Bishop urges Christians to call God 'Allah'

[nonsumd]

Thanks for your reply, Rodrigo.

Thanks nonsumd,
I have two points to say to your long reply:

1. Discrimination by Christians of minorities is not sanctioned by Jesus Christ.

You continually make facile comparisons between what Jesus sanctions and what Muhammad sanctions.

You forget the basic fact that Jesus was not a state-builder while Muhammad was. A state-builder has a different set of priorities and challenges from an Incarnate God who is indifferent to worldly power.

But if you are comparing Muslims and Christians, the differences in behavior have not been so great. Christians did find sanction in their scriptures to justify oppressing non-Christians.

There is nothing more dangerous in this world than a victim complex: these days many Muslims and Christians (not to mention Jews) suffer from it.

I find it particularly ridiculous that US Christians whose nation spend half of all the money spent in the planet on arms are obsessed with victimhood.

1. The fact that some Christians are treated well by Muslims in Muslim countries does not absolve Islam because of the core teachings in the scriptures and behavior of their prophet.

This cuts to the problem. You discount what human beings actually do (especially, the good they do) because you appear to be jousting with a system of ideas. You dehumanize real people, reducing them to robots of their belief systems.

You asked: why should Islam get a “free pass” if there happen to be good Muslims? How can an abstraction get a “free pass”? How would it benefit? Shouldn’t we be giving the good Muslims a “free pass,” whether or not they think Islam is motivating them to do good or not?

It just means that some Muslims have retained sufficient innate morality to disobey their prophet.

You may have forgotten, but I did something similar to this before.

 

[nonsumd]

It has been fun, hasn’t it?

Thanks and best wishes to you!

nsd

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

I wanted to leave this discussion but could not leave this unchallenged.

Just because someone is a ‘state builder’ does give him the moral right to:

rape
torture
raid caravans and villages
commit genocide and ethnic-cleansing
rustle camels and livestock
murder critics
behead unarmed prisoners

and

ENSLAVE INNOCENT CHILDREN.

Do you even understand just how evil enslaving children is?

Do you see the problem? You’re saying God allowed Muhammad to do all these crimes against humanity just because Muhammad built a state.

Is there no evil you will not justify and condone?

I will let the true Catholics here judge for themselves what you have just written.

Chau
Rodrigo

 

[birdsong]

Contarini;2612240]You have not refuted anything I said. I never suggested that Muslims were not mistaken. It is very easy to refute anyone if you simply make things up and falsely ascribe them to your opponent.

Of course, it is difficult (if not impossible) for people who are tremendously dishonest and/or naïve to admit they have been refuted. More on this below.

**
Muhammad did not proclaim One God unwillingly or as his enemy.** He proclaimed One God against his own self-interest and against the interests of his clan. He put his own life in danger by doing so. (Yes, he did a lot of nasty things as well later on, but one true fact doesn’t cancel out another.) He proclaimed one God who created the universe and desired justice for widows and orphans. That is not Satanic talk. Clearly that part of his message came from God.

Your pseudo scholarship shines brightest here Contarini. So, according to you, when muhhamad vehemently denied Christ’s divinity, he was not WILLINGLY acting against God’s ultimate Truth? I’ll love to see how you try to escape this point.

Again, you are making this up. I said nothing of the sort. People should believe what is true (such as that there is one invisible Creator who loves justice) and not believe what is false (such as that Jesus Christ is just a prophet and not the Eternal Son of God, or that Muhammad’s message should be spread by conquest and unbelievers should be subjugated).

As I pointed out before Contarini, you are a profoundly deceitful/dishonest and/or naïve person. Good thing that your tremendous blunder can be reduced to the form of a yes/no question and answer to expose your fallacious ways:

Did you Contarini argue that you wanted muhamedans to believe in the Holy Trinity and Divinity of Christ? YES/NO

From your previous posts, you’d have to be a world-class deceiver to respond “NO” to my question. Now, since I expect you to show a little consistency and respond “YES”, please explain to me how your answer is consistent with the below statement you had made before:

** Contarino wrote: I am not arguing about what they should believe in**

please, oh you great scholar in religion, illuminate and help this poor soul to understand you inconsistent ways.

