Ship of Fools: How are other religions or denominations wrong?

Thread: How are other religions or denominations wrong? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027071

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

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.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

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.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

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.

Posted by StevHep (# 17198) on :

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

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

All religions are right about the things they agree on, and wrong where they disagree.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

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 ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

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.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

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.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Are you suggesting there are no demons lurking within the bounds of Christianity?

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :

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?

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

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.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

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.

Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :

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"

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

To answer the OP I would say that Jesus is the only way to the Father....now, how one encounters Jesus is another question....

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :

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.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

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.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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 ]

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

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.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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]

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.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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]

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]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

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.

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :

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!

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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 ]

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

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.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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.

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :

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.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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!

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :

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....

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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.....

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

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)?

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

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 ]

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

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.

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :

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.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

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.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

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.

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :

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! [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

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.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

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.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

When THEY point the finger at other religions and denominations and people.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Wherein lies the heresy with this particular council, Ad Orientem?

Ok, I've not read it in its entirety but I fail to see anything heretical in it (not that I'm setting myself up as the individual arbiter as to what is heretical or not).

I was teasing The Silent Acolyte with my references to Protestant prejudice, but I can't see anything wrong with the statements that The Silent Acolyte quotes as they stand - nor anything that couldn't be affirmed by Christians or all persuasions - whether RC, Protestant or Orthodox.

All it's saying is that truths can be found in other religions and philosophies but that ultimate Truth can only be found in the One who is the Truth - Our Lord Jesus Christ.

I've heard Orthodox people say the self-same thing. Are they heretical?

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Wherein lies the heresy with this particular council, Ad Orientem?

Ok, I've not read it in its entirety but I fail to see anything heretical in it (not that I'm setting myself up as the individual arbiter as to what is heretical or not).

I was teasing The Silent Acolyte with my references to Protestant prejudice, but I can't see anything wrong with the statements that The Silent Acolyte quotes as they stand - nor anything that couldn't be affirmed by Christians or all persuasions - whether RC, Protestant or Orthodox.

All it's saying is that truths can be found in other religions and philosophies but that ultimate Truth can only be found in the One who is the Truth - Our Lord Jesus Christ.

I've heard Orthodox people say the self-same thing. Are they heretical?

I believed it back when I was an RC and I still believe it now: the Roman Church was hijacked by modernists and Freemasons and Vatican II is full of their heresies. What can be "true and holy" in false religions? It leads people away from God, not to him. It leads people to sin, to bow to idols and demons.

Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
the Roman Church was hijacked by modernists and Freemasons and Vatican II is full of their heresies.

aaahhh.. I had not heard that one in a long time... but I remember I did get earfuls of it when I lived in Helsinki. What is it about the Finnish climate that lets these conspiracy theories flourish so abundantly?

Hijacked by freemasons... my foot! But since we're at it, and if I remember correctly, wasn't there also sure knowledge of some subversive action by homosexuals seeking to infiltrate the post Vatican II RC church?

Posted by StevHep (# 17198) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
[

What can be "true and holy" in false religions? It leads people away from God, not to him. It leads people to sin, to bow to idols and demons.

When St Paul spoke to the Athenians in the Areopagus he said-

quote:
23 For passing by, and seeing your idols, I found an altar also, on which was written: To the unknown God. What therefore you worship, without knowing it, that I preach to you:
...
28 For in him we live, and move, and are; as some also of your own poets said: For we are also his offspring.

Acts 17

I think the Apostle was acknowledging that amidst all error of Greek religion could be found elements of truth. It is the duty of Christians to correct the errors not to deny the truths.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

What StevHep said.

Meanwhile, puh-leese Ad Orientem, give us a break from the half-baked conspiracy theories. I've got a lot of time for the Orthodox but when I hear this kind of thing I find it hard not to consider some of them as simply a form of High Church fundie ...

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

As for Islam being a Christian heresy, don't heretics have to claim some Christian identity in order to be heretics and not merely non-Christians? Unitarian Universalism arose from denominations that claimed to be Christian (perhaps they were), but now the denomination as a whole no longer claims to be Christian, although individual members may claim so - most do not. I would not call the UUA a Christian heresy, then.

