Pope's call for interfaith day of prayer provokes debate

[Mickey]

Let’s start over. I regret losing my cool. I would have deleted my earlier response but I returned to the site too late. My apologies.

I honestly don’t know where you’re going with the two points you raise. If you want to clarify what you’re getting at, feel free to, otherwise I’ll bow out of this discussion.

Added: I really do think that of the three branches of Christianity the Orthodox, for whatever reason, are the least inclined to reach out to the other two. That may be a virtue or not but I don’t think I’m just imagining it.

My apologies also. I always come across as harsh on a forum. I believe It is a combination of my writing technique and my huge uncontrollable ego.

Please forgive me.

One of my points had to do with division. Because of our fallen human nature, I do not believe there was a way to prevent divisions. With your last point: I think that the Orthodox are very weary of compromise due to past history (especially regarding the Council of Florence). Overall I see it as a strength…because if there is going to be lasting unity, it must take place in truth, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Peace be to you.

 

[ddarko]

Implicitly and allegorically, sure. Not in any sense that is likely to have been understood by the original human authors or pre-Christian Jews generally,. And of course post-Christian Jews reject these interpretations categorically. Muslims are in this respect closer to Christianity than Jews–they speak of Jesus as the “Word” and the “Messiah,” they believe in the Virgin Birth, etc. I don’t think that this is particularly relevant to the doctrine of God, mind you–but neither are the points you raised above about Muhammad being a false prophet, etc. When it comes to the doctrine of God, Muslims and Jews essentially agree over against Christianity. You have so far failed to give me even one counterexample.

But that’s not what post-Christian Jews think. And it’s more or less what Muslims claim about our religion. They claim to be the completion of Christianity and Judaism, just as we think we are the completion of Judaism. Jews reject both claims, just as we reject the Islamic claim.

You’re right in saying that obviously we as Christians have a very different relationship to Judaism than to Islam. We can’t deny the validity of Judaism, while we can quite easily deny the validity of Muhammad’s prophetic claims. However, that’s the reason I keep bringing in the Jews into this conversation. Because we can’t deny the validity of Judaism, we can’t deny the validity of those aspects of Islam which agree with Judaism. On the doctrine of God, Muslims and Jews agree. Therefore, we must recognize both of them as worshiping the true God, although we believe that we have been given further revelation about the nature of God, which post-Christian Jews and Muslims both reject.

But you have yet to point to a single contradiction between Islam and Judaism with regard to the doctrine of God, which is the point at issue. Of course we reject the Islamic garbling of the Old Testament narrative. Of course we don’t accept Muhammad’s prophetic authority. But until you can give me a significant difference between Islam and Judaism with regard to the doctrine of God, you have no case.

How on earth is it relativistic?

You are the one saying that a doctrine of God that rejects the Trinity is 100% compatible with one that accepts the Trinity.

You are the one saying that Jews worship the true God and Muslims don’t even though they believe the same things about God, and you are saying this based solely (it appears) on the relative positions of the two religions with regard to Christianity.

So if anything, you are the relativist.

But the word “relativist” is overused. People throw it at anyone they perceive as too “liberal” or too nice to other religions. I have no investment in proving you to be a relativist–but I am certainly not making a relativist argument here.

Acceptable as what? All I’m saying is that when Muslims speak of “Allah,” we should recognize that they are speaking of the one true God, and we should dispute with them “in the fairer manner” concerning their refusal to acknowledge Christian revelation about this one God.

Quite possibly. But monotheism is the relevant point in this particular case. You keep jumping from this specific issue to the general “acceptability” of a religion, which is not the point in dispute.

No, the false prophets described in the Bible were generally calling God’s people away from the one God to idols.

Furthermore, you are once again leaping from the question of whether someone speaks of the true God to whether their message is acceptable. These are separate things.

It is possible to say false things in the name of the true God.

Edwin

Hi Edwin,

I am certainly not a fan of going around in circles.

My point I believe is concise and clear.