 

[birdsong]

They do not intend to be messengers or bearers of Truth. They bear witness to the truth only unwillingly.

Now, how is that relevant?

Edwin

Oh, so your powers as a “scholar” don’t let you see the relevance of my example? How convenient!

So, based on your “logic” , should we consider that islam was intended to be an instrument of dissemination of God’s Ultimate Truth?

PS: I predict that again, you’ll not find the relevance of my latest question!!

 

[Contarini]

Your pseudo scholarship shines brightest here Contarini. So, according to you, when muhhamad vehemently denied Christ’s divinity, he was not WILLINGLY acting against God’s ultimate Truth? I’ll love to see how you try to escape this point.

You think Muhammad knew that Christ was divine? How on earth would you know what Muhammad did or did not know?

However, we were not talking about that. The point I was making was that when Muhammad said something true, what he said was good and came from God.

Did you Contarini argue that you wanted muhamedans to believe in the Holy Trinity and Divinity of Christ? YES/NO

From your previous posts, you’d have to be a world-class deceiver to respond “NO” to my question.

Obviously. The answer is yes.

Now, since I expect you to show a little consistency and respond “YES”, please explain to me how your answer is consistent with the below statement you had made before:

I am not arguing about what they should believe in

OK, this is really getting ridiculous. This quote preceded the previous statement. What I said was:

I am not arguing about what they should believe in, except that they should believe in the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ.

What part of the word “except” do you not understand? There is nothing contradictory about an exception.

My point is that I am in no position to tell Muslims what they should believe as Muslims. I think they and everyone else should be Christians. Therefore, the only thing I have to say about what they should believe is that they should believe the Gospel. If they aren’t going to believe that, then I want them to come as close to the truth as possible, and I welcome it when they do. But it is not my job to analyze what “true Islam” requires them to believe!

Now what is contradictory here?

please, oh you great scholar in religion, illuminate and help this poor soul to understand you inconsistent ways.

You don’t have to be a scholar to understand the word “except.” You just have to know English.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Oh, so your powers as a “scholar” don’t let you see the relevance of my example? How convenient!

So, based on your “logic” , should we consider that islam was intended to be an instrument of dissemination of God’s Ultimate Truth?

God intends everything that is good–that is, everything that has ontological reality. Evil and falsehood are defects in reality–they have no reality in themselves. This is the basic point at issue between us, and I am taking the more historically orthodox Christian position.

Edwin

 

[nonsumd]

I wanted to leave this discussion but could not leave this unchallenged.

Just because someone is a ‘state builder’ does give him the moral right to…

Do you see the problem? You’re saying God allowed Muhammad to do all these crimes against humanity just because Muhammad built a state.

Is there no evil you will not justify and condone?

I have never condoned anything that Muhammad did or is claimed to have done in order to establish the Islamic state. Even more I never claimed God condoned Muhammad’s doing anything, whether to build a state or not.

But Muhammad did act in ways that state-builders do. He likely justified his own actions to himself and to others as state-builders do. For me to recognize this is not the same as me condoning what state-builders, Muhammad or anyone else, does. I do not.

Jesus and Muhammad cannot be compared, so we shouldn’t be comparing them. Muhammad should be compared with other state-builders, most of whom also believed God or the gods or the Cosmic Law commissioned them to do what they did.

And if we can observe that a Christian can be violent even though his savior was a man of peace, can we really assert that there are no and can be no Muslims who are peaceful even though Muhammad was a man of war?

Do you not think it is worth at least a try to appeal to Muslims as fellow human beings who have a natural, human desire for peace rather than confront them merely as robots driven by their religious beliefs?

 

[b_justb]

If I use a non-English term for God I personally prefer to use: Elohim or Adonai.

At the Presentation of the Gifts / Preparation of the Altar: I often reply in my head “Baruk atah Adonai”

 

[birdsong]

=Contarini;2615859]You think Muhammad knew that Christ was divine? How on earth would you know what Muhammad did or did not know?

To expose the fallaciousness of your argument, let me turn around the tables and ask you this: how did you come to the conclusion that muhhamad proclaimed One God willingly and sincerely?

To use your own words: How on earth would Contarini know that!