Islam never claimed to be Christian. Muhammad never was a Christian (or a Jew) and the references to Christian and Jewish concepts and persons from Christian and Jewish Scripture in Islam are not unlike references to Greco-Roman pagan, Zoroastrian, Ancient Mesopotamian religious concepts in Judaism and Christianity. Is Judaism a Canaanite heresy? Is Christianity a Hellenistic mystery cult incorporating a "heretical" fusion of Jewish and Greco-Roman concepts?

What makes Islam a heretical Christian sect any more than a heretical sect of pagan Arabic religion? All of this arises from trying to define Islam from a Christian point of view merely because it makes reference to/engages in dialogue with Christian beliefs in its Scripture.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I'm sure there are demonic elements in some religions - certainly aspects of animism and various forms of spiritism.

What is demonic about animism or spiritism? How is this any different from any belief in polytheism?

If some animistic religions believe in possession of human mediums, is this that different from Jewish and Christian belief in prophecy, visions, and spiritual ecstasy? Look at how Saul and David acted when the spirit was upon them, not to mention others.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Meanwhile, puh-leese Ad Orientem, give us a break from the half-baked conspiracy theories. I've got a lot of time for the Orthodox but when I hear this kind of thing I find it hard not to consider some of them as simply a form of High Church fundie ...

Think what you want of it but I think it's true. I thought it was true as an RC too. That's why I refused to attend the new liturgy and followed the SSPX. I still see Archbishop Lefebvre as a kind of hero figure (may he rest in peace).

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

That's a different issue, Ad Orientem. You can be opposed to modernising and liberalising tendencies without having to be all reductionist about it and introduce far-fetched notions of Masonic conspiracies and so on.

[Roll Eyes]

The same charge could, of course, be levelled at my contention that animism and spiritism can be demonic - which is a charge that Stonespring has just issued.

I suspect it's a matter for another thread but I do think there are grounds for holding that some aspects of animism and spiritism are rather dubious and 'demonic' in terms of origins and effects ... which isn't to say that I believe in a medieval style Devil with a pitchfork and horns.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

And I'd hasten to add that there are certainly very nasty and demonic elements that can creep into Christianity at times - racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, false teachings such as the extreme 'prosperity gospel' and so on.

On the whole though, I'd see these things as all too fleshly rather than 'supernatural' in origin.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

In the Old Testament, the Israelites were never told to convert their neighbours to the religion of YHWH. Yes, the Israelites were obliged themselves to worship YHWH alone, but they were never told to convert the Moabites and the Caananites, let alone the Babylonians and the Egyptians to the religion of Israel.

All those poor Babylonian souls in hell because God forgot to tell the Israelites to evangelize.
[Killing me]

Now of course, Christianity from the beginning was an evangelistic faith, our faith began with the proclamation of Christ's saving death and resurrection. So, I believe Christians are obligated to witness to their faith to everyone, but at the same time, I don't think that the Christian imperative to evangelism means that God doesn't have relationships to non-Christians in ways we cannot grasp or imagine.

Or as someone once told me, If Christians want to evangelise, then they also must be willing to accept that other religions evangelize to them, as well.

[ 26. April 2014, 16:34: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

No, they weren't told to evangelise them. They were told to kill them.

[Devil]

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

It seems obvious that one can't believe that all the theological beliefs of Christianity and non-Christian religions are true. For one, if Christianity is true, and another religion believes that certain fundamental Christian beliefs are false, then that other religion cannot be entirely true. I think the only resolution is to define Christianity and interpret the Bible, creeds, Tradition, etc, in such a way so as not to disparage other religions' theology.

I think you can separate what someone actually believes in their head (which I think is meaningless since it's impossible to pin down and changes all the time), what beliefs a person demonstrates with their words and actions, and what beliefs a person adheres to by belonging to a religion. I think everyone is free to choose the religion of their choice and God does not really care. All that God cares about are our words and actions (and our thoughts insomuch as they influence our words and actions). And the "beliefs" that those words or actions demonstrate don't really have much to do with how many Gods, persons, essences, natures, etc., there are but rather are about concern for the good of others (the secret of loving God and neighbor is that they are the same thing - you can't love you neighbor without loving God and vice versa - if a person doesn't believe in God but they still love their neighbor than they just have a different word for loving God).

