|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: How are other religions or denominations wrong?
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
The thread on evangelization has encouraged me to ask a question here I've long wanted to ask: does being a Christian mean thinking that non Christians and members of different Christian denominations are wrong in what they believe?
What about the ideas that have existed in Christianity at times in history that non Christians (or even Christians of the wrong denomination) worship the Devil or demons without knowing it? Is this true? Even if it is not true, is it true that non Christian worship (or that Christian worship that departs from the doctrine of one's denomination) is either sinful (or otherwise corrupting) to participate in? If so, what it the line between observation of such worship and participation?
If a religion ceases to exist because every member converts to Christianity (perhaps while retaining some of the culture that their native religion was based upon), is that a good thing? Does God want all non Christian religions (and all denominations other than the True Church, for those who believe that there is only one denomination that fully is the True Church) to cease to exist insomuch as they differ from doctrinally correct Christianity?
Of course many of the teachings of any religion that pertain to history and nature could be proven wrong by science. And people of different faiths and no faith who live together have to agree on what should be made illegal and what should be permitted - so they have to agree on what things are so immoral that they have to be legally banned (and on what punishments are appropriate for those crimes). So when I ask about what teachings of other faiths are wrong and if so, how they are wrong, I am referring more to those beliefs that do not pertain to history, nature, or issues of legal morality.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Orthodox Christianity is defined by the Creeds. The Creeds teach a Trinitarian understanding of God and the deity of Christ. To affirm the Creeds it stands to reason that an orthodox Christian would maintain that religions that don't affirm those teachings are fundamentally wrong. Jesus cannot be both God and not God. God cannot be triune and not triune.
Some religions might be demonic. Most are not. I believe the Eastern religions are based on centuries of contemplation based on a mystical experiences of the divine.
Yes, I believe God desires all people to come to faith in Jesus Christ. To the extent that means all other religions cease to exist, God wants all religions to cease to exist. Hence, Christians are called to evangelize.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
For some reason this discussion reminds me of a Flanders and Swann song
A song of patriotic prejudice
quote:
The English, the English, the English are best
I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest.
Hopefully this thread won't go that way.
As I recall, some Christian prophecies predict that a certain quantity of Jews is needed to fulfill the end of days. This was a reason why some anti-Semitism did involve wiping out or forced conversion of all Jews. It's also why Israel has a special police department to deal with those arriving in Jerusalem on a regular basis to start the end of days.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
StevHep
Shipmate
# 17198
|
Posted
I think that Christianity is based upon revelation. God has made himself known to humankind via various interventions in human history. The high point and summing up of that revelation is to be found in the person of Jesus.
God, however, does not hide Himself. Those who seek Him will find Him and will be granted the grace to have a relationship with Him. Where such relationships exist apart from revelation people seek to understand and describe God and their relationship with Him in terms that make sense to them. Which means, from a Christian POV that such descriptions are partly accurate and partly inaccurate. We can therefore recognise and applaud what is true and good in these religions while presenting the deposit of revelation as a more perfect standard.
As it happens I touch on these themes in my latest blog Listen & Learn
--------------------
My Blog Catholic Scot
http://catholicscot.blogspot.co.uk/
@stevhep on Twitter
Posts: 241 | From: Exeter | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
All religions are right about the things they agree on, and wrong where they disagree.
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
There's a logical question, and then a moral question, and then perhaps a cultural question.
Let's start with the logical question. The first thing to note is that if I say somebody is wrong because they disagree with me, I am logically opening myself up to the possibility that they're right and I'm wrong. If I don't acknowledge that I might be the one who is wrong, then I'm not really bothered about what the truth is; I'm just relieving my feelings.
Secondly, logically if Christianity asserts A, and some other religion implies not A, they can't both be right about A vs not A. But that doesn't mean that they can't both be right about B where they agree. It is also possible that the other religion or Christianity only appears to assert the conflicting statement. That there might be some way of showing that the fundamental doctrines of the religion do not actually require the conflicting statement.
Morally, it seems obvious that members of other religions can and do lead as good and holy lives as Christians. If Christianity is more morally sound it's a fairly subtle thing. Beyond that, as Christians we believe righteousness comes not from following the correct doctrines but from the grace of God. And I personally do not think God limits his grace to Christians. (Beyond this we get to questions of universalism. I'm a 'we may hope but not presume that all may be saved'.)
On the subject of whether God wants other religions to cease existing, I think it's rather like Greek philosophy. Christianity took up Greek philosophy to express itself, so that it's now possible to be both an Aristotelian and a Christian. I think in future, even if we don't know see how, it will be possible to be both a Christian and a Buddhist - or at least that people will work out how to hold what is true in each tradition together.
[ 25. April 2014, 07:04: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
This is one of the things that led me away from Christianity, although I am still splashing around in the margins, I suppose. I've been with people of other faiths for a long time in a meditation group, including Sufis, Buddhists, nondescript New Age people, shamans, and so on, and I could not really in all honesty hold to the single truth of Christianity, as against their own truth.
I've also found that we could speak a common language, and they were quite happy to speak about Christ as a living reality. I suppose this ends up in pluralism, although I haven't really worked out the ramifications of it. At any rate, the next breath is the beginning.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
I view this topic in light of conscience. Those of us who believe that salvation is through Christ Jesus and choose not to follow him are essentially rejecting him. Such is not the case for a Muslim or Jew or Hindu who has been raised to follow their own faith and believes that leaving the religion of their family and ancestors would be wrong. Or, more likely, never learns enough about Christianity to seriously consider joining it. I cannot say that person is rejecting Jesus, because they don't know him. For such a person it would be best for him or her to pursue a relationship with God in the structure that they are familiar with.