Islam is from a FALSE PROPHET. This is why it is REJECTED. Not because of the Trinity or it does not satisfy some relativistic criterion on how much we have in common. It is simply from a FALSE PROPHET and CONTRADICTS Catholic and Jewish teachings. Therefore the God represented in it is False.

To me it seems that your plumb line has a problem You are a relativist because as I said, where do you draw the line on common ground? How much in common is enough?

So Edwin, with all due respect, I think you are just being a bit stubborn here. Judaism is TRUE and so is Christianity. They are COMPATIBLE. Jewish interpretations of it MIGHT NOT be and thats perfectly fine. The truth is still there. BUT with ISLAM, its a bunch of lies mixed with the truth. No matter how you want to look at it, its not all TRUE. Judaism is on the other hand is 100% true in its experience of God. Jews just happen to not interpret it 100% accurately.

So see the difference?

Catholicism : 100% Truth in teachings + experience of God
Judaism : 100% True in its experience of God but incomplete in its teachings
Islam : Bogus religion based on a false prophet stealing bits and pieces of the above

Do you understand the problem now?

I don’t think I can make it any simpler than this.

God Bless

 

[Contarini]

You are a relativist because as I said, where do you draw the line on common ground? How much in common is enough?

Enough for what?

When it comes to the doctrine of God, monotheists believe in the true God. I have given my reasons above and they are the reverse of relativist. They are founded in the conviction that there is a truth about God, that Judaism and Christianity reveal this truth, and that our criteria must be consistently applied to all religions that confess those same truths about God. That’s not relativist at all.

So Edwin, with all due respect, I think you are just being a bit stubborn here.

We’re both being “stubborn” in the sense that neither of us is convinced.

However, you keep repeating points that I have refuted, without addressing my arguments.

My problem is not that I don’t understand you. I disagree and I have given my reasons. You have yet to explain how rejection of the Trinity can be compatible with acceptance of the Trinity, or how Jews and Muslims can worship different gods even though their conception of God their reasons for rejecting the Christian conception are largely the same.

If you call this kind of argument “relativism,” then you have a very weird definition of relativism.

Edwin

 

[ddarko]

And how about the fact that we believe Jesus to be God Incarnate? For Jews that raises a lot more bells. Again, you can’t find a difference between Islam and Christianity that isn’t matched by a greater difference between Christianity and Judaism.

Traditionally, Jews believe that Jesus is a false prophet. Muslims believe that He was a true prophet. So where does that leave us?

Ok there are many problems with what you just said. First you have to be clear on how you are approaching this issue. You are approaching them with a HIERARCHY of truth.
It goes as Christianity → Judaism. Not the other way around. That it self is PART of the TRUTH.

So what Jews believe on Christianity is irrelevant. See? Hierarchy again.

BUT, what Islam says is problematic because it compromises BOTH Christianity and Judaism. Muhammed is simply NO PROPHET. To even acknowledge that he is is an absurdity.

Once again your problem is that you have some how already equated Judaism with Islam in your mind. Thus you are approaching them as equals. That is FALSE.

Monotheism is not VALID enough of a criteria to go by too. What if I start worshiping the tree in my backyard as a one true God. Or how about I try worshiping a Goddess as the one true transcendent being? Are we still ok? What if someone triest worshipping Satan as the one true God? Is that ok?

It is still Monotheist but its FALSE. So your criterion even in that sense is a failure.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Enough for what?

Enough to qualify as referring to the same God.

When it comes to the doctrine of God, monotheists believe in the true God. I have given my reasons above and they are the reverse of relativist. They are founded in the conviction that there is a truth about God, that Judaism and Christianity reveal this truth, and that our criteria must be consistently applied to all religions that confess those same truths about God. That’s not relativist at all.

I addressed this in my last post. Monotheism is simply not good enough of a criterion and I provided reasons why.

We’re both being “stubborn” in the sense that neither of us is convinced.

However, you keep repeating points that I have refuted, without addressing my arguments.

