Response to Reader Comments on the Pope Article

Alpheus said:

“When the early Fathers learned reason from the Greeks, this is not equal to 'polluted' but 'learned' to navigate history better. Why? because without reason, many civilizations would be dead by the sword by now (negotitate instead of fight) “.

The influx of Greek philosophy into Christianity came during its early days. The Crusades and the bloody wars in Europe came much later; all of it stemmed from issues within Christianity itself. Clearly, the influx of man-made reason, i.e., Greek philosophical thought, did not “better” Christianity because history shows that there was more sword than negotiation.

“The God of history is also the same Christian God who is transcendental to man's limited understanding. By the same principle of transcendence to which Islam subscribe as well, a religion that can learn reason is more capable, not polluted because something that is reasonable cannot pollute, otherwise it ceases to be reasonable. However, favoring non-reason, you can also argue that being transcendental, God can also be unreasonable. But this argument can only come from a mind that has concluded that the Transcendental God is unreasonable - and this choice of argument has nothing to do between being Christian or Islam”.

I think the point I was trying to make is that a true religion should not have to learn reason because a true religion is reason itself. Having reason (rationality) is having a good judgment and good sense. If Christianity lacked good judgment and good sense at its inception, and required the input of the human mind to provide these attributes, then how and why should one hold this to be a transcendent truth? Surely, God should not have had to rely on his Creation (Man) to perfect his truth for him?

Another reader said:

“Rationality, even if you label it a 'construct' is not changeable. When something is fundamentally rational from the beginning, it remains so for till the end of time. A thing that stands eternity cannot be simply a 'man-made construct'”

Well, that is your understanding. My understanding is that rationality can be derived from two sources – from the divine and from the human mind. It is my contention that the rationality of the human mind is changeable.

Let me give you an example. The religious teachings (Islam and Christianity) prohibit homosexuality, and call it an abomination and a sin. Believers cannot engage in such activities, and they are also to prevent others from doing so in society. This is a religious principle. So not too long ago, open homosexuality in society was discouraged. The religious principle dictated that the divinely inspired rationale behind prohibiting open homosexuality was accepted.

However, the discourse and theories on the topic changed over time with the separation of the church and the state, and the rise of individualism – a new form of rationality. Religion became something for the private domain, while the public domain developed its own set of rationality; acceptance of homosexuality is one of them.

Homosexuality is propagated as a natural condition, something acceptable in society. Consequently, it is no longer rational for someone to not condone homosexuality in society; it is not reasonable to be “homo-phobic”. The good judgment and good sense of the modern man in the West has evolved to accept homosexuality, even though the Christian principle clearly states otherwise. There are even Christian priests who are homosexuals with congregations that think it rational to accept homosexuality and stay a believer.

The Western man has formed his own rationality on the topic of homosexuality that contradicts a transcendent religious principle.

So I re-iterate that man-made constructs are changeable. And if the rationality we talk about is man-made, and without a transcendent principle, then it is open to change.

“The body of teachings of Christ as transmitted by the Bishop of Rome through the Early Fathers and through the Church is admittedly the only set of transcendent principles in the world that is still unchanged for the last 2000 years. Even when Greek rationality became the medium of thinking in theology, it did not change the transcendent principles of the Catholic church for the past 2000 years”.

Given the evidence shown by Christian theologians, I am inclined to believe that some of the transcendent principles in the Bible may be there in spirit, but certainly they have been modified.

"Lastly, I doubt if there is such a thing as a pure "genuine enlightenment" that is 100% independent of human mind. The fact that God uses a prophet's mind means there will always be human element in any revelation. So between 2 prophets, who determines the exclusion of the other? Therein lies the inevitable need for a dialogue".

Indeed, there should be dialogue between the two groups in order to promote mutual tolerance and understanding. But that doesn’t change the fact that Muslims call Prophet Muhammad a “Messenger” for a reason. His job was to relay God’s message in an undiluted form. The angel Gabriel told Muhammad to “recite”. When Muslims talk of God’s word, we do mean his words, and not Muhammad’s understanding of God’s words. The unchangeable divine rationality in Islam stems from the transcendent principles in God’s own words.