There are some places in the New Testament that say those who wish to live by the law will be bound by it, but those who want freedom from it should follow Jesus. I see that as saying that following the morals and rules of an alternative religious system (specifically Judaism in that case) is acceptable but both more difficult and presumably sub-optimal to being a Christian.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
I certainly believe that other religions are inspired by demons. As for Christian heresies, I think it was St. Athanasius who said that all heresy essentially stems from some defect in ones understanding of the Incarnation. I'm inclined to agree.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Are you suggesting there are no demons lurking within the bounds of Christianity?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Not if it's orthodox (and I deliberately use small "o" here, so as not to be too partisan), because orthodoxy comes from the Holy Spirit.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Hmmmm ... I certainly agree that all heresies come from a defective view of the Incarnation ... although how far an 'opinion' has to go before it topples over into heresy is a moot point ...
I'm less convinced of the 'demonic' origin of other religions. Most religions, I would suggest, have their origins in people rather than demons - but it depends how 'reductionist' one wants to be about these things ... if something is opposed to the Truth(TM) or setting itself up as an alternative to the Truth as received and believed - then I can understand why one might wish to demonise it. I'm not sure that's an entirely helpful approach, though. You end up with a rather binary and paranoid universe.
That's not to elide the issue of 'what is Truth?' or to suggest that all religions are the same. They aren't.
But I don't see that a belief in the Christian revelation, the 'truth as it is in Jesus' necessitates demonising anyone and everyone else.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
Between denominations, I find it's more a matter of emphasis than on what is a right or wrong belief. Coming from a charismatic church, we see ourselves as expressing an equally weighted trinitarian view, whereas some non-charismatics view us as placing an undue emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit. The flip side is that the charismatic churches can view the conservative traditionalists as downplaying with the work of the Holy Spirit or simply paying it lip service. There are plenty of other examples one could take, for example how churches emphasise baptism, communion or leadership structures.
The danger with these discussions is that we focus on the fringes and try to define our borders, which are fairly nebulous at best, and ignore the heart of what binds us together.
I am not sure if I agree with Beeswax over the use of creeds. Did you mean Orthodox (big O) or was it just the start of a sentence denoting orthodox (little o, as with Ad Orientem)?
The creeds were a product of their time, expressing beliefs that came out of the disputes of their time, but I would be wary about taking them as normative. As helpful as they are, one might then ask "which creed" and what if someone is doubtful about one clause of one creed, as I am agnostic over the historicity of the virgin birth? Does that make me not a christian?
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
The creeds were a product of their time, expressing beliefs that came out of the disputes of their time, but I would be wary about taking them as normative. As helpful as they are, one might then ask "which creed" and what if someone is doubtful about one clause of one creed, as I am agnostic over the historicity of the virgin birth? Does that make me not a christian?
Having come from a church background where the creeds were never said or even acknowledged - I learned about them on my own much later - I think there is a value in the church stating its beliefs out loud as a body.
In the type of "Bible-based" churches I spend many years in, there is much sneering aimed in the direction of the Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican habit of reciting creeds because "they don't know Scripture." Yet the average "Bible-based" Christian in my experience lacks the type of theological understanding of Christianity that knowledge of the creeds and the historical faith of the church would easily clear up.
I do agree with your wider point though - they should be a statement of the church's faith, not a test against which to determine who is really a Christian or not. I suspect many of the earliest Christians would have failed such a test.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Two words: Jesus and grace.
If one don't believe that Jesus is God in the flesh and if you don't believe in the grace of God for salvation demonstrated on the cross, then we have no agreement and there is a fundamental and uncrossable divide between us.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I certainly believe that other religions are inspired by demons. As for Christian heresies, I think it was St. Athanasius who said that all heresy essentially stems from some defect in ones understanding of the Incarnation. I'm inclined to agree.
I would see Islam as the biggest, most damning Christian heresy of all. In fact, in the words of the Apostle, it has the spirit of antiChrist because it denies the incarnation and the cross.
It is also antiJudaism because it also rejects the covenants to Isaac and Moses and refuses to know God's self-revelation as YHWH.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
There are some 14 different interpretations of quantum mechanics which are equivalent in the sense that they would all predict the same outcomes to any experiment. Most of us lay people probably assume there is a single 'reality' underlying all of them - though not all physicists would.
In some situations one interpretation might be easier to use than another. Some no doubt appeal more to some than others on grounds of elegance, or for psychological or cultural reasons. That is all one can say.
As I understand it (and my Physics degree dates back to to 1971 so I probably don't understand much), no experimental evidence distinguishes between interpretation, nor is it clear than any experiment could in some cases. And yet the interpretations differ on things which most of us would call matters of fact. For example, some versions have a deterministic universe, some don't, some are agnostic.
Could religion be like that? Of course there are other theories of quantum mechanics outside the acceptable 14 - those are inspired by demons.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoker
Shipmate
# 11939
|
Posted
Acts 4 says:
8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: “Rulers and elders of the people! 9 If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a man who was lame and are being asked how he was healed, 10 then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11 Jesus is
“‘the stone you builders rejected,
which has become the cornerstone.’[a]
12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.”
So the Bible is pretty clear that the incarnated God in Jesus Christ is the way to be saved* (*add further discussion here)
This would suggest that anything outside of faith/ trust/ belief in Jesus Christ is wrong. However, that's not to say that there is only one way to live/ express/ worship Jesus Christ in truth.
I am very wary of Churches or denominations that dismiss others on points of expression, worship, orthodoxy, non orthodoxy, liturgy, creeds etc. As long as they are based on the revealed person of God in Jesus Christ.
