Dear Brushy
on Peter Abelard and the “Islamic” connection.

I’ve researched this as best I can this morning and conclude that it was not Peter “Abelard” who had the connection with the Spanish Muslims and learning, but in fact it was “Peter the Venerable”, a different but contemporary person.

Peter Abelard appears to have arrived at his ‘Dialectic’ use of reason quite originally and without any reliance or connection to Toledo/Spanish Muslims. Much of his work was already done prior to 1142 (when he died) when “Peter the Venerable” went to Spain and began a work studying Islam ‘from its own sources’ – a method pioneered by Peter Abelard, who undertook this approach to issues of Christian belief rather than simply relying on the views of Church fathers.
Peter the Venerable is connected more with ‘Translations’ of Islamic works rather than philosophical contributions.

Sic et non, showed:

1/ The issue
2/ The “pro” views of some Church fathers
3/ The ‘contrary’ views of other church fathers (on the same issue)

So, he recommended seeking truth on the basis of reason and original sources, a good thing.
But unless you can show me a good quote and solid reference I fail to see his connection with Muslim learning.

I do see a mild connection (which used Abelards own original methods) with Peter the Venerable who described Islam as a Christian heresy bordering on paganism.

Sources

http://latter-rain.com/eccle/abela.htm Peter Abelard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessed_Peter_of_Montboissier (Peter the Venerable)

WIBBLE

the alternative to choice based on freedom in Christ, is choice based on self and its most brutal but honest exposition is found in Sartre and Neitsche and these days in the likes of Gene Simmonds of Kiss Rock Band “I will do what I want, when I want, how I want and to whom I want” .... at least he is consistent in terms of his atheistic presuppositions. Sadly he is an intelligent man, highly educated, a Jew and speaks 4 languages from memory. Pity he cannot do better with his life specially in regard to his ethno/spiritual heritage.

Gekko raises and interesting point, the conflation of individualism with secularism. Historically, the removal of God from the scene by philosophical means also undermined the community of God, the Church. In the absence of the community all we have left is the individual. That individual is cut off from the interpretation of the world found in the tradition of the community and is thus in a position to choose without tuition. It is this choosing from a vacuum that is the target of my article. Choice is a good thing, obviously. But choice that is uninformed of the ways of the world is shear foolishness, again, obviously.

We are dealing here with the self that is supposed to raise itself by its own bootstraps. It is expected that such a self, unfurnished by deeper ways of knowing, will make shallow and foolish choices. I am not sure why these simple ideas evoke so much rage in my interlocutors. It seems to be a rage that the church has any ideas that demand consideration.

Peter(sellick) and Paul(of Tsrsus)laud Abraham's unquestioning obedience to God's voice ordering him to murder his innocent son.
Could God the Creator,Author of life and the Ground of our morality command such a morally reprehensible act? Whose voice did Abraham hear?Was it his own voice from deep within his mind? Or did the voice originate from some external source?
My guess is that it was the voice of some bard or scribe on the lookout for some dramatic tale.
Yes I hear you say God only wanted to test Abraham, but doesn't the omniscient God already know.

Various professional groups such as GPs, Psychologists and Social Workers are governed by humanism and a code of ethics. Whereas, politicians who profess to be Christian make decisions which would appear to go against Christian principles with little admonishment. George Bush with his axis of evil makes him a very scarey man dealing with scarey North Koreans. The posturing against North Korea has made them take defensive measures; as a result, testing their missiles should not be a huge surprise.

Should a professional person break a code of ethics then severe action can follow swiftly; professional people come in all shapes and sizes with any number of personnal beliefs. However, in their professions, they work towards the common good as best they can, nothing to do with Christianity or any other religion.

It's a mistake to believe that people who are athiests or agnostics cannot work in a manner that is helpful to the community. Just like some Christians are so involved with their religion that they contribute little to the community.

Narcissist,
1. Your comment here is false: “Guess What! They did not die. Their eyes were opened and they were like God ergo God deceived. The serpent was correct.”

A cynically smart and deceptive comment Mr Narcissist! The Genesis account is a record of the descent of the pure spirit of man into the natural curses of ionic mortality. The fact is man was separated from God on that very day. The death is spiritual separation from innocence and purity in relationship with absolute purity of character. The death envisaged in the Genesis account is the eternal death of the spirit of man because of sin, not organic death in the body. The spirit of man was separated from the purity of God and placed in the field of mortality - the Earth. The field is the natural ionic chemistry where change and decay are an intrinsic part of this organic life. The nature of this new life offered in Christ is not organic immortality but eternal spiritual relationship with the purity of God. True followers of Christ are not defined by a belief in XYZ doctrines it is a relationship with God as revealed in Jesus Christ. That the character he revealed is to be revealed in us as his followers

2. The kingdom that Christ envisaged was not one won by swords, but one won by love. That is why he rejected the call by the leader of the zealots [Jesus calls ‘the satan’] to feed his men who had learned to suck stones when hungry, cast out the by himself the two Roman guards from the watch house in the pinnacle of the Temple and join him in a battle of swords against the Roman authorities to gain freedom for Israel. If you read the intent of Jesus words he never envisaged a political Church, but people who displayed love and forgiveness to opponents and enemies. So what happened is not of his intent.

What appears to be choice in the mind of many is merely brainwashing by the media values that reject sound social moorings

fdixit,
Abraham lived in a society where child sacrifice was practised by the contemporary religions the same as the early Druids who sacrificed a child to appease the gods at the time of winter solstice. Abraham who had just adopted one God [El Shaddi] from the many gods his father worshipped, was discovering a new concept of one God who would provide a sacrifice in the midst of a barren land. Abraham believed God would provide and this was the basis of his faith. This was a conversion event for Abraham and his new found faith. From this he learned God abbhored the sacrifice of children that was to be become part of the faith of monotheists.


Quote, "Peter(sellick) and Paul(of Tsrsus)laud Abraham's unquestioning obedience to God's voice ordering him to murder his innocent son.
Could God the Creator,Author of life and the Ground of our morality command such a morally reprehensible act? Whose voice did Abraham hear?Was it his own voice from deep within his mind? Or did the voice originate from some external source?
My guess is that it was the voice of some bard or scribe on the lookout for some dramatic tale.
Yes I hear you say God only wanted to test Abraham, but doesn't the omniscient God already know.