www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Quran Burning

Glory to Jesus Christ!



Dear Tim,

In loving our enemies we do not need to call the Qur'an holy. In respecting our Muslim brothers, we do not need to call their scripture holy. We need to love and respect them for the icon of God that all of humanity is as we are all created in His image. But that does not mean that we should call holy that which is not. Words have meaning and they are powerful. As for me at least, to call something or someone holy is to have a certain reverence for it/them. I do not revere the Qur'an. But I do respect, love and pray for our Muslim brothers that they may come to revere and call holy that which is Holy.

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

Manuel:

I think we need to display some simple courtesy and sensitivity in speaking to or about those of other Faiths. I doubt that any of us would feel comfortable, or "respected." if another Christian, or non-Christian, refused to refer to our Liturgy as "Divine," balked at calling our Eucharist "Holy," or declined to use the term "Saint" (which means "Holy") in referring to the heroes and heroines of our Faith. I remain convinced that the posts asserting that no Believer should speak of the "Holy Koran" were narrow, bigoted, and un-Christian.

I was the first to state that it is improper for a Christian to make such referene to the Quran.

While I acknowledge that those writings are sacred to the Muslims, words which declare “Verily they are disbelievers and infidels who say, ‘The Messiah, son of Mary, is God.” are not and cannot be holy to me.

Yes, there is a slim strand of commonality with this other "Abrahamic faith". But Islam simply cannot comprehend the kenosis (Divine self-emptying, cf Philippians 2:5-11) of Christ, the Son of the Living God and finds such a notion utterly abhorant.

Consider the Islamic ascriptions to Allah as "the all powerful", "the all merciful", etc---all ascriptions to a divine being who exerts raw power. All commonality ceases with the Incarnation.

...There are many Christians of certain Protestant denominations who do not and will not refer to our Catholic and Orthodox saints as 'saints'.


Personally, I don't think that there really is a need to refer to the 'Koran' as 'holy' since I have never actually heard it referred to as such before by a Muslim or Christian.

The Bible is referred to as the 'holy' Bible by Christians in certain contexts, but most times, one hears it simply referred to as simply: 'the Bible'...as in "put your hands on the Bible to take an oath", "there is a Bible in the hotel room", "do you have a Bible?", "the church has an ancient Bible", "I am going to a Bible study", etc...

Ofcourse, Senator Clinton was probably trying to make a point in this statement, and in the world of politics and diplomacy, sometimes words are exaggerated for a reason.

Getting back on topic, I do not think that anyone should burn something which is sacred to another. Period.

I agree with Bob that the media is presenting Christians in a bad light by highlighting this pastor...but then again, sensationalist stories like this make big news and that is probably the bottom line; ofcourse if Christians are making that news, to the secular media, it is probably all the better!

As for the proposed 'Cordoba Center', the name itself can be deemed insensitive, and, personally, I think that they should move the mosque somewhere else for the sake of peace and goodwill. They had a beautiful large mosque in the upper 90's of Manhattan, and downtown (Ground Zero area) is not really the kind of neighborhood (it is primarily commercial) that has much going on community wise, so, in a way, it is a bit suspect. In the meantime, the little Greek Orthodox church of St. Nicholas that was built years ago for visiting seamen and that was burned on 9/11 at Ground Zero has yet to be rebuilt thanks to trouble with the port authority...

Quite correct, and very regretable.

Most Lutherans and Anglicans refer to the Apostles, along with John the Baptist and Mary Magdalene as "Saint". But use of that title is limited to the Apostolic era, although there are a few of us who extend its use through the Patristic period through and including the Doctors of the Church.

One of the many tragedies of the most recent Lutheran (ELCA) hymnal is that the Apostles Days are no longer titled "St. Matthew, Apostle and Evangelist", etc, but simply "Matthew, Apostle and Evangelist" Egalitarianism run amok, or, given that body's other madness, yet one more attempt at silencing the voices of the past.

Alice said,
"Getting back on topic, I do not think that anyone should burn something which is sacred to another. Period."