"Different is not wrong"
--------------------
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Posts: 428 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
To answer the OP I would say that Jesus is the only way to the Father....now, how one encounters Jesus is another question....
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
Could religion be like that? Of course there are other theories of quantum mechanics outside the acceptable 14 - those are inspired by demons.
Remember that all major religions claim that God is in some sense beyond human knowledge, while there is no similar claim about the universe in quantum mechanics. Hence it would seem much more natural that 2 apparently-contradictory descriptions from religion are actually non-contradictory than it is in quantum mechanics.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
There are some 14 different interpretations of quantum mechanics which are equivalent in the sense that they would all predict the same outcomes to any experiment. Most of us lay people probably assume there is a single 'reality' underlying all of them - though not all physicists would.
In some situations one interpretation might be easier to use than another. Some no doubt appeal more to some than others on grounds of elegance, or for psychological or cultural reasons. That is all one can say.
As I understand it (and my Physics degree dates back to to 1971 so I probably don't understand much), no experimental evidence distinguishes between interpretation, nor is it clear than any experiment could in some cases. And yet the interpretations differ on things which most of us would call matters of fact. For example, some versions have a deterministic universe, some don't, some are agnostic.
Could religion be like that? Of course there are other theories of quantum mechanics outside the acceptable 14 - those are inspired by demons.
Nice post. You could argue that reality is forever out of our reach, in terms of our understanding. But then science does not aim to describe truth or reality, it is more useful than that!
But the same could be said of God, and here you have to rest on your faith in revelation. Fair enough, but it's really a glorified guess, isn't it?
I suppose some people actually claim to experience the divine or the transcendent; again, fair enough. Many of them of course are not Christians.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Not if it's orthodox (and I deliberately use small "o" here, so as not to be too partisan), because orthodoxy comes from the Holy Spirit.
I prefer to think of every human institution - including the human aspect of the Church - being fallen: a tarnished image of what it should have been.
It's a short step from seeing other religions as fundamentally demonic to seeing everyone who's not a christian as fundamentally demonic.
One would hope orthodoxy (small o) is 'less fallen' than non-christian religions but even then we "see through a glass darkly", and church history is ample proof that the Church has got it wrong much of the time.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
que sais-je
Apologies, as I actually missed the most interesting point of your post, that reality may not be singular, or may not be homogeneous, (difficult to find words for that). So you might have different interpretations of reality which all work.
This also reminds me of some of the mystics, who might say that it's the description of God which becomes the main obstacle. A bit like 'kill the Buddha'.
Or the great Zen story of the monk who is so advanced, that birds come to his hut to sing to him, and his teacher tears him off a strip - completely self-indulgent idiocy and faulty technique! So he returns to the mat, and several years later, all the birds have flown. Ha!
Which version is the most correct?
[ 25. April 2014, 11:41: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I do agree with your wider point though - they should be a statement of the church's faith, not a test against which to determine who is really a Christian or not. I suspect many of the earliest Christians would have failed such a test.
If you put it like that, yes, they most certainly would have failed because that's exactly what the Creed was designed to do. It was a defence against heresy.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
The thread on evangelization has encouraged me to ask a question here I've long wanted to ask: does being a Christian mean thinking that non Christians and members of different Christian denominations are wrong in what they believe?
A good place to start when thinking about this question is Nostra Aetate, Declaration on the Relations of the Church to Non-Christian Religions.
In its short five paragraphs you will find an uncompromising adherence to the fact that Jesus is the way the truth and the life and that no one comes to the Father except through him.
At the same time we must remember that the Comforter is everywhere present and fills all things. That is to say that when we attempt our poor and feeble efforts at evangelization, we much remain strive for humility in the understanding that however benighted (or demonic) our interlocutors appear to be, the Holy Spirit got to them first and is the first cause in our witness.
From section 2: quote:
The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.
To assert that other religions are entirely demonic in origin and operation is to reject the clear teaching of a Church Council and of his holiness Paul VI.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The thing is, The Alethiophile, it could readily be argued that for all your charismaticism your Trinitarianism is impaired by your agnosticism about the Virgin Birth ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
You can be as charismatic as you like and still wonky theologically speaking - if one takes the historic Creeds and formularies as a guide.
The difficulty, of course, for those of us who incline to a more Creedal position is which Creeds and Councils to accept. We're all agreed on some of the Councils ... but things begin to diverge after about the Fourth or Fifth ...
The question I'd pose to people who claim to be biblical and to be guided by 'word and Spirit' is how to avoid subjectivism.
What is the final arbiter? Scripture? Feelings? One's own interpretation of scripture?
Sure, there's a fair bit of wriggle-room between a kind of Creedal fundamentalism and an everyman his own Pope subjectivism but broadly speaking, which 'witness' would I go for? Yours? or the collective weight of the great Ecumenical Councils - or variants thereof?
Sure, the Creeds were drawn up by particular people at particular times to address particular issues. Of course they were. The same is true of the scriptures. The same is true of whatever view you or I or anyone else might choose to adopt.
Who gets to decide? Who or what is the final arbiter?
Meanwhile, back to the issue of other religions ... in one sense I'd suggest that Islam can't be considered 'heretical' because it's not Christian in the first place. You can accuse a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon of heresy because they are 'marginal' offshoots of Christianity - and the basis for determining how heretical they are is a broadly creedal one - wonky on the Trinity, the Deity of Christ and so on ...
Islam isn't a offshoot of Christianity - although it was certainly influenced in its development by strands of both Christianity and Judaism.
As an 'Abrahamic' faith it is clearly closer to both Judaism and Christianity than non-monotheistic faiths are - or non-theistic ones like Buddhism.