Actually I don’t keep repeating. I am refuting your criterion and saying the ones I said as the difference is what makes sense.

My problem is not that I don’t understand you. I disagree and I have given my reasons. You have yet to explain how rejection of the Trinity can be compatible with acceptance of the Trinity, or how Jews and Muslims can worship different gods even though their conception of God their reasons for rejecting the Christian conception are largely the same.

Ok this is good. I explained this to you though.

Judaism contain a TRUE experience of God. It is not FALSE. The experience of God in the OT is REAL. The Trinity just happens to not be revealed explicitly to them. But this does not mean their experience of God is FALSE.

In the case of ISLAM, it is FALSE. It is a FALSE experience. God never spoke to Muhammed as a prophet.

So this is why I am saying your fixation with the Trinity is leading you astray. The Trinitarian view is a complete picture of the same Jewish God. But Islam is a distorted and false picture of the one True God.

If you call this kind of argument “relativism,” then you have a very weird definition of relativism.

Edwin

I understand. I call it relativism because we can’t just say this much similarities in our beliefs makes us both have the same true God. Then one can say 5 things in common is good enough while another says 2 things in common etc. That is relativism and that is what I mean.

God Bless

 

[Contarini]

Ok there are many problems with what you just said. First you have to be clear on how you are approaching this issue. You are approaching them with a HIERARCHY of truth.
It goes as Christianity → Judaism. Not the other way around. That it self is PART of the TRUTH.

So what Jews believe on Christianity is irrelevant.

If I were so disposed, I could once again accuse you of relativism

We are discussing what Jews, Muslims, and Christians believe. You are saying that what Jews believe is irrelevant in discussing what Jews believe. That makes no sense!

Look, I understand what you are saying, but the problem is that you are using the word “Jews” to denote a Christian theological construct–one could even say a theological fantasy. You are saying that Jews believe in the true God even though they reject the Trinity, simply because of the relationship between Judaism and Christianity. Yet Muslims don’t believe in the true God even though they believe the same things (about God) that Jews do, because Muslims have a different relationship with Christianity.

But people believe what they believe, regardless of what we believe. Whether you believe in the true God or not isn’t solely dependent on your relationship to salvation history. It’s dependent on the correspondence between your belief and the reality of God.

That is quite the reverse of relativism. In fact I’m making a highly unfashionable, traditional point that disagrees with the postmodern trend of “narrative theology” (even though I think there’s a lot of value in narrative theology).

Quite a few theologians these days would be comfortable saying that Muslims and Christians believe in a different God, because they would say that “God” is defined in terms of a revelatory narrative rather than certain propositions. So if we have different narratives we have different gods. You seem more or less in agreement with that position–I disagree with it precisely because I think it relativistic (also, admittedly, because I think it leads to a lack of intellectual generosity toward other religions). I think that God is most truly and fully known in the story of salvation, but Scripture seems clear to me (against Barth and others) that even pagans have some knowledge of God from nature and reason. This is certainly the traditional Christian view.

Even on a narrative basis, I’d argue that the garbled version of salvation history found in Islam is still recognizable as the Abrahamic narrative. But that’s a more dubious argument and I won’t push it! (One of the strangest and most disturbing things to me about the Qur’an is its lack of narrative. I think this is one of the morally and spiritually crippling factors in Islam.)

BUT, what Islam says is problematic

Again, that’s simply irrelevant to the present discussion.

Once again your problem is that you have some how already equated Judaism with Islam in your mind.

Because I’m not a relativist! I try to equate things “in my mind” that are equal in reality. In terms of their doctrine of God, they are more or less equal. So I have no *choice *but to equate them in my mind–not being a relativist

Monotheism is not VALID enough of a criteria to go by too. What if I start worshiping the tree in my backyard as a one true God.

