Not the same God?

[Portrait]

It’s difficult, rather impossible, to get behind any church which considers certain inspired holy words of God to be “irrelevant”, even in face of the fact they alone among all of Christendom, do not consider themselves to be “people of the Book”. Is it so much an argument or simply the plain words of God?

There’s no justification for your church to decide which inspired holy words of God are “irrelevant”. Do you have some evidence that God abrogated, annulled, rescinded, made null and void both Acts 7:38 and Rom 3:2? If not, then I believe we need to follow both the sacred Scriptures and the historical record and not follow those who seek to support their private judgment by rejecting the commandments of God: ”And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.”(Mark7:9).

First, the RCC has no authority to decide for Christendom what the canon is. To choose a canon for itself?..sure, go right ahead.

The historical evidence demonstrates quite handily that the “truncated” Hebrew canon is the extent of God’s revelation to the Jews which, btw, was closed well before 70AD – well before they became, according to you, the unchosen people. No, the Hebrew nation was and will always be the “chosen people” – there has never been another individual nation alone to whom God chose to reveal Himself and out of whom the Messiah would come. This does not imply that the “chosen people” were chosen unto salvation – just as the NT visible churches were not chosen unto salvation. Only the spiritually chosen – the elect – of both the nation of Israel and the NT church are chosen unto salvation.

Dear kelman, thankyou for the above response.

The Christians had been officially excomunicated from the Synagogue in 85 AD. Now if fifteen years later the Pharisees are still undecided regarding their canon of Scripture, separated from the Christian community and excluding it from their decision making, why should we look to them as some source of authority? Our Lord had prophesied (see St. Matt. 21: 43) that the kingdom of God, and with it His authority, would be taken from Israel and given unto to the new Israel of God, that is to say the Catholic Church of Christ. It would now fall to the Church to decide as to what comprised of the new canon of the bible, and this is precisely what happened.

Whilst I would not disagree that the Jews were entusted with the “oracles of God”, this does not equate to being delivered a closed canon of the O.T. Moreover, St. Paul also says that whilst the Jews were indeed God’s chosen people, they were not particularly reliable sources of knowledge for Christians to rely upon (cf. Rom. 10: 1-3; Rom. 11: 25). Are you suggesting, dear friend, that we must defer to a group of anti-Christian Jews at a non-binding council in Jamnia who were sadly ignorant of God’s righteousness and sought to establish their own righteousness? Why now should the Jews be accepted as God’s mouthpiece for determining the canon of the O.T.? The whole argument respecting the Jews being custodians of the Scriptures is irrelevant, given their rejection of the Messiah, even our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who Himself had predicted that the kingdom of God would be taken from them and given unto the Church. Indeed, the Jews ceased being the chosen people when the temple was destroyed on 70 AD and they were scattered over the face of the earth, otherwise we would all still be Jewish.

There is now no valid or cogent reason for Christians to accept any determination of the O.T canon by the Jews; we are not the “One, Holy,Catholic and Jewish Church”, we are the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” established by Christ upon St. Peter. If the Apostles entertained no qualms about using the LXX, then neither do Catholics entertain any qualms about using the LXX and wider O.T. canon.

My dear brother, it is tradition and tradition alone which enables us, Catholics or Protestants, to determine the table of contents for Sacred Scripture. Thus as a Protestant you yourself are dependent upon tradition, even if it is questionable Jewish tradition, for the bible alone does not help as far as deciding of what the canon comprises. The Catholic accepts this and looks to extra-canonical tradition to determine the canon, except he looks to the Catholic Church for his source of authentic tradition and not to some non-binding anti-Christian Jewish council. This Church, the new Israel of God, informs him that the Deutrocanonical books are not contrary to the bible, but indeed are the Holy Bible and are, therefore, to be received on the authority of the Church.

It is very easy work to selectively select from the ECF’s and accommodate them to the Protestant standpoint on the canon, but the ECF’s were decided Catholics in their beliefs, not Protestants, as scholars like William A. Jurgens have evinced most clearly. May I commend to you Mr. Jurgen’s three volume work, The Faith of the Early Fathers (The Liturgical Press,1970), he has a great deal of information on the canon of the bible.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

Juxtaposing your opinion with a quote from Bruce could be seen as leading to a misrepresentation of his views. The fact that the Jews were “disenchanted” with the Septuagint has no bearing on the true canon of the OT.