However, we were not talking about that. The point I was making was that when Muhammad said something true, what he said was good and came from God.

Of course that’s one of the main points in discussion: you are very willing to give a free pass to muhamedans/islam just because there’s some truth amongst the ocean of falsehoods that are contained in their teachings.

I have a nice and old broken clock here with me Contarini. It is capable of giving correct information twice a day, so please tell me when you want it delivered to you house!

Obviously. The answer is yes.

OK, this is really getting ridiculous. This quote preceded the previous statement. What I said was:

What part of the word “except” do you not understand? There is nothing contradictory about an exception.

an exception does not and can not contradict a previous statement??? how so mr. scholar?? care to ellaborate?

My point is that I am in no position to tell Muslims what they should believe as Muslims. I think they and everyone else should be Christians. Therefore, the only thing I have to say about what they should believe is that they should believe the Gospel. If they aren’t going to believe that, then I want them to come as close to the truth as possible, and I welcome it when they do. But it is not my job to analyze what “true Islam” requires them to believe!

Now what is contradictory here?

So tell us grand scholar, in your opinion, since it is very likely that many muhamedans are never going to become Christians, what aspects of Islam would you want them to believe in and what others you would want them not to believe in?

I can perfectly see the answer you are going to give me Contarini, can’t you see my rebutal to it already?

You don’t have to be a scholar to understand the word “except.” You just have to know English.

Edwin

Your deceitful and inconsistent ways are being exposed Contarini. I’ll be more than happy to continue giving you a helping hand on this matter!

 

[birdsong]

God intends everything that is good–that is, everything that has ontological reality. Evil and falsehood are defects in reality–they have no reality in themselves. This is the basic point at issue between us, and I am taking the more historically orthodox Christian position.

Edwin

As I said before Contarini, please tell me when you want the broken clock delivered to your house !!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The Westminster Cathedral blog was talking about a John Tavener composition on the “99 Names of Allah”:

[names of idol omitted]​

I know it was - I read it. Maybe you don’t find it scandalous that a false god was glorified by men of all Christianities (including those in a position to guide others) in a Catholic cathedral dedicated to the adoration of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ. I’m sorry, but some of us do. For a false god, - “dung”, to use the language of Ezekiel adopted by St.Paul (who also repeats the other prophetic descriptions of them as “demons”, “idols”, “nothing”) - to be honoured in such circumstances, cannot be described.

In the cathedral are the remains of St. John Southworth, who shed his blood for the Catholic Faith; & his executioners at least adored the same Christ as he. Do Muslims ? Elsewhere in it are shrines to Saints Patrick, & Andrew: did they spread Islam ? They preached Christ & His Cross, & planted His Church. To honour allah is to disown their witness.

Some of those names are compatible with faith in God as revealed in the Person of Jesus Christ - others are not; unless one massages them a bit. If they point to what has to be explained away in order to be explained, then they are all the more dangerous for having some truth in them. Equivocation is not a principle of Catholic theology - to equivocate in matters affecting faith is a sin.

If the lies of men & demons were undiluted falsehoods, they would deceive no one - they deceive because they are not wholly false; because they hold a glimmer of truth. That is why they are so deadly - that is why it is intolerable that the Most Holy Name of Jesus should have to share Its Glory with that of allah. “No man can serve two masters.”

If I should ever wish to adore allah, I can go to Edinburgh Mosque. Since I am to adore no god but the Most Blessed Trinity, Who is Alone Holy, Living, Gracious, & All-mighty to save, I will go to church instead; but not to a Cathedral desecrated by idolatry, apostasy, denial of the Cross, unbelief, & rebellion against Christ the King. If Catholic clergy wish to incur the wrath of God & to lose fellowship with His Saints, some of us do not; & there is no obligation to follow blind guides & fall with them into the ditch.

Was [allah] crucified for [us] ? Was allah made sin for us, that we might become in him the righteousness of allah ? Of course not. Jesus Christ was, that we might become in Him the Righteousness of God. “By the grace of God I am a Christian” - so the catechisms say. And this grace is through Christ Crucified - what does Islam know of the Cross ? Only that it is a stumbling-block, and a rock of offence to it.