Of course, it diverges at key and crucial points as Mudfrog points out. There is no Trinity, no deity of Christ and no redemptive death and resurrection. It lacks the cross, the tomb and the glorious resurrection and ascension.
That's not to say that we can't find common ground with Muslims on other issues - social justice, moral issues etc - but neither is it to claim that they have the same faith as we do.
For my part, I think we have to consider Muslims in a different category - they aren't 'heretical Christians' because they aren't Christians in the first place. They are followers of a different religion which, nevertheless, does have correspondence in some aspects with Judaism and with Christianity.
Consequently, whilst it would make sense to challenge the JW on your doorstep with scripture and such Creedal consensus as applies across Trinitarian Christianity it would make less sense to engage Muslims on that same basis.
With Muslims, I would suggest, we would be better starting with those things on which we agree - that there is One God not a multiplicity of deities - and then work our way outwards from that noting where we agree and where we diverge. That's an approach that shows respect but does not elide the differences that exist.
As far as disputes between different churches and denominations go, it's a different approach again but with parallels. For instance, Mudfrog and myself would be on exactly the same page on most things - certainly on the nature of the Godhead, the person and work of Christ, the person and work of God the Holy Spirit and so on. Where we might differ would be on lesser aspects and issues - which isn't to say that those aspects aren't important but they certainly aren't grounds for demonising or 'de-Christianising' one another.
I've just used Mudfrog as an example. I could have chosen any of the contributors to this thread.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
Remember that all major religions claim that God is in some sense beyond human knowledge, while there is no similar claim about the universe in quantum mechanics.
Many scientists (and philosophers) would argue all knowledge is filtered through the structure of human minds, perceptions and cultural frames of reference - 'reality' if there is such a thing will only ever be known from a human point of view (or maybe a super computers one day).
But I take your point about God being even beyond that. We experience the phenomenal and make guesses about the noumenal. The source of the being of the noumenal is beyond any conjecture it seems to me.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The thing is, The Silent Acolyte, whilst I'm sure that many Protestants and Orthodox would agree with that particular Council and the decree of Pope Paul VI in that instance - the problem remains (as you well know) that neither would see the Council as binding and authoritative.
The Orthodox wouldn't consider that particular Church Council to be Ecumenical for a kick-off.
As for the Protestants, well, with some of them the fact that Pope Paul VI was involved in the first place would be grounds enough to ignore it ... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
All that said, I don't have any issue with it myself. It's certainly a more balanced and nuanced view than the kind of knee-jerk 'all other religions are inspired by the devil' thing which strikes me as very binary indeed.
I'm sure there are demonic elements in some religions - certainly aspects of animism and various forms of spiritism.
But as that Council states, it doesn't follow that all other religions are completely devoid of life and truth.
Heck, C S Lewis said the same ... although whether Lewis trumps Pope Paul VI is another issue entirely ... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think the notion of reality is a very odd one, because on the one hand, it is very elusive; as que sais-je points out above, the idea of the noumenal carries with it the sense that it cannot be arrived at, well, by humans at any rate.
But on the other hand, we all have a very immediate sense of reality - I am sitting here on a sofa in London, typing furiously, while outside it is drizzling. That seems quite real.
But then there are all kinds of intermediate descriptive realities, such as religious ones, scientific ones, artistic ones, and so on.
This all strikes me as a real goulash! And there are different responses to it; one can shrug one's shoulders and try to live from day to day; one can develop a philosophical approach such as existentialism; one can see religion as the key to life. And so on and so on.
I suppose in the post-Christian age, it has become more bewildering. Let a 100 flowers bloom, therefore, but not with the Maoist consequence, that they all have their heads cut off.
I'm also reminded of James's 'buzzing blooming confusion', although that is about babies, I think.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
the idea of the noumenal carries with it the sense that it cannot be arrived at, well, by humans at any rate.
I often find myself wondering what it would be like to be, say, one of those turtles which appear to use magnetic gradients to navigate. How would a magnetic gradient feel? I know Nagel says we can't tell what it's like to be a bat, and his logic is impeccable - but wouldn't it be wonderful to see in sound?
But even if it were possible, could we ever communicate what we experienced? We'd have to use metaphors or descriptions based on what our listeners already knew. Mystics (or at least their interpreters) have to say things in a way that can be understood within their culture.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But on the other hand, we all have a very immediate sense of reality - I am sitting here on a sofa in London, typing furiously, while outside it is drizzling. That seems quite real.
And will always remain the touchstone for realness I hope. I have a vaguely religious (Buddhistish shall we say) friend who says this world isn't real. Like Dr Johnson I'd refute that by kicking a stone - the experience is real. And it's raining in Bristol as well.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm also reminded of James's 'buzzing blooming confusion', although that is about babies, I think.
For me the buzzing blooming confusion seems to be returning. I regularly find myself thinking of Dylan's "I was so much older then I'm younger than that now". Certainties fade away like mist in the sun.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
I was "tempted" to respond rather briskly to this.... But it wouldn't be fair to offer a critique before getting some clarification....
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I would see Islam as the biggest, most damning Christian heresy of all. In fact, in the words of the Apostle, it has the spirit of antiChrist because it denies the incarnation and the cross.
When you refer to Islam as the "most damning" heresy, are you referring to its effect on its adherents -- that is, are you suggesting/asserting that Muslims are especially likely to be damned (compared to, say, followers of Japanese Shinto, which has no historical relationship to Christianity and therefore doesn't explicitly reject any Christian dogmas)?
quote:
It is also antiJudaism because it also rejects the covenants to Isaac and Moses and refuses to know God's self-revelation as YHWH.