That’s an incoherent sentence. You can’t have “a one true God.” There’s only “the one true God,” and a part of nature such as a tree cannot by definition be the one true God. You are showing a lack of understanding of monotheism (in the way it’s been traditionally defined). Aquinas does a great job of laying out what monotheism is all about in the first 25 questions or so of the Summa Theologiae!

Or how about I try worshiping a Goddess as the one true transcendent being?

that’s tricky–I suppose some conservatives would say that the feminine is by definition immanent and not transcendent, and so a Goddess by definition cannot be a monotheistic deity. And in practice use of goddess-language seems almost inevitably to go along with some form of polytheism/pantheism.

However, it’s certainly true that God is beyond gender, so I wouldn’t say that someone is not worshiping the true God simply because they use feminine language, no. I grant that this is a controversial point where many conservative Christians would disagree with me.

Are we still ok? What if someone triest worshipping Satan as the one true God?

Again, if you’re talking about the traditional concept of Satan as a fallen angel, that makes absolutely no sense at all. Obviously a created being who rebelled against God cannot be God.

Furthermore, one feature of monotheism is the belief that God is the source of moral good. So worshiping a being you regarded as evil could not, by definition, be monotheistic.

However, I certainly would not say that someone literally worships a false god just because they ascribe to God some qualities that I believe are repugnant to His nature. That would rule out many of my fellow Christians! Such a person would have a radically imperfect, flawed, even twisted concept of God. But I would not say that they are not worshiping the true God at all.

Is that ok?

You keep slipping back into this question of whether something is “ok.” But that’s not the point for which I’m contending.

It is quite possible to say, as Christians have traditionally said, that Muslims and Jews (or Christian heretics) worship the true God in the wrong way and thus deserve nothing but condemnation for their worship.

It is still Monotheist but its FALSE

No, the examples you have given (with the possible exception of goddess-worship, depending on what was meant by that) are not monotheistic.

People make a distinction traditionally between “monotheism” and “henotheism.” Worshiping a tree in your backyard as your only god would be henotheism, not monotheism.

 

[Contarini]

The problem with my position, frankly, is that there are good reasons to believe that the ancient Hebrews were henotheists for some time after YHWH revealed Himself to them. Yet I want to say that they worshiped the true God. So the question I need to answer (and am not sure I can do so at this point) is whether a modern person who worshiped or claimed to worship YHWH as a particular god rather than God in the monotheist sense would be worshiping the true God! I’d be disposed to say “no,” which casts a question on my argument about the Jews. Dzheremi and some others are willing to argue that modern Jews don’t worship the true God while ancient Jews did. If I say–as I’m disposed to–that ancient henotheistic Hebrews worshiped the true God but a modern henotheist wouldn’t–then I lose one of my strongest arguments against Dzheremi’s position. Furthermore, to say that henotheistic Hebrews worshiped the true God, I have to make an argument from the continuity of salvation history–and of course your distinction between Jews and Muslims is based precisely on the fact that you see such continuity for Jews but not for Muslims.

I think a case can be made that ancient Hebrew henotheism points toward monotheism much more clearly than monotheism points toward the Trinity (monotheism is arguably a philosophically consistent development of ancient Hebrew henotheism, whereas the Trinity requires divine revelation).

But I don’t rest my case solely on the Jews. My high valuation of monotheism as the criterion is in large part based on the way the NT writers, the Fathers, and medieval scholastics treated non-Christian monotheists, even pagans.

So to sum up my position:

There are three possible reasons for saying that someone worships the true God:

1. They worship the one Creator and source of all being; and
2. They put their faith in the being who revealed Himself to the Hebrews as YHWH; and
3. They worship God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I would say that 1 is a sufficient reason to say that someone believes in the true God. 2 is sufficient if not combined with an explicit rejection of 1, but 1 is still sufficient even if 2 is rejected (thus, a pagan NeoPlatonist who rejected Judaism but adored the One would still be worshiping the true God, even though he/she would be objectively culpable for rejecting God’s revelation). Similarly, 1 and/or 2 are still sufficient even if 3 is rejected, as with modern Jews (and, I would argue, Muslims). 3, again, needs 1 and 2 for validity. Hence, I’m dubious about whether Mormons worship the true God.