It is not Christian, it is apostasy & unbelief, even to seek to blunt the cutting edges of faith in Jesus Christ Our Crucified & Resurrected & Glorified Lord by speaking as though our faith could be reduced to nothing more than a continuation of Judaism. It cannot - because it is crucially different: because it is comes by & is centred on the Crucified Lord. Drawing attention only to the attributes of God considered as the Blessed Trinity does not allow us to see that. Hadad-Baal was called “merciful”: are we to bend the knee to Baal ? Why not adore Ishtar, “lady of battles”, the “exalted” ? Or Moloch, whose name means “King” ? Or Enlil, “Lord Wind” ? Isis was “mother of god”, of Horus; is she to be honoured ? Why not ?

For a very simple reason - they resemble, but are not, any of the Divine Persons or the Blessed Trinity Who is those Persons, made known in Jesus Christ. Allah-worship is not in essence different from any pre-Christian polytheism; is Assyrian religion Christian because it depended on revelation ? Then why honour its more recent relative ?

 

[Contarini]

To expose the fallaciousness of your argument, let me turn around the tables and ask you this: how did you come to the conclusion that muhhamad proclaimed One God willingly and sincerely?

Because I assume people to be speaking willingly and sincerely unless the evidence compels me to conclude otherwise, and in this case there are plenty of additional reasons, which I have already mentioned: Muhammad proclaimed his teachings at the risk of his life, and it was years before his religious activity brought him any success. (As often happens, that success does seem to have had a deeply corrupting influence on him and on his teachings.)

Of course that’s one of the main points in discussion: you are very willing to give a free pass to muhamedans/islam

I’m not sure what “free pass” this would be. Refusing to put the worst possible construction on anything (and in some cases to ignore and twist evidence–for instance, by focusing on ways in which moderate Muslims depart from Islamic tradition, while ignoring the ways in which radicals do so) is not giving Muslims a “free pass.” There are plenty of things to criticize about Islam. I find it, on the whole, a repellent tradition.

I have a nice and old broken clock here with me Contarini. It is capable of giving correct information twice a day, so please tell me when you want it delivered to you house!

Since I have clocks that actually work, there is no need for you to do so. However, a broken clock still has considerable ontological goodness and might be useful in certain circumstances.

an exception does not and can not contradict a previous statement??? how so mr. scholar?? care to ellaborate?

It wasn’t a previous statement. It was the same statement. If I say, “I don’t like vegetables, except for brussels sprouts,” how is that a contradiction? I’m sorry, but you are either just not thinking because your bigotry is blinding you, or you really don’t know English (or simply can’t think logically at all). You have insulted me repeatedly, and I have responded calmly. But when we get to the point that you can’t understand a simple English sentence, reasonable discourse becomes impossible. Either shape up, or this will be my last answer to you.

So tell us grand scholar, in your opinion, since it is very likely that many muhamedans are never going to become Christians, what aspects of Islam would you want them to believe in and what others you would want them not to believe in?

I want them to believe in those points that agree with Christianity and with natural law. For instance, the first clause of the Creed: I believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth; and the Ten Commandments. I would hope for a strengthening of Sufism and of those aspects of Islam that focus on justice and on the love of God, and a defeat of those elements that emphasize a literalistic reading of the harshest and most immoral parts of the tradition.

I expect a substantive and logical answer from you next time. If you continue with your empty insults and simple refusal to be rational, I will ignore your posts henceforth and let more patient people try to point out your errors.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Don’t put words in my mouth.

I do not believe that God inspired the Qur’an. But there are many ideas in the Qur’an that are the same as ones in the Bible, so I have to assume that those ideas come from God and that Muslims have received graces through following those ideas that are common to the Qur’an and the Bible.

I do not believe Jesus is a prophet of God; I believe he is God.

I do not believe Muhammad was a prophet of God; all I said was that he resembles in a number of ways an Old Testament prophet (who were far from perfect, we should remember).

There is only slightly more truth in saying that than saying that Christianity is a European religion.

Most Indonesian Muslims certainly do not see Arabs as having a monopoly on the right way to practice Islam, however highly those Indonesian Muslims esteem Muhammad.

A well-known joke across the Islamic world goes like this: “Why did God send Muhammad to the Arabs? – Because the Arabs needed him the most!”