Could you clarify what you are getting at with these characterizations/charges? Having studied Islam for some thirty years of my life, I find it hard to recognize here what I have studied.
Thanks!
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
For my part, I think we have to consider Muslims in a different category - they aren't 'heretical Christians' because they aren't Christians in the first place. They are followers of a different religion which, nevertheless, does have correspondence in some aspects with Judaism and with Christianity.
Interestingly, if you read the Divine Comedy Dante puts Mohammed with the schismatics. During the Middle-Ages is was widely believed that the Mohammedan sect as an offshoot of the Arianism. Whether that's true or not, we'll never know, but it's nevertheless interesting.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes - now you come to mention it, Ad Orientem, I had noticed that in Dante.
I've heard it said that Mohammed was influenced by schismatic/heretical Christian groups he encountered and that this explains the way certain emphases developed within Islam ... but I'm no expert in these matters.
It simply seems to me that Islam is 'related' in some way to both Judaisism and Christianity through a mutual claim to Abrahamic roots. Whether one accepts that as valid or not it's a claim that's made in a way that Shinto, say, to cite a religion that's been mentioned above - wouldn't ...
How close the similarities are seen will depend on where we stand, of course. Once you get beyond the mutual Monotheism then the differences quickly become apparent.
I once attended a fascinating talk by an Iman who alluded to the Islamic understanding of grace. His Anglican vicar friend had suggested to him that Islam lacked a concept of grace in the way that it is understood in Christianity. After some reflection, the Imam said that he'd come to the conclusion that such a concept wasn't entirely foreign to Islam at all - and he cited some examples - but still acknowledged differences in the way these things are understood and applied.
I'm not saying he was right or wrong - I don't know enough about it to comment - but it was clear that he grasped and understood the concept and could cite some examples which approximated or demonstrated the idea in practice.
That doesn't mean that the two understandings are the same, of course, but it does illustrate that a kind of knee-jerk, sound-bite-y approach falls short of the mark. I don't think it behoves any of us to declare 'you don't have a concept of ... this, that or the other' until we've investigated the whole thing properly and let the adherents of whatever faith or philosophy tell us what they think ...
It did sound as though this Imam and his vicar friend had a close, productive and respectful relationship where they could be robust with one another without undermining their friendship.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
I was "tempted" to respond rather briskly to this.... But it wouldn't be fair to offer a critique before getting some clarification....
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I would see Islam as the biggest, most damning Christian heresy of all. In fact, in the words of the Apostle, it has the spirit of antiChrist because it denies the incarnation and the cross.
When you refer to Islam as the "most damning" heresy, are you referring to its effect on its adherents -- that is, are you suggesting/asserting that Muslims are especially likely to be damned (compared to, say, followers of Japanese Shinto, which has no historical relationship to Christianity and therefore doesn't explicitly reject any Christian dogmas)?
quote:
It is also antiJudaism because it also rejects the covenants to Isaac and Moses and refuses to know God's self-revelation as YHWH.
Could you clarify what you are getting at with these characterizations/charges? Having studied Islam for some thirty years of my life, I find it hard to recognize here what I have studied.
Thanks!
Yes, Islam specifically and purposefully and vehemently rejects the Incarnation - an attitude which the Apostle John says is the spirit of antiChrist.
It also rejects the cross.
As far as the second point is concerned doesn't Islam replace Isaac with Ishmael as the child of promise? Don't they place Ishmael on the altar of sacrifice instead of Isaac, this transferring the covenant from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to Abraham and Ishmael? If this is true, it means that Israel is not the people of God, but that the descendants of Ishmael are and that the Jews are a godless race.
Does Islam actually recognise the covenant name of God - YHWH? Does it recognise the commandment: I am YHWH your God, thou shalt have no other gods but me? Does it recognise the Torah, the covenantal promises of YHWH to Israel and thus the fulfilment of those promises in Jesus Christ?
[ 25. April 2014, 19:22: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
As far as the second point is concerned doesn't Islam replace Isaac with Ishmael as the child of promise? Don't they place Ishmael on the altar of sacrifice instead of Isaac, this transferring the covenant from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to Abraham and Ishmael? If this is true, it means that Israel is not the people of God, but that the descendants of Ishmael are and that the Jews are a godless race.
As far as I know, Muslims recognizes both Isaac and Ishmael as prophets. Yes, they believe it was Ishmael that was the victim of Abraham's attempted sacrifice, but I don't believe you can tie anti-Judaism to this story. Muslims by in large, accept Jews and Christians as people of the Book, though of course, they would disagree with the Christian concept of Incarnation.
quote:
Does Islam actually recognise the covenant name of God - YHWH? Does it recognise the commandment: I am YHWH your God, thou shalt have no other gods but me? Does it recognise the Torah, the covenantal promises of YHWH to Israel and thus the fulfilment of those promises in Jesus Christ?
"Allah" is simply the Arabic term for God, and I suspect there are connections with the Semitic term "El", though a Linguist might correct or rebuke me.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
As far as the second point is concerned doesn't Islam replace Isaac with Ishmael as the child of promise? Don't they place Ishmael on the altar of sacrifice instead of Isaac, this transferring the covenant from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to Abraham and Ishmael? If this is true, it means that Israel is not the people of God, but that the descendants of Ishmael are and that the Jews are a godless race.