Obviously there is a sense in which people who believe only 1 or only 1 and 2 do not “really” know the true God. That is, they do not know and worship Him in the fullness of His self-revelation. But they cannot be said to worship a false god either, and the question of whether they explicitly reject or are merely ignorant of the fuller revelation is not relevant to that particular question, though it is highly relevant to the question of their culpability and the spiritual value of their worship.

Pagan neo-platonists and perhaps Hindus would fall under 1 but not 2 or 3. Jews definitely fall under 1 and 2 but not 3. Muslims definitely fall under 1–I’d say they fall under 2 as well, but I grant that this is disputable given their garbled salvation history.

Edwin

 

[ddarko]

Ok Edwin, lets keep matters simple. Right now it appears that you are telling me your position and I am telling you mine. Lets push it a bit. Here is an argument against your position.

This is my argument (NOT my position)

1. God did reveal himself to the Jews
2. God did reveal himself through Christ
3. God did not reveal himself to Muhammed
4. Therefore the God that revealed himself to Muhammed is FALSE

Now which one of the above 3 premises do you reject? Lets also keep it short.

If you can show why the above argument fails, I will concede the debate and will accept your view as correct.

To me what is KEY is whether God indeed did reveal himself and whether that is the foundation of that religion or not. If God did not truly reveal himself in that religion then the God that they claimed to have revealed things to them is a false God- Q.E.D.

God Bless

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think you’re dead on, ddarko. First of all, Muhammad learned bits and pieces about Judaism and Christianity while on long caravan trips from Arabia to Syria with his uncle, Abu Talib. He befriended a man named Bahira if memory serves from college, a Nestorian, and I find it troubling that he’d get his theology from a Nestorian for starters! Muhammad’s wife, Khadijah, had a cousin who was a Christian so no doubt Muhammad heard bits and pieces and we can speculate ad nauseum but it is apparent when reading the Koran that, as you said, God didn’t communicate with Muhammad. It is a jumble of mixed traditions and verbage from Christian and Jewish traditions with an Arab spin on it to make guys like Ishmael the hero. Also, Islam teaches that the Torah and Gospels Tawrat and Injil respectively) are distortions of Allah’s original messages to the Jews and Christians, containing “some” truth mixed with blasphemies and convoluted misinterpretations or corruptions. Throw in the Islamic ideas that heaven is full of pleasures (sexual ones with hordes of virgins), the idea that Allah forgave Adam and Eve after their sin in the Garden and that there was no Original Sin, that Adam received the Kaa’ba stone from God, that Jesus was the forerunner who foretold the coming of Muhammad, that jesus was assumed without crucifixion and will return and die a human death like other men, on and on. These things are absurd and reflect a broken, defective, murky bunch of bits and pieces put together to comprise a new religion. They are not communications from God but of man, Muhammad, thrown together over time.

Your posts are dead-on. Comparing Allah to Yaweah is apples and oranges. God truly spoke to the Jewish people and gave them true, accurate, godly revelations, wisdom, miracles, and prophecies.

Edwin’s argument makes sense from the logic that if Jesus is the necessary ingredient to make a god God then both the Jewish and Islamic gods are lacking so they are both equally defective. However, I don’t agree with that. The Jewish religion is indeed lacking. That is an understatement. But the Jewish people worship one person of the Holy Trinity accurately revealed to them until the advent of Christ Almighty. The Muslims worship a god that never existed based on a hodge-podge composite of Muhammad’s caravan nights and imagination IMO. So I’d say the Jewish people do not truly understand God in that they ignore the Trinity but at least they pray to One of the Divine Persons of the Trinity while Muslims do not.

Ok Edwin, lets keep matters simple. Right now it appears that you are telling me your position and I am telling you mine. Lets push it a bit. Here is an argument against your position.

