A friend wrote to me regarding the "evolution of morality" and whether or not Islam would ever undergo the kind of transformation experienced in Christianity during the Reformation. After a brief introduction I wrote in reply:
But to the larger point, you're approaching morality as an atheist, not as either a Christian or a Muslim would, so you're bound to misunderstand their views. To both, there is no such thing as "the evolution of morality". Right and wrong are not a matter of debate and consensus; right and wrong are revealed by God.What you see as the evolution of morality among Christians is actually a different phenomenon. Most of Christian history was dominated and warped by the Catholic Church, which propounded purposefully incorrect teachings about God's revelation to man (the Bible) to sustain its political power. With the Reformation, Christians as a whole reclaimed the gift God gave them and resumed interpreting the Bible in the correct manner rather than as a tool for social control. (People will argue over the term "correct", but the plain textual meaning of the words in the Bible are pretty clear.) This was not an evolution of morality per se, but rather an evolution of the Christian institutions towards the form they were intended to take in the first place.
As for Islam, Muslims they believe that their god, Allah, revealed divine truth though, primarily, the Koran. However, they are not faced with the potential for the same kind of institutional change that rocked Christianity because the existing Muslim institutions are interpreting the teachings in the Koran correctly and as intended. That interpretation is horrific, thus causing Muslims around the world to suffer.
Just my impression, though I'm no Islamic scholar. If I'm wrong, show me some sources.
"puposefully incorrect"
You're sounding a little like Dan Brown.
Sola Scriptura is an idea 500 years young, by the way.
Ditto Samwise.
Michael:
AT THE TIME of the reformation, the Catholic church wasn't at it's greatest moment in history. No one denies that. Pope Leo X who was the pope at the time of Martin Luther was known as one of the greediest and most corrupted popes. Pope Pius V later rejected and recalled certain things like selling of indulgences. The problem with your statement is that even though the Roman Curia had become corrupted for a time, it was fixed and returned to the original teachings of Christ & His Chuch. How many times did Israel turn from God in a much worse way than the Catholic Church ever did?
This is typical revisionist history that Protestants and non Christians like to engage in. (The idea that the Catholic church purposely lied about the truth all these years. Like Samwise said: thats 'Dan Brown' level scholarship. The same reason why Da Vinci Code is a fraud, is the same reason why what you said about the Catholic Church is incorrect.) Furthermore like you said: Christian morals have not evolved. But regarding the Catholic church: anyone who knows even the slightest amount of history regarding the early church knows that they believed and taught exactly as Rome teaches to this day. Yes denominations like Baptists have deviated from those teachings in many areas but this by no means represents an "evolution" of Christian morals simply because one sect broke off and started believing something different. With the exception of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, some Protestant denominations like the reformed branch can make some reasonable claims that they too follow the early Church teachings.
As Samwise said, the self referential paradox known as Sola Scriptura was born in the sixteenth century as was Sola Fide (or Faith Alone) Although Sola Fide did show its ugly head in the first century as we see James writing in the second chapter of his epistle specifically to refute this heresy that had risen. After the first century though, it was unheard of until Luther. (And pro-luther scholars will admit that, namely Heiko Oberman)
Can you guess I'm Catholic? ;)
BTW, I am a convert to Catholicism from Protestantism. So, I DO know where you're coming from Michael so please don't take my comments too harshly.
Michael, I disagree slightly with your interpretation of Christian history, but I decided to post it at my blog instead of in a comment. Since you don't seem to support trackbacks any more, I hope you won't mind if I put the link here.
DR: Yeah, I certainly appreciate links, but the trackback spam was getting overwhelming.
Tim: Selling indulgences &c. were bad enough, but I was specifically thinking of ongoing practices of the Catholic Church, such as its priesthood.
Anyway, I probably shouldn't have written as harshly as I did, since there are a good number of Catholics I have great respect for.
Yeah there is no mention of priests in the Bible. That is a dead giveaway that the Catholic Church makes stuff up, right?
Probably shouldn't have been as harsh?
I will not complain about tone. You used the word "purposefully" in a way that I think needs to be fully explained, or retracted.
What ongoing practice are you talking about? That they have to be celibate?