As far as I know, Muslims recognizes both Isaac and Ishmael as prophets. Yes, they believe it was Ishmael that was the victim of Abraham's attempted sacrifice, but I don't believe you can tie anti-Judaism to this story. Muslims by in large, accept Jews and Christians as people of the Book, though of course, they would disagree with the Christian concept of Incarnation.
quote:
Does Islam actually recognise the covenant name of God - YHWH? Does it recognise the commandment: I am YHWH your God, thou shalt have no other gods but me? Does it recognise the Torah, the covenantal promises of YHWH to Israel and thus the fulfilment of those promises in Jesus Christ?
"Allah" is simply the Arabic term for God, and I suspect there are connections with the Semitic term "El", though a Linguist might correct or rebuke me.
It's to do with the covenant. To whom has God promised the land? Who is the child of promise - Isaac or Ishmael?
As far as the name YHWH is concerned, in Islam Allah doesn't just mean 'god' (though it does of course) it is the name of the one God.
They reject that YHWH is the name of God, merely a description, an adjective.
The Mosaic covenant is what makes a Jew a covenanted person; Jesus was born under the Torah, the covenant.
The Muslims reject the promise given to Isaac and Jacob (Israel) and then to Moses. They reject the Incarnation of YHWH (Jesus).
They reject the Old Testament (Covenant) and of course, the New.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
Dear Mudfrog,
As a Christian who happens to be a professional scholar of religion I believe Christians must deal with other religious traditions, in a manner that reflects obedience to Jesus' commandment to us, "Do to others as you would have them do to you" (Luke 6:31; also Matthew 7:12). So, I try to speak about another person's religion with the kind of respect I would hope for when they speak about mine -- and when the other side fails to show respect, I turn the other cheek (again in obedience to Jesus).
I also believe that, for a critique of a religion to be valid, it needs to be based on accurate understanding, which can only be gained by careful study, which includes listening to what actual believers say about their religion.
So, I'm troubled by the way you are dealing with Islam here. But, as I noted before, I want to be fair to you in my responses. I'm going to answer you based on what I understand you to be asserting -- but, if I end up misunderstanding you and speaking past you, please let me know, and I'll try again.....
quote:
Yes, Islam specifically and purposefully and vehemently rejects the Incarnation - an attitude which the Apostle John says is the spirit of antiChrist.
Okay. I'm still not sure I'm clearly grasping your view here -- but, as best I can tell, you do believe that Muslims are particularly damned, because their religion involves the "spirit of antiChrist."
Two points (and I'll try to be brief -- which is tough for me!):
1) I think you are misusing the identification of "antiChrist" from 1 John 4:2-3. As most commentators will point out, the Elder here is referring to Docetism, the denial that Jesus had a real human body. He says nothing about the Incarnation. Yes, Muslims deny that Jesus (pbuh) was God incarnate -- no ifs, ands, or buts about that. But they are anything but Docetists. So, I would deny that the condemnation of 1 John 4:2-3 applies to them.
2) But, let's suppose your reading of 1 John 4:2-3 is correct, that is labels as "antiChrist" any explicit denial of the Incarnation. Are you prepared to extend your harsh denunciation to Rabbinic Judaism, which also firmly and emphatically denies the Incarnation? Is Lord Sacks guided by the "spirit of antiChrist"? Are his beliefs especially "damnable"?
I ask these questions in view of your positive appeal below to Judaism, in which you seem to affirm some kind of "alliance" between Judaism and Christianity versus Islam. But, if denial of the Incarnation makes a person especially damned, I don't see how you can give any special privilege to Rabbinic Judaism. (I'm now expecting Ad Orientem to jump in here with an "Amen"!)
quote:
It also rejects the cross.
Yes, true, most Muslims deny that Jesus was crucified. However, to be fair to them on this issue of severe disagreement, we need to understand why they deny the cross -- they do so out of their deep reverence for Jesus: not believing that his death could have had any salvific value, they simply cannot accept that God would have allowed him to be tortured to death. So, they assert that God took him bodily to heaven, from whence he'll return.
quote:
As far as the second point is concerned doesn't Islam replace Isaac with Ishmael as the child of promise? Don't they place Ishmael on the altar of sacrifice instead of Isaac, this transferring the covenant from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to Abraham and Ishmael?
This is why I asked for clarification! The problem here is that you are mixing up two distinct issues: 1) the identity of the son on the altar; 2) the identity of the child of the promise.
Most Muslims do assert, quite forcefully, that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, who was offered as a sacrifice. However, they don't equate this claim with a denial of Isaac's special status. Muslims insist that there was, indeed, a covenant, and that it applied to both sons and to their descendants. Yes, this is a difference from Judaism and Christianity, which deny Ishmael any special covenant identity -- which Muslims find deeply offensive. But for Muslims, it's not a "zero sum game": affirming God's bond with Ishamel doesn't negate God's bond with Isaac. I've prayed alongside Muslims at Isaac's tomb in Hebron. Isaac is loved and respected as a prophet and as the ancestor of the Children of Israel. Here's a link for the Wikipedia article about Isaac in Islam, in which you can read about how he is referred to in the Quran and in later traditions....
quote:
If this is true, it means that Israel is not the people of God, but that the descendants of Ishmael are and that the Jews are a godless race.
Have you been told this by Muslims, or read it in an Islamic book, or are you extrapolating from your interpretation of the Islamic claim that it was Ishmael on the altar?
I really don't think any Muslim would make such a claim, which would directly contradict the clear teachings of the Quran, which repeatedly affirms the special relationship God had with the Children of Israel.
Yes, there is anti-Judaism in Islam, which is based on the very same supercessionism that was once dominant in Christianity -- and is still well-represented here by Ad Orientem. Many Muslims believe the Jews have been rejected as God's people because they rejected God's true revelations subsequent to the Torah.
... Apologies .... I have run short on time, so can't deal right now with the rest of your post. I hope, however, that what I've managed so far can serve as a basis for further discussion and clarification.
