Comments: Spiritually homeless

I think a key distinction is that the founders of Protestantism weren't actually holy, so the places they lived aren't part of the Protestant sacred memory. I mean, I never heard stories in church about Luther's 95 theses and the like.

Posted by Brian Ulrich at February 13, 2004 11:05 PM

I think Brian is right here. It seems more fitting to attach reverence to the places associated with Prophets, not with religious scholars no matter how profound those scholars were.

Does Protestantism see itself as being "born" or "founded" in Europe? Or does it see itself as simply the reclaiming of the true teachings of Jesus (peace be upon him)?

The hajj is already universal, and this is something which is commented on by almost all who go there. People may be familiar with the hajj of Malcolm X from his autobiography or the Spike Lee movie -- its universality was its most powerful aspect for him.

The hajj is already Abrahamic as well. It also must remain pure from the association of any partners with God in worship.

Posted by Abu Noor al-Irlandee at February 14, 2004 11:17 AM

Well, clearly the Protestant view of things is that they were Reforming an existing religion, not creating one anew. In that sense, they've a status more like Wahabis - a reforming sect rather than a new religion. Additionally, there are a number of Protestant traditions, only one cluster thereof actually featuring Calvinistic doctrines. Lutherans, the various anabaptist sects, and the Anglican/Episcopal/Methodist tradition are all largely indifferent to John Calvin in a theological sense. Lastly, Calvinistic Reform is particularly hostile to traditions of deification or sanctifying modern individuals. The Reforms were *against* concepts like the Treasury of Merit and the intercessions of the saints. It would go against the spirit of Calvinism to treat him as holy in his own right.

There are nominally Christian churches which revere their founding prophets, and treat those prophets in a sacralized fashion. The Mormons are the most obvious example. Joseph Smith is literally a prophet, and a martyred one at that, and at least some of the differences between Mormonism and the rest of Christianity are based on newly revealed scripture, rather than new interpretations of already-existing scripture.

The Mormon holy city isn't where the religion was founded, however. It's Salt Lake City, which is the destination of the new nation, rather than an origin-point. It might be interesting to do a point-by-point comparison of Salt Lake City and Mecca, at the very least because both are patriarchal successor-religions to Christianity.

Posted by Mitch H. at February 16, 2004 03:06 PM

Mitch H,

Thanks for your comments.

I wouldn't really call Islam a "successor religion to Christianity," though I am not sure what you mean by that. Certainly, Islam is something which includes Jesus as part of its tradition.

Of course Muslims see Islaam as something which did not start with Muhammad (saw) or with Jesus (as) but instead with Adam (as) and including tens of thousands of Prophets including Adam, Moses, Lot, Noah, Salih, Abraham, Jesus, Ishmael, Jacob, Joseph, Aaron, Isaac, Shuaib, Solomon, Ezra, John, Zakaria, Jonah, etc. (May God's peace and blessings be upon all of them.)

Of course to a Muslim any one who believed there was, is or could be a Prophet after the Prophet Muhammad (saw) as well as anyone who did not accept any of the above mentioned as Prophets of God would be a disbeliever.

Posted by Abu Noor al-Irlandee at February 17, 2004 02:23 PM

What is the Protestent view of homelessness and poverty?

Posted by Marissa at April 12, 2004 09:27 PM