Why use such language as “stolen” and “perverted”?

How can you with certainty say it was not simply a case of Muhammad and his earliest followers receiving only fragments of Christianity and piecing them together with bits of Judaism and their own Semitic traditions? Well-intentioned people are inventing religions all the time with bits and snatches of Christianity (I live in California). And, of course, we know good intentions do not only pave the path to heaven…

See below​

The Arabs knew that the Jews rejected Christianity. Why should we expect the Arabs to have seen the truth about Jesus’ divinity when the Jews had not? Why should we expect the Arabs to have accepted Jesus’ divinity when many Christians at the time did not accept the Trinitarianism of the Catholic Church?

Why should we expect the Arabs to have been impressed by Christianity when the pagan Persians had captured Jerusalem (to the cheers of the Jews) and just barely been retaken by the Byzantine emperor Heraclius only at the end of Muhammad’s life?

Explanations from historical contingencies protect some of Islam’s theological claims, or the basis for them, or part thereof, only by denying others of its theological claims; which is like curing a man of fever by cutting his throat.​

The Koran, if a divine book, originating in Heaven, & if eternal, does not need to be excused by human sins - it’s eternal & perfect, so it is logically prior to creation. If it can be defended only by mention of consequences of creation - such as the existence of Constantinople or the shortcomings of Christians - how is it the book that Muslim belief claims it is ?

If it can be eternal, and also subject to contingency - you (or a Muslim) will need to work out some theory of how this can be; one that accounts for the various data without sacrificing them to each other.

 

[Contarini]

For a false god, - “dung”, to use the language of Ezekiel adopted by St.Paul (who also repeats the other prophetic descriptions of them as “demons”, “idols”, “nothing”) - to be honoured in such circumstances, cannot be described.

I’m surprised to see you take this approach, though I shouldn’t be, I suppose. Given that Allah is the pre-Muslim Arabic name of God used by Jews and Christians, and was deliberately adopted by Muhammad to establish continuity with monotheism, I don’t think it is fair or just to call Allah an “idol.” I’m reminded of some Christians on another board who call Calvinists “demon-worshippers.” Calling people idolaters because they have wrong beliefs about God is a slippery slope I don’t want to set foot on. If there is one God, then all who believe in one God (in the true monotheistic sense–one God who cannot be other than One because His existence is equal to His essence, whether they explicitly use that formula or not) believe in the same God, however imperfectly.

Some of those names are compatible with faith in God as revealed in the Person of Jesus Christ - others are not; unless one massages them a bit.

That may be true–I am not particularly happy about this incident, although I’m ambivalent rather than unequivocally opposed.

If they point to what has to be explained away in order to be explained, then they are all the more dangerous for having some truth in them. Equivocation is not a principle of Catholic theology - to equivocate in matters affecting faith is a sin.

I don’t think it is equivocation to put a charitable construction on ambiguous terminology.

If the lies of men & demons were undiluted falsehoods, they would deceive no one - they deceive because they are not wholly false; because they hold a glimmer of truth. That is why they are so deadly

I think this is a highly mistaken approach. Of course error is deadly because it hides behind truth (indeed, there is no such thing as pure error–it’s a contradiction in terms). Similarly, terrorists become far more dangerous when they use innocents as human shields. That doesn’t justify us in shooting the innocents. To reject one truth because it is mixed with error is far more dangerous than to accept a thousand errors because they are mixed with truth.

Was [allah] crucified for [us] ? Was allah made sin for us, that we might become in him the righteousness of allah ? Of course not.

Of course He was, as the Arabic Christians sing in their Liturgy!

Hadad-Baal was called “merciful”: are we to bend the knee to Baal ? Why not adore Ishtar, “lady of battles”, the “exalted” ? Or Moloch, whose name means “King” ? Or Enlil, “Lord Wind” ? Isis was “mother of god”, of Horus; is she to be honoured ? Why not ?

Because these names denote primarily what is limited and erroneous abou those pagan gods, who were never claimed to be monotheistic deities transcending the natural world. We do, however, worship the reality to which those pagan gods erroneously pointed, and the Hebrews had no problem worshiping El, who was also a Canaanite god, and identifying Him with Yahweh.