As for the beliefs of any religion, I think that Scriptures, creeds, Liturgies, dogmatic documents, etc., exist to give us a structure with which to engage with the deeper spiritual truths of "love for God and neighbor." These structures have historic and cultural value and I don't think their effectiveness is enhanced (rather, it could be greatly harmed) by revising these documents and rites in order to better reflect our understanding of these deeper spiritual truths. Religion is something that is done. It is ritual and charity and prayer.

So I don't think religions should change their creeds or equivalent to say that other religions are correct. But the way in which those creeds, etc., are "true" does not mean that when someone in another religion subscribes to a different creed or when anyone anywhere has words and actions that demonstrate different beliefs than the words in that creed, that those other religions or the beliefs demonstrated by that other person are false. As long as science and the moral outlook of love for God and neighbor (which includes al creation) don't contradict any belief any lives up to or that any religion professes, those beliefs can be all equally true, as far as I am concerned.

The question is, what is a religion? It has to involve more than one person, I would say. But people are bound to protest with some imaginary religion that says hatred and violence are the highest values. Someone will mention the human sacrifice cult of the Aztecs, too, I'm sure, and say that you can't believe in such a religion and also be ok with my loosey-goosey love foe God and neighbor. I'm tempted to say that any belief that justifies violence against the innocent - abortion head horse people - it's a completely different question as to what an innocent person actually is - is not really a religious belief. So believing that the Gods need human sacrifice for sustenance (does anyone have a better understanding of the Aztec sacrificial cult) is different from a belief that the Gods need some kind of nonviolent gift from humans not just for glory but for their own survival. Tons of religions reject that the Gods need anything from humans for survival but I think that this disagreement is where my ideas of equally valid contradictory truths comes into play. So religious justification for human sacrifice is wrong just as religious justification for slavery, the oppression of women, violence against homosexuals, etc., is wrong.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

I suppose one should look at belief as more a matter of heart, than mind. "I believe" should ought to be translated as "I trust", (taking this from Diana Butler Bass's latest book "Christianity after Religion.")

I trust, I put my refuge in Jesus Christ in a way that I can't say about any other religious figure. Now that could very well be because I was socialized in a country where Christianity is the majority religion. The secular critique that asserts that religious identity is determined primarily by culture is not without validity.

To understand this strictly in terms of cognitive belief is problematic. Of course, God can't be one, three, or fifty, all at the same time. But the deeper question is why does the Christian assert that his doctrine trumps others. The reason is because of the Christian's heartfelt experience.

If understood this way, Christians should take a serious bite of humble pie, because there are plenty of people of other religions who have heartfelt experiences.

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

AnglicanBrat:

quote:
To understand this strictly in terms of cognitive belief is problematic.

Maybe but it's also important. Take the religion I was brought up in, viz: Jehovah's witnesses, and take one of their core beliefs (probably the least defensible) namely that only 144,000 people are spirit begotten sons of God, the rest of the faithful (termed in their jargon "Other Sheep") having the hope of continued earthly life, but no right to partake of communion (reserved for the "Heavenly Class") and no experience of being born again by the Spirit of God.

This is wrong on so many levels but it is certainly cognitively not only wrong, but plain daft. I don't think I need to explain why.

My (sadly now deceased) sister in law was converted when she grasped the text in Romans 8 that "he who does not have the spirit of Christ is none of his". And once they see it, the whole edifice of nonsense just crumbles.

So don't devalue cognitive engagement with those of other religions.

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

AnglicanBrat:

quote:
To understand this strictly in terms of cognitive belief is problematic.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Newer religious movements like the JW's tend to be easier to reject as erroneous because they make claims about recent history that are easier to disprove and because they are often more millenarian than older religions (even those that like mainstream Christianity that are eschatologically oriented). When a religion predicts that the end is nigh, it seems to be more able to get away with outlandish or even unfair-seeming teachings for members. Once Christianty became accustomed to having to deal with a potential long haul before the eschaton, its preaching and emphases softened somewhat.

I don't know if any religion can hold up to the "remove one chink and the whole crazy edifice crumbles" test. Religion really is about suspending disbelief, even disbelief that is completely rational and moral. It is only when a religion starts preaching in a way that greatly hinders just interaction with all
people including outsiders that society really needs to come out and say those teachings are wrong.