Yes, indeed, very eager to accept the oracles of God given to the Jews. Especially when that “Jew”, Jesus Christ Himself, divides the OT canon into the historically accepted division of three-fold. On the contrary, the only “hostility” in evidence is the Roman Catholic disdain for the true OT canon which God entrusted to the Jews – not to Christians.

Are you implying that because most Jews did not recognize their Messiah that the fact God entrusted His “oracles” to them is somehow made null and void? If so, I ask again to please present chapter and verse where your assertion is supported, where God has abrogated entrusting His “oracles” to the Jews.

What will be next?..we will be asked to accept that on the Sinai mountain top the tablets upon which the Ten Commandments were written really were given to a Roman pope?

Protestants recognize the limits of the church. Sadly, we see for Roman Catholics that the authority of the inspired words of Scripture, the words of the Lord Jesus Himself, is not “paramount” when it rejects the “oracles of God” given to the Jews.

It is absurd in the extreme to posit that the Jews would tamper with their most reverenced holy sacred books * just* to “get” Christians.

Dear kelman, thankyou for the above response.

Regarding the quotation from Mr. Bruce, well he does seem to approve of the quote that he qoutes, thus I did not feel that my own comments in any way misrepresented him. However, the fact that the Jews became disenchanted with the Septuagint because of Christian appropriation and usage, is, on the contrary, very relevant as regards the ascertaining the authentic canon, since it would account for their final rejection of the Greek version for polemical reasons, rather than critical. Undeniably, it was from the LXX that the early Church were proving that Jesus was the Messiah of O.T. prophecy. Moreover, the Greek bible was, under the Divine Providence, a most powerful factor in the conversion of the world to Christianity. One can just see them in the synagogues, showing the Jews of the Dispersion and their adherents that Christ had fulfilled the O.T. prophecies. After gaining some success they would usually gather together a number of people anxious to conntinue their instruction in the Christian religion. Now it was the success thus achieved that caused the Jews to become alienated from the LXX and eventually to repudiate it.

Have already discussed the issue concerning the Jews being the custodians of the O.T. Scriptures in my previous post today. Being entrusted with the “oracles of God” does not equate with being delivered a closed canon of the O.T. Neither Our Lord not His Apostles gave us an explicit list of inspired O.T. writings, so we must needs resort to examining works of apostolic origin and tradition. Nowthe Councils of Rome, Carthage and Hippo made the decision to accept the 46 books of the wider canon of the O.T. However, it is important to note that these Councils decided the issue of the canon on the basis of Apostolic Tradition, because it was widely recognised that tradition was passed on from the Apostles to their lawful successors. Moreover, local communities preserved that tradition to the best of their ability. However, the fact is that it was ultimately the Church at Rome, which even St. Irenaeus said in circa 180 AD had primacy of place. Thus we see that it was Rome and the successor of St. Peter who initiated the issue of discovering the true contents of the canon and who made the final decision. Even at the Councils of both Carthage and Hippo, the Council fathers said that they would submit their decision to “that Church which is accross the water”, a plain reference to the Church of Rome, who had the final authority of accepting those African Council decrees. If this is not evidence of the primacy and authority of the Catholic Church, then I do not know what is. How sad it is that multitudes of Protestants today, including many devout and earnest people, do not submit to the Roman obedience as those African Synods did.

You say that “Protestants recognize the limits of the church”, of which ‘church’ do you speak? When you accept the Jewish determination of the canon you are making a choice to accept extra-biblical ‘tradition’, except it is invalid tradition because it is at variance with the canon of the Catholic Church. Christ promised to be with Catholic Church unto the end of the age, not the Jews, so it is surely incumbent upon Christians to accept the decision of the Catholic Church in the matter of the canon. Whatever the decisions of the Pharisees at Jamnia and of later rabbinical writers, the Christian Church was not bound by them, for she was now the true Israel of God and as such had the authority to determine her own canon of the bible.

Catholics do not reject the O.T. Scriptures, they only question validity of the Jewish determination of the O.T. canon. The two are not synonymous.

Finally, the wide popularity that the Deutrocanonical’s enjoyed in the early Church is shown by their use in liturgy and from the many illustrations taken from them found in the ancient catacombs. These were made with the approval of the pastors of the Church who appreciated the value of pictures for instruction in the truths of the Christian faith.