For a very simple reason - they resemble, but are not, any of the Divine Persons or the Blessed Trinity Who is those Persons, made known in Jesus Christ. Allah-worship is not in essence different from any pre-Christian polytheism; is Assyrian religion Christian because it depended on revelation ? Then why honour its more recent relative ?

I’m not sure how you can argue that Islam is polytheistic. Obviously not being polytheistic, it is different from pre-Christian polytheism. It has often been regarded as a Christian heresy, though it is probably better regarded as a Jewish heresy with some Christian influences (just as Christianity is historically speaking a Jewish “heresy” that happens to be true). It builds on, while corrupting in many ways, the true revelation given to the ancient Hebrews and completed in Christ. So I find your question rather odd. The closest pre-Christian parallel, I think, is Zoroastrianism. And I would definitely tell a Zoroastrian that I worship Ahura Mazda.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[nonsumd]

[names of idol omitted]​

I know it was - I read it. Maybe you don’t find it scandalous that a false god…

Gottle, I do not consider the Muslims to be worshipping a false god. As a Christian, I believe that their understanding of God is incomplete and as such can be said to be distorted.

But I am more scandalized by the Christian who has access to a more complete understanding of God and yet shows he follows God’s will less faithfully than many a non-Christian.

There are more serious idolatries than having an incomplete understanding of God.

I’ve looked over the 99 Names and I do not find any description that can’t find a more or less exact parallel in the way the Old Testament or the New Testament talks about God. We Christians can’t say we don’t feel the need to “massage” some of those epithets, descriptions, or images of God that we find in our own Bible.

I believe God is pleased and far from insulted when his children of different faiths seek to find common ground and promote peace.

The Catechism teaches us that while we recognize that Catholicism is the ordained means by which God gives His grace to the world we are not to assume that God does not give His grace also through other means, that the redemption won for us by Our Lord on the Cross is to be denied those who through no fault of their own are not Christian.

Neither the Muslim nor the Jew can accept the Incarnation and they do not accept it not because they intentionally defy the will of God as they understand it – they simply do not understand the will of God in the same way as we have been given the gift of the faith to do. For Muslims and Jews, God in order be God cannot by definition become one of us.

I know many Muslims who by the conduct of their lives show that God’s grace is working in and through them.

They humble me because they do so much more with the incomplete revelation that they have been given than I see many Christians (including myself) do with our fullness of revelation.

 

[nonsumd]

See below ## Explanations from historical contingencies protect some of Islam’s theological claims, or the basis for them, or part thereof, only by denying others of its theological claims; which is like curing a man of fever by cutting his throat.​

The Koran, if a divine book, originating in Heaven, & if eternal, does not need to be excused by human sins - it’s eternal & perfect, so it is logically prior to creation. If it can be defended only by mention of consequences of creation - such as the existence of Constantinople or the shortcomings of Christians - how is it the book that Muslim belief claims it is ?

If it can be eternal, and also subject to contingency - you (or a Muslim) will need to work out some theory of how this can be; one that accounts for the various data without sacrificing them to each other.

Why are you asking me to defend the Qur’an when I have never had the intention to do so?

When I point out the historical reasons why pagan Arabs may have decided to put together their own monotheism and not simply accept Christianity, I am not supporting Islam’s thelogical claims. At the most I am speculating on why Islam’s theological claims were more convincing to those who would be the first converts to Islam.

Faith in Christ is a gift – not being given it is not a sign that one is necessarily irrational or evil.

 

[ilmor]

Here is a recent headline about Muslims…

Kidnap Hindu Girl, Force Marriage to Muslim: Pakistan
By J. Grant Swank Jr. (11/25/05)

Sanao Menghwar has had three of his daughters kidnapped, then forced to marry Muslim men. That means that the young women were coerced into becoming Islamics.

This happens daily, particularly in the Pakistani Sindh province, according to Hasan Mansoor, reporter, Midday.com.

 

[ilmor]

Here’s another…

ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN (BosNewsLife) – Christians in northwest Pakistan on Sunday, May 13, worshiped amid heightened tensions after they received threatening letters warning them to shut their churches and convert to Islam within the next few days as anti-Christian violence spreads across Pakistan, officials confirmed to BosNewsLife.