This is my argument (NOT my position)

1. God did reveal himself to the Jews
2. God did reveal himself through Christ
3. God did not reveal himself to Muhammed
4. Therefore the God that revealed himself to Muhammed is FALSE

Now which one of the above 3 premises do you reject? Lets also keep it short.

If you can show why the above argument fails, I will concede the debate and will accept your view as correct.

To me what is KEY is whether God indeed did reveal himself and whether that is the foundation of that religion or not. If God did not truly reveal himself in that religion then the God that they claimed to have revealed things to them is a false God- Q.E.D.

God Bless

 

[agent_grey]

How on earth can 1 man pray to God and another pray to his imagination?

A few months ago I was visiting my Pagan (SDA) friend. His wife prepared a good meal and before we ate he joined hands with his children and prayed. I could not in good conscience pray with them. Now I know that his imaginary God is of no power or authority so no damage became of my food. Kinda like Eating a Halal Donair.

Now I have at great lengths attempted to demonstrate that the earth isn’t flat but he refuses to accept this and continues to worship some imaginary diety that created a non existant flat earth.

So sad. I feel so sorry for his children as they will be brainwashed beyond reproach. I pray that his imaginary Pagan diety that create a non existant flat earth will be seen for what it is by any and all.

 

[gentle_atheist]

A man’s character is more important than his religion. As for all the disputes over which is the true religion, I would say the fault lies not with man but with God. Unless there is no God. Then the fault lies with man.

 

[Reuben_J]

Ok there are many problems with what you just said. First you have to be clear on how you are approaching this issue. You are approaching them with a HIERARCHY of truth.
It goes as Christianity → Judaism. Not the other way around. That it self is PART of the TRUTH.

So what Jews believe on Christianity is irrelevant. See? Hierarchy again.

BUT, what Islam says is problematic because it compromises BOTH Christianity and Judaism. Muhammed is simply NO PROPHET. To even acknowledge that he is is an absurdity.

Once again your problem is that you have some how already equated Judaism with Islam in your mind. Thus you are approaching them as equals. That is FALSE.

Monotheism is not VALID enough of a criteria to go by too. What if I start worshiping the tree in my backyard as a one true God. Or how about I try worshiping a Goddess as the one true transcendent being? Are we still ok? What if someone triest worshipping Satan as the one true God? Is that ok?

It is still Monotheist but its FALSE. So your criterion even in that sense is a failure.

God Bless

Well said.

I have tried to gather my thought on this subject but you said it nicely. The reason why we have no problem that the Jews worship the same God with us is simply that - we too believe in the God of Abraham. Our belief up to that stage is the same. We move on to the Messiah and they do not. But we cannot say they do not belief in that same God since we believe that too. We would be pretty much like them had God did not incarnate two thousand years ago.

Islam starts from a false (different) premise and we could not agree with them even on the nature of the Abrahamic God that they claim. The rest of their revelations are full of contradiction to our core belief. And Mohammad being a prophet is truly very problematic for us.

 

[Reuben_J]

A man’s character is more important than his religion. As for all the disputes over which is the true religion, I would say the fault lies not with man but with God. Unless there is no God. Then the fault lies with man.

In an ideal situation, at least in Christianity, a man’s character should be shaped by his religion. He is a ‘new’ man who takes after Jesus. If he is not or that he falls short, it is not God’s fault but because he has not surrendered enough to the will of God. In that sense, yes, it’s man fault. Sometimes, it is not even man’s fault for what he is, it is just that he is made as such and there is nothing he can humanly do about it. God is about supernatural - sometimes God can change a man’s character if the man tries hard enough to allow God to work on him. I suppose it’s likened to the fact that a person can change if he is serious enough in believing in something that allows him to change except that in religion, God, the supernatural element, is a factor.

 

[gentle_atheist]

In an ideal situation, at least in Christianity, a man’s character should be shaped by his religion. He is a ‘new’ man who takes after Jesus.

