Snap!
BUMP!
..and are you suggesting that some Catholics do not believe in the immortality of the soul?
Who created God?
- Thread starter muhammad_isa
- Start date
Snap!
BUMP!
..and are you suggesting that some Catholics do not believe in the immortality of the soul?
Let me be frank —
Much like your citations of Eckhart, it's one thing to copy and paste a piece of text, out of context, and frame it in your own polemic.
It's quite another to understand what the guy is actually saying. If you think you understand Eckhart, then good for you. Personally, I doubt it. It takes years of reading, contemplating, praying ... and then we can only wonder ... Eckhart is called the Prince of Mystics, yet he never claimed to have had a mystical experience. He speaks from an intellectual conviction ... but for all his Ürgrund and 'uncreated spark' in the soul, he believed in the doctrines and dogmas of his Catholic faith. The Trinity. The Incarnation. He was Orthodox, and the claims of heresy have been dismissed.
If you want someone to bash the Church over the head with, you'd be better off with Marguerite de Porete.
I have read Origen, and it's bloody difficult. When it comes down to it, given the choice of someone like yourself, with an obvious agenda, and someone like Mark Edwards, a scholar who reads the Greek, who's a deep thinker, and who's clearly a major fan of Origen the philosopher as opposed to Origen the theologian, I'll go with Edwards' commentary.
But here's the killer — I've read his – Edwards' books. I've listened to him lecture. I've asked him questions, and half the time I have no idea what he's going on about!
So if you want a serious discussion about Origen, or Eckhart, or Arius, than I'm up for that, but if you're going to start playing fast and loose about what you choose to accept and what you don't, what's reliable and what's not, what counts as a source and what doesn't, or what happened a millennium later, based on prejudice and assumption, then forget it, I can't be arsed.
Much like your citations of Eckhart, it's one thing to copy and paste a piece of text, out of context, and frame it in your own polemic.
It's quite another to understand what the guy is actually saying. If you think you understand Eckhart, then good for you. Personally, I doubt it. It takes years of reading, contemplating, praying ... and then we can only wonder ... Eckhart is called the Prince of Mystics, yet he never claimed to have had a mystical experience. He speaks from an intellectual conviction ... but for all his Ürgrund and 'uncreated spark' in the soul, he believed in the doctrines and dogmas of his Catholic faith. The Trinity. The Incarnation. He was Orthodox, and the claims of heresy have been dismissed.
If you want someone to bash the Church over the head with, you'd be better off with Marguerite de Porete.
I have read Origen, and it's bloody difficult. When it comes down to it, given the choice of someone like yourself, with an obvious agenda, and someone like Mark Edwards, a scholar who reads the Greek, who's a deep thinker, and who's clearly a major fan of Origen the philosopher as opposed to Origen the theologian, I'll go with Edwards' commentary.
But here's the killer — I've read his – Edwards' books. I've listened to him lecture. I've asked him questions, and half the time I have no idea what he's going on about!
So if you want a serious discussion about Origen, or Eckhart, or Arius, than I'm up for that, but if you're going to start playing fast and loose about what you choose to accept and what you don't, what's reliable and what's not, what counts as a source and what doesn't, or what happened a millennium later, based on prejudice and assumption, then forget it, I can't be arsed.
Last edited by a moderator:
Crap.Snap!
I'm suggesting that I don't believe in the immortality of the soul, as the soul is commonly understood — that is, identified with what we perceive as 'me'.
The present Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the term soul “refers to the innermost aspect of [persons], that which is of greatest value in [them], that by which [they are] most especially in God's image: ‘soul’ signifies the spiritual principle in [humanity]”. All souls living and dead will be judged by Jesus Christ when he comes back to earth.
The Catholic Church teaches that the existence of each individual soul is dependent wholly upon God: "The doctrine of the faith affirms that the spiritual and immortal soul is created immediately by God."
What of the above do you not agree with?
That is not my intention.
My intention is very similar to Eckhart's.
That is, to convey my understanding / knowledge to my brothers in God.
Ah ...
If by that you mean an anti-orthodox Christian polemic to your Muslim brothers, then OK, now I get you. Please can you shift this line of presentation to the Islam section, then you can do so to your heart's content.
If you mean a broader readership, then might I ask you confine yourself to what I assume you know about, that is Muslim doctrine, rather than spreading misunderstanding and/or misinformation about someone else's beliefs, a set of beliefs you've walked away from?
I personally would really like to know more about Ibn Arabi, Al-Farabi, Al-Ghazali, Ibn Sina, Ibn Rushd ...
Eckhart week, sigh ...
The only thing I've walked away from is the trinity .. well, more or less.
Have you walked away from your beliefs?
i.e. post #345
It's a personal opinion, a matter of nuance, founded on Scripture, and not one worth entertaining here.
I have no issue with that. It's your notion of the Trinity as being something impressed on the church after Nicaea.
There's also the death on the cross, the Resurrection, the Eucharist ... umm ... The Gospel of John, the Pauline writings ...
Who are your go-to theologians of Islam?Sorry .. I don't know anything about them
LOL, just about most of it, then ...
Well, why not? You're entitled to your opinion. I'm not sure why it's "not worth entertaining" though.
@RJM Corbet doesn't seem to want to be pinned down about his belief on souls either .. hmm.
I realise that you consider many of my opinions "not worth entertaining", but I still express them
I don't believe I have the right to concern myself with such matters that belong to God.
Whoa! Hold on..
..but yes, I think that's why the trinity is so dear to many people.
They fear the consequences of what it might lead to if they become a Unitarian
Oh no. I'm quite secure in my own faith, thank you
In fact the desperate and uninformed barrage upon it by someone of a different faith, only works to strengthen it
I have the Qur'an [ I use Marmaduke Pickthall translation .. an early 20th century convert ]
..and we have 1000's of reasonably reliable hadith, which suffices as explanation / tafsir.
I am also familiar with seerah [ life of the prophet SAW ], and some Islamic history.
I have browsed Ibn Kathir tafsir, but have little knowledge in that dept.