Copies of handwritten letter with a May 17 ultimatum were reportedly delivered to two churches and several Christians’ homes in Charsadda, a northwestern Pakistan town where the federal interior minister last month escaped a homicide attack that apparently killed 28 people.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

(cont.)

[names omitted]​

I hope you won’t accuse me of apostasy if I say that I find nothing to disagree with in these 99 names.

My admitting that does not make me believe any less in the divinity of Jesus.

Idolatry is the worship of a false god - which is not excluded by having a true one as well. Idolatry is excluded only if love for the true God is exclusive, for then it is universal: He is loved, because none but He is admitted to be worthy of all adoration; so there is in that sense no other lovable thing. This love allows - it requires - love of neighbour, because l.o.n. is a mode of loving God, one He has even commanded. We love them, in Him - they love Him & us in Him - He loves us & them. And the love we owe to Christ is as exclusive. To set any love above God’s to us to Him is idolatry - they cease to be idols only when they cease to be gods.​

The Assyrians did not require their gods to be the gods of their subject-peoples: from an Assyrian POV, JHWH was not threatened by Asshur, Ninurta, Nuska, or the rest. The Prophets served JHWH - not these. Asshur their king was very like JHWH in some respects - but he was not the God of Israel; with the similarities, there were differences which could be true of one only by being false of the other.

The statements “Allah is merciful”, “Baal is merciful”, “God the Father is merciful”, analysed logically & leaving one’s faith on one side, do not exclude the possibility that the three names denote the same God; logically, it is entirely possible that Allah was God’s Name in His self-revelation to Mohammed, & that the same God made Himself known as Baal in Syria - after all, Baal was called Hadad in Mesopotamia: it is certain that Hadad & Baal are the same god. Is Baal our merciful Father ? So there are affirmations about them, which show that Baal was also very unlike, & incompatible with, JHWH: such as the fact that Baal had a divine wife & divine daughters, & was the son of El or of Dgn; & copulated with (IIRC) the goddess Anath. Has God the Father copulated with a goddess ?

Is this logical possibility a fact, outside the realm of logical analysis ? If so, that’s news to a lot of the inspired authors - they thought Baal was a rival to JHWH; not Him, nor even an avatar or hypostasis of Him.

All the similarities imaginable or possible do not make two deities the same, or even alike in moral character or activity,** if either is distinguished from the other by something which is alien to the identity of the other.** The Love of God Our Father is shown in the Death of His Crucified Son by the power of His Holy Spirit - the Blessed Trinity & the Cross cannot be separated. allah rejects the Cross & the Crucified Lord: it is alien to him. Whatever satan may love, it is doubtful that he burns with love of the Cross or the Crucified.

This is why this kind of equivocation is so evil - it is based on bad logic & rotten theology. It corrupts the content of faith while preserving its formulas; which is like turning St.Peter’s Basilica into a stable, while keeping its name. Had it not been for the siege of Otranto by Mohammed II, who had entered Constantinople 27 years before - & who took Trebizond in 1461 - his vow to stable his horse in St. Peter’s might have been fulfilled. That it was not, is partly thanks to the people of Otranto, 800 of whom died for Christ instead of killing for Him

Faith in the Tri-Une Lord allows no rivals, sharers, competitors, replacements, equals, substitutes; any more than marriage does. It is adultery to make room for an idol alongside the True God - for Christians to do this, after we have received so much - have been given God by God - is far worse than any idolatry of the heathens. The Canaanites & Babylonians & ancient Assyrians never heard the Gospel, never had apostles or martyrs to turn them from idols to the Living God. Unlike us.

My faith in Christianity is strong enough that I can live with the fact that others do not share my faith, even with the fact that those who do not share my faith can still be people of goodwill.

Excellent - & that’s not the point: you aren’t a Christian leader, in a building consecrated to Christian worship, approving in an act of false religion: an act which strikes at the very foundations of our faith, &, instead of being known as the sin it is, has been seen as a good thing. This is to call good & evil by one another’s names. Christianity cannot be trusted, because it is able to corrupted - unlike Jesus Christ; so my confidence is not in His gifts but in Him; or should be. This Shepherd & Bishop can be trusted. ​

[more…]