Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Rainer Maria Rilke And Islam.
25 Answers
Rilke was basically a Christian, but after visits to North Africa, and having seeing Moorish Spain at Toledo and Cordoba, he suddenly became enthusiastic about Islam. He did not become a Muslim, but looking at his Christianity, it occurred to him that Christ was in fact an encumbrance getting 'in the way' between him and God. I have never thought of this view before and would welcome anyone's thoughts.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I can understand and support this concept - I don't see the point of having an intermediary. The Catholic faith takes it even further, with the Virgin Mary interceding with Jesus in petitions to God (so you are a further step away from direct conversations with God). The Muslim faith is clear about this - it's you, and Allah.
He didn't convert, so he couldn't have been that enthusiastic about Islam.
Have you got a link. This from Wiki only mentions that he stayed in Spain.
http://
Have you got a link. This from Wiki only mentions that he stayed in Spain.
http://
the Christian view is that Christ is God, so not an intermediary; but it is admittedly hard to grasp the notion that 1+1+1=1.
Catholic doctrine provides a lot of saints, and the Virgin, to pray to, but there's no bar to you speaking directly to God; the saints are just more personalised alternatives.
Protestants I think have always found Catholicism a bit cluttered, and promote a more Islamic-style ideal where it's just you and God with a minimum of bishops, icons etc in the way.
Catholic doctrine provides a lot of saints, and the Virgin, to pray to, but there's no bar to you speaking directly to God; the saints are just more personalised alternatives.
Protestants I think have always found Catholicism a bit cluttered, and promote a more Islamic-style ideal where it's just you and God with a minimum of bishops, icons etc in the way.
jno is right. Jesus isn't perceived as an intermediary. He is God, so Rilke was way off track in thinking Jesus might be getting in the way of a direct link to God. Additionally, it shouldn't be forgotten that Islam didn't invent the idea of one God. The Jews were there long before them - and others before them - but perhaps Rilke didn't know that either.
I believe he used that just as an excuse for not giving up his earlier faith.
Christians may believe Jesus (pbuh) as god and not as an intermediary but that claim has no base as even in Bible not only Jesus (pbuh) never claimed divinity but going even further he always opposed any hint of it if it was mentioned by someone else.
Naomi is right that Islam did not invent the idea of ONE GOD ONLY. But I will replace word “Islam” with “Muhammad”. Because word Islam itself means to submit your will to one God only. First of all that clearly negates what Christian believe because if before Muhammad (pbuh) people knew (and believed) in one God only then Jesus must have told his people about that, what as Muslim we believe he did. Because Islamic stance is that all of the prophets taught people about one God alone and that is the reason it is one of the core basic of faith (one can't be Muslim if s/he does not believe in that) to believe in their teachings because their basic teachings were same as Muhammad (pbuh) told.
Christians may believe Jesus (pbuh) as god and not as an intermediary but that claim has no base as even in Bible not only Jesus (pbuh) never claimed divinity but going even further he always opposed any hint of it if it was mentioned by someone else.
Naomi is right that Islam did not invent the idea of ONE GOD ONLY. But I will replace word “Islam” with “Muhammad”. Because word Islam itself means to submit your will to one God only. First of all that clearly negates what Christian believe because if before Muhammad (pbuh) people knew (and believed) in one God only then Jesus must have told his people about that, what as Muslim we believe he did. Because Islamic stance is that all of the prophets taught people about one God alone and that is the reason it is one of the core basic of faith (one can't be Muslim if s/he does not believe in that) to believe in their teachings because their basic teachings were same as Muhammad (pbuh) told.
Keyplus, //Naomi is right that Islam did not invent the idea of ONE GOD ONLY. But I will replace word “Islam” with “Muhammad”….. their basic teachings were same as Muhammad (pbuh) told.//
Replacing ‘Islam’ with ‘Mohammed’ is pointless because you’ve got that the wrong way around entirely. Mohammed’s basic teachings were similar to theirs. They lived hundreds of years before him, so it follows that his ideas must have come from them. I know what you want to believe, but wanting to believe it doesn’t make it right. It’s nonsense to say that any biblical character took his ideas from either Mohammed or from Islam when neither existed prior to the 6th/7th century AD.
Khandro, //I think I agree with keyplus regarding this when he says "Jesus never claimed divinity", being the son of god (even man).//
That depends upon which bit of the bible you read and which version you choose to believe. A couple of examples of Luke 22:70.
King James: Then said they all, Are you then the Son of God? And he said unto them, “You say that I am.”
New International: They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied, "You are right in saying I am."
“You say that I am” and “You are right in saying I am” are not the same thing at all.
Of course, no one knows what he actually said, nor indeed, if he ever existed, and it wasn’t until the Council of Nicea met several hundreds of years after his alleged death that Jesus was declared ‘divine’. It’s no surprise such confusion continues to reign.
Replacing ‘Islam’ with ‘Mohammed’ is pointless because you’ve got that the wrong way around entirely. Mohammed’s basic teachings were similar to theirs. They lived hundreds of years before him, so it follows that his ideas must have come from them. I know what you want to believe, but wanting to believe it doesn’t make it right. It’s nonsense to say that any biblical character took his ideas from either Mohammed or from Islam when neither existed prior to the 6th/7th century AD.
Khandro, //I think I agree with keyplus regarding this when he says "Jesus never claimed divinity", being the son of god (even man).//
That depends upon which bit of the bible you read and which version you choose to believe. A couple of examples of Luke 22:70.
King James: Then said they all, Are you then the Son of God? And he said unto them, “You say that I am.”
New International: They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied, "You are right in saying I am."
“You say that I am” and “You are right in saying I am” are not the same thing at all.
Of course, no one knows what he actually said, nor indeed, if he ever existed, and it wasn’t until the Council of Nicea met several hundreds of years after his alleged death that Jesus was declared ‘divine’. It’s no surprise such confusion continues to reign.
Something like this perhaps?
http://
I wouldn't call it 'intriguing'. Sounds like a seriously troubled mind to me.
http://
I wouldn't call it 'intriguing'. Sounds like a seriously troubled mind to me.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.