That doesn’t make any sense.
No, YOU are saying that I’m saying that. My only point is that one non-Christian religion is not inherently better/closer to God than another. It’s pretty clear throughout the Bible that God isn’t interested in either false worship or insincere “true” worship. He desires for us to know the Truth, not man-made best efforts which still fall short! And how can we actually know, to the point of catechetical emphasis, that a certain incorrect belief system is actually more acceptable to God than another - when we know that none of them are really what he commands or desires for us?
Just listen to yourself. You think that a corny horror movie has more access to divine truth than the Catholic Church!
Yes. I’m teasing out the implications of what you are saying. Of course you can deny that your statement has such implications, and then we can have an interesting discussion!
Indeed. And I don’t see how you can maintain that without the consequences I have described. If, as Paul says in Acts 17, God has made us all to seek after God, then it seems highly likely that some people have done this more wisely and sincerely than others. There seems no ground to say flatly that all non-Christian religions are on the same level.
God is not interested in His people turning away from Him, which is what you find in most of the references to paganism throughout the OT. Whenever the Bible speaks of sincere religious seekers among pagans, you find a different picture. Acts 17 is extremely significant, because it is maybe the only place where you find a Biblical perspective on the best aspects of ancient paganism. And it’s a lot more positive than many conservative Christians are happy with–many evangelical commentators desperately explain away what Paul says here as not really constituting any kind of approval of Greco-Roman philosophy or religion. But the problem is with their Calvinist lens. The early chapters of Romans express the same ideas.
And again, this assumes that there is no relationship whatever between those efforts and the Truth toward which they reach–that God’s gracious initiative in Jesus is completely independent of and unrelated to the human search for God. This is, again, a Calvinist misreading of the Biblical evidence, unfortunately accepted by many evangelicals who are not full-fledged Calvinists.
We know that truth is more acceptable to God than falsehood, mercy than cruelty, justice than injustice.
Why not address your complaints to the people who wrote the Catechism and/or the people who gave it an imprimatur? I have stated several times that I would prefer not to talk about Islam at all. If I have to admit anything about Islam it will be the same things I’ve written over and over in this thread: Islam is absolutely false, not salvific, does not worship the one true God (“together with us”, or in any other way), etc. I am aware that you have problems with these ideas, but as I believe I mentioned after the last time we talked about this (when you called me a “Marcionite heretic”, among other nice things…), there is no need to discuss Islam any further than is necessary to determine that it does not worship the one true God, which to me is such a foregone conclusion that only those in complete denial of the vast differences between Islam’s beliefs and Christianity’s would even make it necessary to have this conversation. If Islam were not addressed at all in the Catechism (as I would rather have it, but whatever…I’m not Catholic), we would not see this conversation reoccur so often.
Would you please explain the diabolical elements of Christianity? I’m confused by what you mean.
Yes indeed! I’m feeling more enlightened already!He’s here to “tease” things out of you and set you straight, Sentry. Don’t ya know? Prepare to be enlightened and awakened!
Yes indeed! I’m feeling more enlightened already!
Burning people alive for their religious opinions (or cutting their insides out while they are still alive because they dare to propagate a version of Christianity not approved by the government) is diabolical. That’s just the most obvious example. More generally, all those expressions of Christianity which promote arrogance rather than charity and humility are diabolical. The diabolical elements are intrinsically intertwined with the divine and human ones, since the same beliefs can be interpreted and applied in diabolical, divine, or merely human ways. Thus, my claim implies no denial of the divine inspiration of Scripture, nor is it necessarily incompatible even with Catholic beliefs about the infallibility of the Church.Would you please explain the diabolical elements of Christianity? I’m confused by what you mean.
You too. You know that eventually you will calm down and be nice to me, and maybe you’'ll even calm down enough to consider whether I might not have a point.I find it hilarious how you regularly blast Catholicism and yet when it has a liberal, wishy-washy piece of language, sure enough, you flock to it like white on rice. Have a happy new year, Edwin.
No, he doesn’t have to say that. Because Jews and Muslims don’t share the same scriptures.
Dear Edwin,