What is more important is that society reflects equality on gall people and genders. If people treat each other as equals then it really doesn't matter if they believe that they are unequal in the next life.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

All religion is wrong where it isn't about serving widows and orphans in their affliction, visiting the sick, the imprisoned, slaking the thirsty, feeding the hungry, serving, including the poor, the oppressed, the marginalized, the dispossessed, loving the unlovable.

All religion is wrong where it claims exceptions, privilege. Whether for the sexual desires of its founder or excluding placism best on self-serving myths.

All religion that you can kill, rape, oppress, conquer, marginalize, impoverish, dispossess in the name of.

You know the kind of thing.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

I'm interested in looking into the nitty-gritty of whether, from a Christian POV (which is not necessarily my own), it is wrong for Christians to participate in worship (or in religion in general) outside their religion or denomination. If so, what kind of participation would be the wrong kind? Just how sinful would this be? And why? Does it have anything to do with a belief that other religions and even other denominations do not in fact worship God and instead worship something evil?

The RCC used to believe that it was a venial sin to even walk into a Protestant Church, and a mortal sin to participate in a Protestant worship service (I am not sure if this just meant receiving communion or if it also meant volunteering in the service in some way or merely attending). Some protestants used to teach that the RCC Mass was worship of demonic idols (some still do, I suppose).

If a Christian attends a non-Christian religious service, does he or she have to remain still and silent and merely "observe?" Is it okay for the Christian to pray to the Triune God in his or her own silent words during the service? Is it okay for the Christian to say aloud communal non-Christian prayers while thinking that his or her true intention is to pray to the Triune God? How would this apply to specific religions: Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, and any number of traditional, syncretic, and new-age religious practices? For those who oppose participation in non-Christian worship, should Jewish worship be an exception? Is this fair? Many Jews are bothered by Christians who think they can participate in Jewish worship in a Christian way. What about services that are designed to be Interfaith? Many Christians think these are evil. Does it make sense to be able to participate in worshipping a vague pluralistic concept of God in Interfaith worship, but not be able to worship in a specifically non-Christian service?

As an interesting sample case, I took an anthropology course where the professor had us enact a Hindu puja in class. I am sure the professor would have allowed me to not attend that day if I had said that I had religious objections, although no one in the class seemed to. Did I sin by taking part in the puja for educational purposes? Is it possible to take part in a puja without worshipping? I'm not sure my anthropology professor would have thought so.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Did I sin by taking part in the puja for educational purposes?

Absolutely not. I have arranged similar events.

Those Christians who are wary of anything to do with other religions tend to be very insecure in their own faith.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Given that Islam believes in the Second Coming of Jesus and the final Resurrection (making them more believers than the Jewish resurrection-denying Sadducees.....), calling Islam antiChrist seems rather uninformed.

To take the discussion away from Islam and to the kind of paganism the Apostles and others in the Bible encountered, what do others make of pre-Christian pagan deities that mirror Christ or especially the Virgin Mary? Is it possible that just as pre-Christ prophets are 'types' of Christ, the pagan deities are too? It's a question I've actually wanted to ask on here for a while. I follow a number of pagan blogs and there are aspects of the deities they worship that resonate with me as being part of God, or particular saints (including the Virgin Mary) - before I get iconoclastic ire aimed at me, I know that saints are not worshipped but it is easy to confuse veneration with worship. Hestia, for instance, is very like Mary. Lots of pagans believe Christ and other aspects of early Christianity to be based on pagan deities, but what if pagan deities were foreshadowing Christianity? What if pagans are encountering the Christian God unawares?

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Calling Islam antiChrist seems rather uninformed.

By their fruits you shall know them.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Islam preaches a different Jesus than Christianity. Paul says of such teachers that they should be accursed even if they appear as angels of light. The word antichrist has a lot of baggage so I would avoid applying it to anybody until after the rapture.

Yes, I'm kidding about the rapture.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Islam does not preach Jesus any more than it preaches Muhammad.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

So, if as a Christian, I believe Jesus is God Incarnate then it stands to reason that I believe Islam is wrong. And by Jesus being God Incarnate I mean Jesus is God Incarnate not that I use God language to refer to Jesus because I experience God through Jesus. "Of one being with the Father" means more than, "the God I experience seems kind of like the Jesus that I read about in the Bible" or "it would be nice if God was like Jesus but you may want to see God as like something else."