Goodbye for now, my dear bother.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[illusion_buster]

This is curious. The COC does not believe that Christ has a divine nature and a human nature?

Given this statement, I assume that you are a member of the COC?]

No I am not…but I DID gleen this off the internet and so may be inaccurate. Sorry to all…

[Ah. So to the degree that any shepherd is proclaiming a gospel different from that which was given, once for all, to the apostles, is the degree that they ought not be preaching.

Anyone who preaches a different gospel is divorcing himself from the One Faith.

Not necessarily so…Jesus’ teachings were very simple. Christ’s divinity, Christ is risen and…Love God…Love thy neighbour as self. If a shepherd is proclaiming these fundamental truths…then he is faithful to Jesus. And even Jesus admonished the apostles for criticizing those ‘not of their group’ preaching ‘Christ’. Jesus said - Mark 9:40 " if they are not against us, they are for us’.
[/quote]

 

[illusion_buster]

I looked up several other sites - they all have similar to say but below is by Wiki…

After the schism which took place in the year 451 AD, when the Coptic Orthodox Church rejected the motions of the Council of Chalcedon and its theological struggles, we were called “Monophysites” that is, those who believe in the “One Nature”.Sharing our belief are the Syrians, the Armenians, the Ethiopians and the Indians; who were also called “NonChalcedonian” Orthodox Churches.On the other hand, the Chalcedonian Catholic and Greek Churches “The Roman Orthodox” believe in the two natures of Christ; the Protestant Churches also hold this belief. Consequently, these churches are known as “Diophysites” - believers in the two natures of Christ. The Roman - or Chalcedonian - Orthodox Churches include those of Constantinople, Greece, Cyprus, Russia, Romania, Hungary and Serbia as well as the Roman Orthodox Churches of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, America and the St. Catherine Monastery in the Sinai desert.The term “Monophysites” used for the believers in the One Nature has been intentionally or unintentionally misinterpreted throughout certain periods of history. Consequently, the Coptic and the Syrian Churches in particular were cruelly persecuted because of their belief, especially during the period which started from the Council of Chalcedon held in 451 AD and continued to the conquest of the Arabs in Egypt and Syria (about 641 AD).
This misinterpretation continued along history as though we believed in one nature of Christ and denied the other nature. We wonder which of the two natures the Church of Alexandria denies?

However the Catholic church now accepts the Copts believe,here is the agreed statement on christology
“We believe that our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Incarnate - Logos is perfect in His Divinity and perfect in His Humanity. He made His humanity One with His Divinity without Mixture, nor Mingling, nor Confusion. His Divinity was not separated from His Humanity even for a moment or twinkling of an eye. At the same time, we anathematize the Doctrines of both Nestorius and Eutyches”.Read more: %between%

What are the differences between the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church's view on the Nature of Christ the procession of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Trinity? - Answers

There is no difference in the procession of the holy spirit and the holy trinity but there was on the nature of christ - the Catholic church and Greek Orthodox church (note that this is the only difference between the Copts and Greeks) confesses that christs divinity and humanity were separate...

www.answers.com

“The Roman Orthodox” believe in the two natures of Christ;

Is this relating a misunderstanding that may currently be perceived in other faith areas?

You haven’t expressed your interpretation of the good shepherd parable…I am truely interested in what you make of it.

 

[illusion_buster]

Ah. So to the degree that any shepherd is proclaiming a gospel different from that which was given, once for all, to the apostles, is the degree that they ought not be preaching.

Anyone who preaches a different gospel is divorcing himself from the One Faith.

There seems to be a misunderstanding as to WHAT IS the ORIGINAL gospel and what was added through tradition and succession. Not that what was added isn’t perfectly valid and in line with God’s plan to further enrich Christian living. But to state that those who do not practice the ‘added enlightenment’ but follow original gospel beliefs in their simplicity ie (Jesus’ divinity, Christ Risen, Love God first above all and love one another as self), are " portraying a false gospel and divorcing themselves from the one faith" is somewhat exclusive in understanding.

 

[PRmerger]

IYou haven’t expressed your interpretation of the good shepherd parable…I am truely interested in what you make of it.

Sorry, but I am having a hard time following your arguments.

Is English your first language? I don’t mean this as a disrespectful query, but only as a means of explaining to me why I often have no idea what you’re saying.