But what about people who are of good character even though they are in a false religion? It just struck my how the SDA mentioned in the post by Agent_Grey seemed to be a good family man, yet Agent_Grey pitied him because of his religion instead of admiring him because of his character.

If he is not or that he falls short, it is not God’s fault but because he has not surrendered enough to the will of God. In that sense, yes, it’s man fault. Sometimes, it is not even man’s fault for what he is, it is just that he is made as such and there is nothing he can humanly do about it. God is about supernatural - sometimes God can change a man’s character if the man tries hard enough to allow God to work on him. I suppose it’s likened to the fact that a person can change if he is serious enough in believing in something that allows him to change except that in religion, God, the supernatural element, is a factor.

I am not blaming God for a man’s character. I am blaming God for not making it clear to man which religion is the true religion. For example, the Resurrection is supposed to prove that Christianity is the true religion. But the Ascension destroyed all proof of the Resurrection. Why provide proof and then destroy that proof?

 

[gentle_atheist]

The Catholic Church used to recognize Mormon baptisms as being valid. It took a lot of effort to enlighten the Church about Mormonism.

I always thought the SDA were simply Christians who worshipped on Saturdays. But maybe there is more to it than that.

 

[Reuben_J]

But what about people who are of good character even though they are in a false religion? It just struck my how the SDA mentioned in the post by Agent_Grey seemed to be a good family man, yet Agent_Grey pitied him because of his religion instead of admiring him because of his character.

I think it is reasonable to say that if a person is of good character he is a person of good character regardless of his religion, and I agree with you on that.

I can’t speak for Agent Grey as I am not sure of the context of him saying it. He can pity a person because according to him that person is not of the same religion as him. In other word, he wants that person to be in the same religion as him. If that’s the case, then it is true for people of any religion. We want people to be of the same religion as us because we want them to have what is good and what is true. This is actually about personal belief and the adherent is somewhat governed by the nature of one’s belief. If it is Christianity, it calls for people to become one, and it the same I think for Islam.

But ‘pity’ in that case should not equal looking down on the person. Every human being deserves respect and dignity irrespective of his/her religion.

I am not blaming God for a man’s character. I am blaming God for not making it clear to man which religion is the true religion. For example, the Resurrection is supposed to prove that Christianity is the true religion. But the Ascension destroyed all proof of the Resurrection. Why provide proof and then destroy that proof?

Ah, we are talking about Christianity then. If I were to avoid further argument, I would say we believe because we believe. We do not need any proof for this belief. Muslims for example would simply do not believe in the resurrection. So resurrection is not a proof for some people. Similarly to us, God has made it quite clear that the truth is contained in his revelation but to others it is not. So it is a matter of belief. I think.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Maybe pagan is a bit too strong, but heretical in the class of gnostics would be a possibility for Mormonism to be classified.

 

[Contarini]

Ok Edwin, lets keep matters simple. Right now it appears that you are telling me your position and I am telling you mine. Lets push it a bit. Here is an argument against your position.

This is my argument (NOT my position)

1. God did reveal himself to the Jews
2. God did reveal himself through Christ

Agreed so far.

1. God did not reveal himself to Muhammed

We have no reason to believe that Muhammad was the direct recipient of special, authoritative, prophetic revelation. However, I would not venture to affirm that any man, woman, or child has ever lived on this planet to whom God has not revealed Himself (see Romans 1 for starters!).

1. Therefore the God that revealed himself to Muhammed is FALSE

There is no such being as “the God that revealed himself to Muhammed.” That’s an unnecessary and confusing linguistic artifice on your part.