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
To take the discussion away from Islam and to the kind of paganism the Apostles and others in the Bible encountered, what do others make of pre-Christian pagan deities that mirror Christ or especially the Virgin Mary? Is it possible that just as pre-Christ prophets are 'types' of Christ, the pagan deities are too? It's a question I've actually wanted to ask on here for a while. I follow a number of pagan blogs and there are aspects of the deities they worship that resonate with me as being part of God, or particular saints (including the Virgin Mary) - before I get iconoclastic ire aimed at me, I know that saints are not worshipped but it is easy to confuse veneration with worship. Hestia, for instance, is very like Mary. Lots of pagans believe Christ and other aspects of early Christianity to be based on pagan deities, but what if pagan deities were foreshadowing Christianity? What if pagans are encountering the Christian God unawares?

My ethnic group in West Africa is predominantly Catholic and the two main gods in the traditional animist religion are extremely similar to God the Father and the Holy Spirit. In fact the word in our language for the Christian God is the same as the name of the supreme god in traditional religion. Many of the minor gods have analogues in Catholic saints as well. I don't think its a coincidence that we converted to Christianity more readily than other ethnic groups in the area, given these similarities.

In this case I tend to view it as a foreshadowing or some sort of spiritual readiness to what is in my opinion the truth.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
So, if as a Christian, I believe Jesus is God Incarnate then it stands to reason that I believe Islam is wrong. And by Jesus being God Incarnate I mean Jesus is God Incarnate not that I use God language to refer to Jesus because I experience God through Jesus. "Of one being with the Father" means more than, "the God I experience seems kind of like the Jesus that I read about in the Bible" or "it would be nice if God was like Jesus but you may want to see God as like something else."

Well said.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
So, if as a Christian, I believe Jesus is God Incarnate then it stands to reason that I believe Islam is wrong. And by Jesus being God Incarnate I mean Jesus is God Incarnate not that I use God language to refer to Jesus because I experience God through Jesus. "Of one being with the Father" means more than, "the God I experience seems kind of like the Jesus that I read about in the Bible" or "it would be nice if God was like Jesus but you may want to see God as like something else."

Who says that Jesus can't both be God incarnate and not God incarnate? Why should God be limited by logic?

Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on :

I don't think nonsense suddenly becomes sense just because the word 'God' is placed in front of it.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Yeah, them Muslins will never be as Christian as this Godly man.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Who says that Jesus can't both be God incarnate and not God incarnate? Why should God be limited by logic?

This seems to be rapidly heading towards that old nonsense about the triangle with four sides.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

It doesn't seem to me that we can really know what practising pagans in the past believed about their deities, except in their own writings, where they exist. Some Greek writings, for example, don't show a great respect even for the leading god. In some cases, what we know of past pagan belief was recorded by Christians. What modern pagans believe has been derived through the experience of a society shaped by Christianity in various forms.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
So, if as a Christian, I believe Jesus is God Incarnate then it stands to reason that I believe Islam is wrong. And by Jesus being God Incarnate I mean Jesus is God Incarnate not that I use God language to refer to Jesus because I experience God through Jesus. "Of one being with the Father" means more than, "the God I experience seems kind of like the Jesus that I read about in the Bible" or "it would be nice if God was like Jesus but you may want to see God as like something else."
Who says that Jesus can't both be God incarnate and not God incarnate? Why should God be limited by logic?

One, logic has to do with the nature of language not the nature of God. Two, if Jesus can not be God, then Jesus is not God. If Jesus is not God, then orthodox Christians are wrong and there is no reason to cast aside the law of non-contradiction so that nobody has to have their feelings hurt.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
What can be "true and holy" in false religions? It leads people away from God, not to him. It leads people to sin, to bow to idols and demons.

Religions are like people. Of course there can be both good and bad in the same person. If a murder does something kind for another, then this is no less kind because he is a murder (perhaps it is even more kind...). Of course, one kind act per se does not change that he is a murderer. However, we can cherish the good in anyone for what it is, without denying the bad that is also present. Again in analogy to people there can be a better and worse in religions. There is a wide spectrum of human behaviour between Stalin and St Francis of Assisi, and just because someone isn't quite St Francis doesn't mean that he is Stalin. Likewise, better and worse can be recognised in religion, by whatever standard one has declared to be best. I would say that the spectrum is more limited for religion than for people, but so because religion is by definition oriented to something "higher". However badly this is realised in practice, religion stems from a good impulse and hence its average goodness will be greater than the average goodness of humanity in general.