 

[PRmerger]

There seems to be a misunderstanding as to WHAT IS the ORIGINAL gospel and what was added through tradition and succession. Not that what was added isn’t perfectly valid and in line with God’s plan to further enrich Christian living. But to state that those who do not practice the ‘added enlightenment’ but follow original gospel beliefs in their simplicity ie (Jesus’ divinity, Christ Risen, Love God first above all and love one another as self), are " portraying a false gospel and divorcing themselves from the one faith" is somewhat exclusive in understanding.

Perhaps you have some question as to what is part of the original kerygma.

I don’t.

But if you do, then what is the standard you use to discern whether it’s part of Christ’s paradosis, or whether it was added?

Do you believe that the teaching that there is only One God has been added? Or is it part of the original gospel message? And how do you know?

 

[Portrait]

Baptismal regeneration is not a biblical doctrine. However, we need to define our terms. Regeneration is an instantaneous change affecting the whole person. It is a rebirth from death to life (Eph. 2.5), from darkness to light (Col. 1.13). Regeneration is not a process like sanctification. We are never between death and life, or darkness and light. Nor do we travel from death to life back to death again. At this very moment we are either spiritual alive or dead in our sins and trespasses. In Scripture, we see people are saved before water ever touched them - one example would be Cornelius.

We are not regenerated, made alive, cleansed or redeemed by water baptism. It is the new heart, given in regeneration, that Reformed scholars insist, enables the elect to see revealed truth for what it objectively is, for it is the new heart that illumines the mind to the spiritual beauty and “sweetness” of the truth that comes to it "through the door of the understanding. The “natural man” cannot spiritually receive the things of God. It takes the spiritual rebirth(regeneration), the giving of the new heart for man to spiritually receive the truth.

Christ mediates between the Father and the elect. If a person is baptized but does not have faith, Christ is not his mediator: he has no mediator… If a person is water baptized but never comes to faith, of what value is that baptism? No, the only baptism of with eternal consequences is that of the Holy Spirit.

A baptized person is only outwardly within the covenant if he does not have faith in Christ, just as the circumcized Jews were only outwardly within the covenant if they did not have faith. Outward covenant membership has many advantages, but none that are themselves saving.

Btw, my apologies, I’m very far behind in the posts…time has been a bit limited of late and I’m really not trying to hide from Josh’s questions…whatever they are!

Dear kelman,

Baptism is not only a sign and seal of some inner and hidden faith. This is why our Lord said in St. John’s Gospel that a man must be regenerated not only by the Spirit, but also by water (S. Jhn. 3: 5). The N.T. is quite clear that baptism is not only a sign of a man’s new birth but is the action by which his faith is made real. When St. Peter is preaching his Pentecost sermon, he says, “Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2: 38). Similarly, you have St. Paul saying to Titus that “he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Saviour” (Titus 3: 5-6). Moreover, the N.T. always links faith with baptism, thus St. Paul says to the Philippian jailer, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household” (Acts 16: 31), and straight away they were baptized.

As an Anglican Evangelical I stubornly refused to see a reference to water baptism in our Lord’s words in St. John 3: 5, and interpreted them metaphorically to refer to spiritual regeneration only, notwithstanding that this novel view of the text was not the one maintained by the ECF’S and the Catholic Church. Evangelicals spoke much about personal conversion and being “born again” and we emphasised repentance and belief in Christ. When I progressed in my faith and became a traditional High-Anglican, I came to appreciate that this was a wholly inadequate view of the sacrament of baptism, which simply could not be squared with the words of Christ and the N.T… The religion of the N.T. declares that a true and lively faith and baptism are both necessary.

Evangelical Christians are wary of granting too much power to the sacrament of baptism because they have a fear that a man’s responsibility to personally repent and turn to Christ may somehow be compromised. When Catholics assert that a man is regenerated in holy baptism, or if you please, “saved” by baptism, they do not mean that he is saved in the Evangelical sense of that term. Typically, Evangelical’s mean by being “saved” that an individual is totally redeemed and will persevere unto the end and will finally inherit everlasting life. A Catholic rejects this unbiblical teaching and always allows for the possibility that a man might reject the religion into which he was baptized. By his own failure or the failure of his family he might never take up the wonderful gift that was given him in baptism. Moreover, Catholics rightly allow that a man may defect from the faith (i.e. backslide) and return to worldly living, just like Demas in the Pastoral letters. This is because the Catholic believes that the whole course of this life is a state of probation and that no man can say that he is finally going to Heaven. True, by living a devout life and pursuing sanctity and separation from the godless world, he can have an assurance that all is well with his soul, and that by God’s good grace he hopes to be finally saved.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[illusion_buster]

Do you believe that the teaching that there is only One God has been added? Or is it part of the original gospel message? And how do you know?

