higher plane they say that God has good reasons for this and more importantly it is not up to them to contradict what is plainly stated in the New Testament. On the SMP forum some Catholic posters have cited a couple of passages that they claim refutes the fundamentalist position but the fundamentalists, especially the articulate NOT READY, have appeared to be able to quickly dispense with these refutations, explaining how those passages are misconstrued and citing numerous passages that state their position. And at least on our forum the Catholics do not debate further. Are the Catholics simply picking and choosing certain things from the Bible to coincide with common sense and a desire to be nice? Nothing wrong with that but they should admit it.

[UpstateMatt]

David:

I suppose one issue here is that for many of the kind of people who seriously engage in these debates within Christianity, Catholicism and Protestantism ARE NOT strands of the same religion. I think the first question for any fundamentalist Protestant being engaged in this debate should be, "Do good Catholics go to heaven?" In many cases, the answer will be no. And that's fine. But you need to know the answer to that question up front. Because if the answer is no, you are dealing with an entirely different set of questions.

I can't speech to Islam, but I can imagine that the same sticking point occurs.

I know this doesn't address your main concern in the post, but it's important - it speaks to motive.

mg

[David Sklansky]

Interestingly, Not Ready clearly states that believing that non believers can be saved is NOT a belief that keeps you from heaven. If that makes sense.

[Traderx]

Man is impure and filled with SIN and until man turns to GOD through his free will, GOD will hide himself from us but not totally.

Thus GOD allows religions to flourish.

Each religion is allowed a piece of the truth.

Muslims mostly focus on GOD's wrath and cleansing
Christians are supposed to see GOD's Love and Forgiveness (his son)
Jews are allowed to see GOD's wisdom and mind.

None of these has the WHOLE answer because it's not GOD's will yet.

When we ALL turn to him completely and accept HIM as the ONE and ONLY GOD and TRUST him with all our hearts and minds, the truth will be revealed.

But like all addicts (we are all addicted to life) we must hit rock bottom BEFORE we can see the light.

GOD Bless, Shalom and Peace be Upon you.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Are the moderates simply picking and choosing certain things from the Koran [Bible] to coincide with common sense and a desire to be nice?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and this goes for both Christians and Muslims.

[ QUOTE ]
The Catholic analogy relates to whether it is possible to not believe Jesus is the son of God, (even though he is known to you) and still have a chance at heaven. Apparently the Catholic answer is yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being raised a Catholic I respectfully disagree. Belief in Jesus as god is the central tenet of the Catholic faith, just as it is with any other Christian church. Some liberal Catholics try to get around this by citing the Catholic Church's position on "baptism of desire". But here is the relevant quote from the Cathechism of the Catholic Church:

"Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized"

So we are talking about an exception for:
-unbaptized martyrs
-people studying to be Catholics but who die before baptism
-good people who have never heard of the Church

It certainly does not mean that Catholics think good Jews, Muslims, etc. are going to heaven. They don't. Or, if they do it is their own morality saying it, not any teaching of the church.

[NMcNasty]

I think part of the original question that David is trying to get at is what about the people who don't in their heart actually believe in God, but due to pressures from society or problems like Pascal's Wager, they go through the motions. They obey all of God's laws and perform the rituals that would show their faith even if its not sincere. They make their best attempt to believe. Would those individuals go to hell or not?

[benjdm]

My experience is that the moderate or liberal believers do not hold the source book (Koran / Bible) as authoritative. Which does put them on a weird footing. They are often pretty reasonable and positive people, but have little standing to challenge either the non-believers or the fundamentalists.

I've tried to argue that cherry picking from the Bible is no worse than not-cherry picking from the Bible. The Bible itself is the result of cherry picking, editing, and censorship from long ago. Other then historical accuracy, there is no good reason to favor one result of cherry-picking over another.

[punter11235]

Did you read any of Sam Harris books, David ?
He has similar view on this subject.

[soon2bepro]

I don't know about the Koran, but The Bible has quite a bit of passages most christians won't like you to see.

I made an illustrative post about this not too long ago. Most of you probably didn't notice. (Or maybe you didn't care)
Bible quotes post

[mikechops]

I'm not a student of either the bible or the Koran, but it seems likely to me that both sides can find evidence to support their positions. Hence, "The devil can quote scripture."

Religions can be looked at as memes competing in a darwinian fashion for followers. Religions that are too doctrinaire about how to behave towards non-believers, would be less likely to survive than those that allowed followers some wiggle room. If both a hard-line and a concilliatory approach can be justified from the scripture, followers can decide upon the most advantageous course depending upon the precise political factors they find themselves in.

It would appear that the two most successful world religions are both somewhat ambiguous as to how to regard non-believers.