The ideas found in the Qur’an are pretty clearly an amalgam of garbled versions of Jewish and Christian ideas (perhaps in some cases stemming from heretical, non-mainstream versions of both religions which are poorly documented) and Muhammad’s own cultural traditions and personal inclinations. It is not necessary to say that God revealed Himself to Muhammad (in a special, prophetic way) to say that Muhammad worshiped the true God, any more than it’s necessary to say that God revealed Himself to you or me or the neighborhood rabbi or the rabbis of the Talmud or St. Thomas Aquinas or Martin Luther or Pope Benedict or Hans Kung or +Rowan Williams for us to say that all of these people worship the true God (some more accurately and truly than others). The fact that Muhammad claimed prophetic revelation may say very bad things about his present condition (though one can always hope that he did so in good faith and/or that he repented at the point of death), but says absolutely nothing about whether his use of the word “Allah” refers to the true God or not. Even if, as Christians have traditionally claimed, Muhammad actually did encounter a non-human being out there in the desert and it was actually a demon, that says nothing about what Muhammad meant when he used the word “Allah.”

Now which one of the above 3 premises do you reject? Lets also keep it short.

I will take as long as I need to make the point I think needs making. You don’t have to read or respond to my verbiage

As I have said above, I differ with point 3 (since your argument rests on the assumption that all true knowledge of God must come from a direct, special revelation to the person in question, and cannot come from general revelation or from Scripture/tradition), and with your conclusion (since you unreasonably create a linguistic entity called “the God who revealed himself to Muhammad,” instead of speaking of the Qur’an as a human document).

We agree, I think, that Islam is a garbled version of Judaeo-Christian tradition, with some elements coming from pagan Arab religion. And I grant that, as dzheremi’s Coptic priest friend says, at some point a false concept of God becomes a false God. The point I’ve been making is that if we don’t locate that point with the Trinity (and you and I agree that we can’t–the argument against dzheremi’s position is a bit more complicated), then the only other point to locate it (and the point where the Fathers did locate it) is in the acceptance of basic monotheism. This does not simply mean that you have one object of worship, but that you regard that object of worship as a spiritual being who is the source of all other being and who is possessed of supreme moral perfections. Christians have historically recognized all monotheists in this sense as worshiping the true God, and have questioned Islamic worship of the true God only when they erroneously believed that Muslims thought God was a finite, physical object.

To me what is KEY is whether God indeed did reveal himself and whether that is the foundation of that religion or not. If God did not truly reveal himself in that religion then the God that they claimed to have revealed things to them is a false God- Q.E.D.

Why not simply say that there is no such being as “the God that they claimed to have revealed things to them,” but that their ideas are largely derivative of *true *revelation?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

It is a jumble of mixed traditions and verbage from Christian and Jewish traditions with an Arab spin on it to make guys like Ishmael the hero.

Exactly. And that’s one reason why it makes no sense at all to say that Islam worships a false god. The God of Islam is the God of Judaism and Christianity understood through the distorting lens of Muhammad’s supposed revelation.

Edwin’s argument makes sense from the logic that if Jesus is the necessary ingredient to make a god God then both the Jewish and Islamic gods are lacking so they are both equally defective. However, I don’t agree with that. The Jewish religion is indeed lacking. That is an understatement. But the Jewish people worship one person of the Holy Trinity accurately revealed to them until the advent of Christ Almighty. The Muslims worship a god that never existed based on a hodge-podge composite of Muhammad’s caravan nights and imagination IMO. .

Even if this were true, we’d still have to talk about Romans 1 and the concept of general/natural revelation.

However, as a matter of fact you have contradicted yourself. Earlier you said (correctly) that Islam is based on a hodge-podge of Jewish and Christian ideas. So it’s not something Muhammad cooked up. He took the basic conception of God on which Jews and Christians agree, and that’s why you can’t say that Jews worship the true God but Muslims don’t.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Islam starts from a false (different) premise and we could not agree with them even on the nature of the Abrahamic God that they claim.

In what way do we differ with Islam about God but not also with Judaism?

In what way did Muhammad depart from the shared Jewish/Christian inheritance with regard to the nature of God?

I’ll grant that his view of God seems somewhat harsher and more arbitrary than the mainstream Jewish/Christian understanding, but I think it’s within the spectrum, and if you say that the character of the Quranic God is radically different from that of the true God you have to say the same thing about some versions of Christianity.