I believe Jesus Himself confirmed there was only one God when He gave us the “Our Father” and when He referred to God (and not Gods) when saying “my God my God, why have you forsaken me”. Other religious experience also pointed to this revelation, not souly Jewish. I never implied that tradition was wrong in it’s assumptions from inspiration, but that inspirations from God are open to man’s misinterpretation. That is why a strong understanding of Jesus’ teaching, (especially from His OWN mouth) can make us think on what He really ment by such parables.
I looked up what a RCC theologian said about the Good Shepherd parable and was disappointed that he left out COMPLETELY the “other sheep” in His scenerio. And put his own views the Jesus was BOTH the gate AND the gatekeeper…something that Jesus did not say in the parable. If Jesus was both He would have SAID He was both just as forcibly as He said “I am the gate”. But He didn’t… This put a whole different ‘interpretation’ to the parable suggesting misinterpretation by this theologian.

And I can understand you don’t know what I am talking about most of the time. You have a “Left brain” approach to things…(nothing wrong with that by the way…it tends to bring us ‘right brained’ down to earth). Being an artist, I am very ‘right brained’…if I wasn’t an artist I think I would have studied philosophy…where you would choose Theology. There is a lot to gain by looking beyond the box as long as ‘the truth’ is what is being sort… assuming that man’s understanding of ‘Truth’ is constantly evolving and is always open to more indepth pure interpretation. Jesus promised " all who seek will find".

 

[PRmerger]

I believe Jesus Himself confirmed there was only one God when He gave us the “Our Father” and when He referred to God (and not Gods) when saying “my God my God, why have you forsaken me”.

How do you know if this was part of the original gospel or added later?

 

[PRmerger]

And I can understand you don’t know what I am talking about most of the time. You have a “Left brain” approach to things…(nothing wrong with that by the way…it tends to bring us ‘right brained’ down to earth).

That is, well, absurd, that you are maintaining that I cannot follow your arguments because it’s a “left brain/right brain” type of thing.

I have been in dialogue here to the tune of over 12,000 posts, with thousands of people. And had quite satisfactory discourses with them. You are telling me that every single one of those people here on the CAFs was right brained and that’s why I could have a dialogue with them? And the reason I can’t follow your arguments is because you’re the first left brainer I’ve encountered?

That’s just plain :whacky:

 

[Simka]

The same God!
The same God!

And I think those who follow the Jewish religion, the Buddhist religion…etc…that is the same God, too.
Not sure what others here think on that? Or what the, um, “official” position is on that?

After all, if we are taught there is only one God, then there is only one God. Period.
Even if someone else has a different way of trying to get to that God…it’s still, just one God, is it not?

God is God. No matter how differently someone wants to dress Him up or give a different name to call Him…

If I choose to worship my neighbor’s dog as God, and call it so, that does not make it God.

If you were to say to a Muslim who knows Islam, that “We all worship the same God”, he would smile at you condescendingly, but inwardly would realize that you know virtually nothing about his religion, and he would truly wonder how much you know of your own!

Allah is not the father of Jesus Christ. Defining characteristics of Jehovah and Allah make them mutually exclusive. They are not one and the same.

 

[Simka]

The fact that Christians and Muslims both “use the term” Allah does not mean they all hold such an entity in the same reverence, or that they even refer to the same being, and certainly not that Christians worship this entity as God. Christians also use the term “St. Peter” in their liturgies and have done so for many, many centuries. That does not mean they equate him with God.

 

[Contarini]

If I choose to worship my neighbor’s dog as God, and call it so, that does not make it God.

Indeed. False analogy.

If you were to say to a Muslim who knows Islam, that “We all worship the same God”, he would smile at you condescendingly, but inwardly would realize that you know virtually nothing about his religion, and he would truly wonder how much you know of your own!

.

Evidence for this? You apparently have some kind of mystic knowledge which enables you to know what “Muslims who know Islam” think “inwardly,” even though conservative Muslims who are quite polemical toward Christianity nonetheless say exactly the opposite of what you claim they think.