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
que sais-je wrote:
I often find myself wondering what it would be like to be, say, one of those turtles which appear to use magnetic gradients to navigate. How would a magnetic gradient feel? I know Nagel says we can't tell what it's like to be a bat, and his logic is impeccable - but wouldn't it be wonderful to see in sound?
But even if it were possible, could we ever communicate what we experienced? We'd have to use metaphors or descriptions based on what our listeners already knew. Mystics (or at least their interpreters) have to say things in a way that can be understood within their culture.
Well, Nagel's bat article had a big effect on me. Although he's an atheist, he had noticed the ineffable nature of experience, not just the bat's but yours and mine.
This seems curiously adjacent to some mystical views, for it basically says that experience itself is the transcendent, since it can't be described. I suppose this idea is more common in the East - thou art That, and so on. But it is found in Judaism and Christianity also, for example, in Angelus Silesius, and in T. S. Eliot, and Traherne.
But Christianity has erected various obstacles to the direct experience of this, I'm not sure why, I suppose a system of reward and punishment suits the Western mind!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
As a Christian who happens to be a professional scholar of religion I believe Christians must deal with other religious traditions, in a manner that reflects obedience to Jesus' commandment to us, "Do to others as you would have them do to you" (Luke 6:31; also Matthew 7:12). So, I try to speak about another person's religion with the kind of respect I would hope for when they speak about mine -- and when the other side fails to show respect, I turn the other cheek (again in obedience to Jesus).
By the way, since I'm sure someone will "call" me on it.... Reading my statement here, I recognize a definite "blind spot" in this approach when it comes to some versions of Christianity that differ from my own! I do tend to go with the old-style polemical denunciations when it comes to inter-Christian differences, mostly because I'm so used to them ... and there's a distinct not-turning-the-other-cheek aspect to it: it's hard to be respectful toward the beliefs of certain fellow Christians when they're constantly denouncing me as a "heretic" (and worse). But I'm going to work on doing a better job of it....
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yes, Islam specifically and purposefully and vehemently rejects the Incarnation - an attitude which the Apostle John says is the spirit of antiChrist.
It also rejects the cross.
Yet Muslims accept Jesus as a prophet, which I presume isn't the case for the Jews. Ordinary Muslims can be quite interested in talking about Jesus and Christianity, but I don't get the feeling that most ordinary practising Jews would find that very appealing, although Jewish intellectuals might.
For Christians, IMO, the practical problem with Islam is that it's a direct rival to Christianity in many parts of the world. Judaism isn't. Islam is a theological challenge because of numbers and power, which is one important reason why it needs to be respected. Many churches in my city have to maintain good relationships with Muslims if at all possible, because these may represent the most vigorous religious community in the surrounding area, and 'serving the community' may mean interacting with local Muslims in a meaningful way.
Interaction in this context it doesn't mean you can't evangelise, but it surely means you have to be respectful. I know an evangelical Baptist church that's committed to reaching local Muslims with the gospel. It seems to be bearing some fruit - but that certainly isn't because the Baptists are going around referring to Islam as the Anti-Christ.....
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
<snip>But on the other hand, we all have a very immediate sense of reality - I am sitting here on a sofa in London, typing furiously, while outside it is drizzling. That seems quite real.
Sorry to be so late responding, but only to add that this sounds very much like the description of the ghastly city in the opening part of Lewis' "The Great Divorce" - endless rows of streets, a general dampness that might actually be rain, and people vaguely moving in the mist for no apparent purpose.
Are you sure you are still "alive" (whatever that means)?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
When it comes to scriptural texts, every story has been edited, revised, and molded over the generations. This especially applies to the legendary Patriarchal narratives in Genesis.
I suppose that Muslims believe that Ishmael was the almost victim in order to establish their legitimacy as the successor to Abraham. In the Koran, Abraham and Ishmael reach Mecca and builds the Kaaba as a shrine to God, which for generations, Muslims has made pilgrimages to.
To be fair, Jews and Christians do the exact same thing. Mount Moriah in the story of Genesis is supposedly the exact site of the first Jerusalem Temple, so the Israelites had an interest in linking their later Monarchic faith to this ancient figure.
Christians of course, interpret this story as a foreshadowing of the Atonement.
All three monotheistic faiths shed light on this legendary narrative in order to yield meaning. An analogy might be if England, Scotland and Ireland decided to each write the Arthurian legend according to their own point of view. England no doubt would depict Arthur with a St George's Flag, while Scotland will dress him in a kilt, and Ireland would invent a leprechaun to be his best friends. Neither version is "historical" because they are all working with a legendary story.
[ 26. April 2014, 01:13: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
To address the OP, I humbly write that for me, Jesus is my way to God. I will freely share that as part of my witness to people willing to listen and converse about faith.
Whether or not God reveals through other means, I honestly don't know. But Jesus reveals a God who is infinitely loving and merciful. So any theology needs to be consistent with the character of God that Jesus reveals.
I love learning about other faiths and encountering those who believe differently than I do. In my encounters with those of other faiths, my own faith in Jesus has strengthened, not weakened, and I am sure that Christianity is the way for me. But I can't presume to say that about anyone else.
And I also believe that it will all work out in the end.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
Picking up where I left off....
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Does Islam actually recognise the covenant name of God - YHWH? Does it recognise the commandment: I am YHWH your God, thou shalt have no other gods but me? Does it recognise the Torah, the covenantal promises of YHWH to Israel and thus the fulfilment of those promises in Jesus Christ?
Are you asking if Muslims believe that God must be named with the Tetragrammaton? Do you think Christians must do so?