I am definitely against burning something to make a statement that someone else deems as sacred. What an offensive and terrible thing to do in reaching out to one's neighbor. But what is one to do if they come across suspect material in their path or homes? Would you see a problem with throwing away leaflets that evangelicals leave around places to sort of teach a truncated version of the gospel, or JW magazines. Or if one found something seemingly of some more pagan religion or item that some think sacred but is actually occultic or new age, is it okay then to destroy it? Of course, I would not think we would consider burning such things, but wouldn't we get rid of them in a way that was not necessarily respectful. I would think the difference is that it is a private act of spiritual protection, not going out and buying something just to insult someone by destroying it. I suppose I would have no problem with owning religious books like the Koran myself if only for study and reference. But I would not keep occultic books or worse.

Anyway, I have nothing against what Alice said, just wondering what is fair game or not when incidentally interacting with other religious materials that may be suspect of spiritually harmful.

All this book burning was going to achieve, if it had gone ahead, would have been to enlarge the number of Christian martyrs, as the mob would have taken it out on the nearests Christians to hand.

Dear Searching East,


You have a point, and certainly in the privacy of our own homes we have the right to burn whatever we think is spiritually harmful. In my home, I would definitely burn any satanist or occultic material , no matter how precious or sacred it might be to those who follow it!!! Many holy monastics also tell us to do this with any material of Hinduism or Buddhism, as their 'holy' objects and prayers can invite their demons into our homes and lives.

What I meant to say is that a 'public' burning of another *monostheistic* religion's holy book is wrong, IMHO.

While I strongly disagree with burning the Qur'an, I also strongly disagree with referring to that hateful and violent book which calls on Muslims to kill, exile and imprison unbelievers as Holy.

In truth this whole thing is only an issue because unlike all other traditional religions Muslims riot and kill people when their hair trigger sensibilities are offended in any way. Of course they think nothing of building a Mosque right on the site of the 9/11 massacre which was committed in the name of their religion.

I have to agree with Bridget Gabrielle who is a Lebanese Maronite Christian and survivor of Islamic persecution in her country that we should have "Open a Qur'an day instead of burn a Qur'an day". That way people in the US and the rest of the world can better understand where exactly the hateful, violent and oppressive ideology comes from.

I am sorry but I find nothing holy or sacred about a man made religion whatever it is, I do conclude though that others are to be treated with respect. Even our enemies.
Stephanos I

Amen brother.

I once procured myself an English translation of the Quran and tried to read it - the further I got into the text, the less sense it made and so I finally gave up, saying, "This is completely beyond me." By the way I tried the same thing with the Book of Mormon and got the same results.

Hmmm Someone left a book of saying of the Buddha in my office that is now in my home since nobody ever returned for it. I thought it would be okay to keep for reference or learning some truths from it that are compatible with my faith, or comparing. I would also keep a Koran if I had one maybe for reference, if it did not make me uncomfortable
I also have books of religious poetry. One by an Arab poet named Rilke and another few books of Haiku's by Basho that are more Japanese often in religious reference.
Also, I have heard it argued that Hinduism is a monotheistic religion than people realize, and that hey many 'gods' are more faces of personalities of the one true god that they believe in.
But what are we to do privately with other religious material?

Glory to Jesus Christ!



Dear Searching East,

In reference to Hinduism, they are monist. They do not believe, ultimately, in an ultimate God like we monotheist do. They believe (whatever the branch) that all reality, gods, goddesses, us, the world, etc., are just an illusion or aspects of the ultimate reality which is not personable. That ultimate reality is something we need to be awaken to by loosening our "attachments" to what we perceive as reality. That is a very general assessment of the Hindu faith. I was very interested in it back in the day. But this is just a side note since you brought them up.

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

Searching,

Is this by an Arab poet or by Rainer Maria Rilke? Rilke was a Bohemian, generally thought to be among the most prominent poets to write in the German languages. Much of his poetry focuses on religious themes. He was Christian by birth, but did not practice - despite that it was the subject of so much that he wrote. Although not a Muslim, he did have an interest in and attraction to that faith.

Many years,

Neil