Edwin

 

[rinnie]

Where in the WORLD were you when I needed you! I have been having this discussion on another thread for about 2 weeks. I have said exactly what you have just said, maybe not in those exact words, but close enough and was told that they do NOT worship the One true God the God of Abraham.

Even Catholic’s went against me in this saying that because they do not see God in the fullness of the Trinity, they worship a false god.

The thread was syncrestistic prayers with muslims. I got crushed for saying exactly what you just said.

Oh Buddy where were you when I needed you

 

[rinnie]

Indeed. False analogy.

Evidence for this? You apparently have some kind of mystic knowledge which enables you to know what “Muslims who know Islam” think “inwardly,” even though conservative Muslims who are quite polemical toward Christianity nonetheless say exactly the opposite of what you claim they think.

Edwin

My only partner in crime:hug1:

 

[Portrait]

The fact that Christians and Muslims both “use the term” Allah does not mean they all hold such an entity in the same reverence, or that they even refer to the same being, and certainly not that Christians worship this entity as God. Christians also use the term “St. Peter” in their liturgies and have done so for many, many centuries. That does not mean they equate him with God.

Dear Simka,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

In it’s essential meaning, there is no difference between God and Allah, for Allah is simply the Arabic word for God and is actually used by Arab Christians as well as Muslims. Mohammed and the Koran insist on the belief that there is one God, who is creator of all and supreme over the universe; there are no other gods apart from Him, as the first of the Ten Commandments also declares. In their proclamation, “There is no God but Allah”, the word “God” is simply another form of Allah.

Whilst Muslims worship the same God, they sadly do so in the wrong manner. Nevertheless, Isalm, along with Christianity and Judaism, is one of the three great monotheistic religions of the world, all looking to Abraham in one way or another as the founder of their faith.

No man with a sense of logic and a knowledge of history could accept Islam as a religion revealed by God. Mohammed founded a religion of his own, which was an amalgam of Jewish, Arabic and Christian elements. Moreover, many of Islam’s doctrines and its religious history cannot possibly claim a divine origin and protection in the light of critical analysis.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Simka]

Indeed. False analogy.

I don’t think so. Acknowledging that there is but one God, we still find that throughout history, mankind has deified other beings and objects, and worshiped them as gods.

These other gods exist in the hearts and minds of men, but they are false, not God.

 

[Simka]

If you were to say to a Muslim who knows Islam, that “We all worship the same God”, he would smile at you condescendingly, but inwardly would realize that you know virtually nothing about his religion, and he would truly wonder how much you know of your own!
.
Evidence for this? You apparently have some kind of mystic knowledge which enables you to know what “Muslims who know Islam” think “inwardly,” even though conservative Muslims who are quite polemical toward Christianity nonetheless say exactly the opposite of what you claim they think.
Edwin

No, Edwin, not mystic knowledge, just hard, cold observation. I don’t know where you have met “conservative Muslims who are quite polemical toward Christianity” but I’m referring to the African and Arab communities of Muslims I lived in the midst of, for years … who today are terrorizing Christian communities, attacking and burning Christian churches after locking dozens of people inside the buildings. I’m talking about hundreds of people I knew firsthand, who were my neighbors, and threatened me with death unless I converted. Instead, I escaped.

I have witnessed gangs of Muslims in the heart of Islamic communities, killing and maiming Christians - not because they were ‘heretics’ (i.e professed a distorted faith) but because they were regarded as pagan - that is, worshiped a false god, not Allah. I have been confronted with what dedicated Muslims preach and profess.

Don’t be so patronizing. Do you really want to get into a discussion of “evidence”?

 

[Contarini]

I don’t think so. Acknowledging that there is but one God, we still find that throughout history, mankind has deified other beings and objects, and worshiped them as gods.

God and gods are qualitatively different. This has generally been recognized, at least in cultures that have developed philosophical traditions. It’s something atheists almost uniformly miss, claiming foolishly that monotheists are atheists about “all gods but one.” Too bad that some Christians agree with the atheists and actually hold this incoherent position.

If you worship a dog, you are worshiping a being within the universe–a clearly limited being. You aren’t claiming that the dog is God, unless you are literally insane. You may believe that the dog is an incarnation of God, or that the dog is one among many manifestations of God, or that the dog is a being with great powers within the universe. But none of those constitutes believing that the dog is God, and none of them is remotely analogous to what Muslims believe.

Edwin