I'm not sure I can really answer this question, as you have phrased it, in a way that would do justice to Muslim beliefs. The best I can manage is that Muslims don't see the Tetragrammaton as providing "the last word" on how to name and address God. As is well known, they see the Arabic "Allah," which cannot be pluralized, as the best way to refer to the One Absolute.
Interestingly, Arabic-speaking Jews use "Allah" to render the Tetragrammaton in the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) -- following the 9th century translation of the Torah into Arabic by the scholar Saadia Gaon. Here's a Youtube video of the way Yemenite Jews chant the Shema in three languages, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic. The Arabic is, very literally: "Hear O Israel, Allah is our Lord, Allah is the One."
It's the same for the Arabic translation of the opening words of the Ten Commandments: "I am Allah your Lord" for the Hebrew's "I am YHWH your God." Here's another Youtube Video.
The "fun" thing about this is that "Allah" is written with four Hebrew letters, thus reproducing the Tetragrammaton as "Allah."
As for the rest of your questions, Islam unambiguously affirms that God made a covenant with the Children of Israel and gave them the Torah through Moses. Muslims also insist that Jesus' coming was foretold in the Torah and that he was the Messiah -- "Messiah" is his usual designation in the Quran.
Clearly, Islam does not see Jesus as fulfilling the promises of the "Old Testament" in the way Christianity does. There is no point in trying to equate Islamic belief with Christian belief -- which is why I don't accept the attempt to define Islam as a Christian "heresy." Islam is no more a Christian "heresy" than Christianity is a Jewish "heresy."
But, again, if Islam is to be severely judged for not agreeing with Christianity about the status and identity of Jesus, then Rabbinic Judaism deserves even harder condemnation, since it denies any status or identity to Jesus in relation to God. Islam, in contrast, agrees with Christianity that the term "prophet" is appropriately applied to Jesus (see Acts 3:22-23) and even designates him as the "Word" (Quran 3:39, 45; 4:171). Muslims believe in Jesus' miracles, including his power to raise the dead, and they have deep respect and affection for his mother, Mary -- Maryam is one of the most common female names in the Muslim world, and it is not unusual to find Muslims praying at Christian Marian shrines in the Middle East.
Yes, there are significant and irreconcilable differences between Islam and Christianity, and I think Islam is wrong and Christianity is right. But I don't see how anything good can be achieved by denouncing Islam as "antiChrist." It is no more (indeed much less) "antiChrist" than Rabbinic Judaism -- and I would never apply that label to Rabbinic Judaism ... so, likewise, I wouldn't apply it to Islam.
In relation to the OP: I think Christians can disagree with other religions without being unnecessarily disagreeable. Referring to other religions as "antiChrist" or "demonic" is unnecessarily disagreeable.
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
<snip>But on the other hand, we all have a very immediate sense of reality - I am sitting here on a sofa in London, typing furiously, while outside it is drizzling. That seems quite real.
Sorry to be so late responding, but only to add that this sounds very much like the description of the ghastly city in the opening part of Lewis' "The Great Divorce" - endless rows of streets, a general dampness that might actually be rain, and people vaguely moving in the mist for no apparent purpose.
Are you sure you are still "alive" (whatever that means)?
Are you being a fucking comedian? In the context of the original post, which is about different versions of reality, you are either being sarcastic, or something else, I had rather not think about.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The thing is, The Silent Acolyte, whilst I'm sure that many Protestants and Orthodox would agree with that particular Council and the decree of Pope Paul VI in that instance - the problem remains (as you well know) that neither would see the Council as binding and authoritative.
I didn't say that Nostra Aetate was authoritative. I said it was a good place to start. quote:
The Orthodox wouldn't consider that particular Church Council to be Ecumenical for a kick-off.
I carefully avoided calling it ecumenical. I called it a council, which is indubitably is, even in Orthodox eyes. quote:
As for the Protestants, well, with some of them the fact that Pope Paul VI was involved in the first place would be grounds enough to ignore it
I believe the well-tempered, contemporary Protestant would not engage in a weak ad homenim analysis of the Declaration, preferring instead to engage with the text directly. quote:
I'm sure there are demonic elements in some religions - certainly aspects of animism and various forms of spiritism.
My end-of-post crack about demons was a shot across the bow of Ad Orientem's ridiculous little barque. See here.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally pleaded by Dubious Thomas:
As a Christian who happens to be a professional scholar of religion...
After close to a thousand posts, I, for one, will be happy when you stop telling us this, letting your arguments speak for themselves.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally pleaded by Dubious Thomas:
As a Christian who happens to be a professional scholar of religion...
After close to a thousand posts, I, for one, will be happy when you stop telling us this, letting your arguments speak for themselves.
Thanks for your helpful contribution to the discussion! It really helped things along!
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
I didn't say that Nostra Aetate was authoritative. I said it was a good place to start.
I'd say it was damn right heretical.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
[QB] Picking up where I left off....
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mudfrog:
[qb]Does Islam actually recognise the covenant name of God - YHWH? Does it recognise the commandment: I am YHWH your God, thou shalt have no other gods but me? Does it recognise the Torah, the covenantal promises of YHWH to Israel and thus the fulfilment of those promises in Jesus Christ?
It always strikes me that arguments like that are very close to chopping the branch you and I sit on.
Which might be a good thing if we are worshiping a false god with a name derived from that given to our lord. But it would be rather disturbing and hope he can (and I think there's lots of precedent) deal with translations and not go "I told you to bow at the name of my sons name not this Gee-Zeus* person".
*exaggerated partly for comic effect but also because trying to write it straight hurts my yuck sensors.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