As for demonic influence on religion, again the analogy to people holds. I do not deny the existence of demons, real incorporeal and malevolent beings. But I also do not deny the existence of the good angels, who are locked in battle with them. Demons are limited in their ability to lead us astray since they basically have to breach the angelic defence that surrounds us. So we shouldn't project all the evil that we see in people onto the demons. Indeed, the world and the flesh is what leads people astray, for the most part, and it is also the world and the flesh which usually provide the bridgehead for a demonic invasion where it then occurs. Likewise, religion is not primarily corrupted by demons, but by the world and the flesh. It is primarily human weakness, not demonic strength, that leads people away from what is good and holy. And where demons can exert significant control over a religion, this is most likely caused by an earlier breach caused by the world and the flesh.

I think it is obvious that there is good in other religions and denominations, and indeed a grading of good from pretty horrible to very good indeed. The reluctance of accepting this fact in my opinion arises from confusing this with conclusions concerning the possibility of salvation, and consequently with the salutary actions considers necessary. However, it does not follow from the statement that another religion or denomination is indeed quite good measured by the standards of true religion (whatever one considers them to be), that this religion or denomination provides an adequate means for salvation. That is simply a different question. Consequently, a discussion of the need for missionary activity and the like requires first a hard look at whether good is good enough for salvation.

In this point I believe both sides err: The "liberals" glibly assume that since some good, or even a lot of good, can be found in other religions or denominations, most religious choices offer a path to salvation. The "conservatives" harshly conclude that since traditional Christianity is the only proper means for salvation, all other religions or denominations must lack all good in spite of contrary appearance. Both oversimplify a very difficult problem, namely in what relationship the good of religion stands to the individual chance of salvation. If we recognise the existence of this interface, then even if we cannot solve this problem we can say with the "liberals" that there is plenty of good in other religions and denominations, and agree with the "conservatives" that traditional Christianity is the only sure means for salvation, but leave open for discussion what may happen to those who did not find true religion in this life, but merely some half-truth.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
So, if as a Christian, I believe Jesus is God Incarnate then it stands to reason that I believe Islam is wrong. And by Jesus being God Incarnate I mean Jesus is God Incarnate not that I use God language to refer to Jesus because I experience God through Jesus. "Of one being with the Father" means more than, "the God I experience seems kind of like the Jesus that I read about in the Bible" or "it would be nice if God was like Jesus but you may want to see God as like something else."
Who says that Jesus can't both be God incarnate and not God incarnate? Why should God be limited by logic?

He is though. Can he make a rock he cannot lift? Can he draw a square circle?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If Jesus is not God, then orthodox Christians are wrong and there is no reason to cast aside the law of non-contradiction so that nobody has to have their feelings hurt.

I say that Jesus was not God when he walked this Earth - he couldn't have been. We can't be asked to do what God does, but we can certainly be asked to do what Jesus did.

He was full of God's Spirit, more so than any person before or since, but he wasn't God imo.

Now he is with God and part of God - and he can be with us too, through God's Spirit.

Orthodox Christian? I don't feel the need for that label.

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

Some really good discussion here, but ISTM that no-one is looking at it from God's point of view.
By this I mean that God is not a Christian, nor a Jew, nor a Muslim, nor a member of any religious group. (As a follower of Jesus, I find it quite uncomfortable to write that)

Each of these groupings represent the human attempts to understand any revelation that God may have made, combined with various degrees of acknowledged 'inspiration' or philosophical reflection.

With the 3 major monotheistic faiths, one could say they are all expressions of revelation and reflection on the same God. One might go further and say Christianity and Islam are sects of Judaism (heretical or otherwise)

When we understand that God is 'not on our side' (cf Joshua 5v14) it becomes possible to respect and try to understand other religions, whilst at the same time recognising that there are some differences which cause our theologies to counteract each other.

So for example: Christianity does have its own exclusivity in that Jesus of Nazareth is recognised as the Messiah (Christ) and also as the incarnation of God Almighty in human flesh. As such, Jesus is, for Christians, the ultimate revelation of God, and the ultimate way of reconciliation between God and sinful humanity. This inevitably gives rise to some of the tensions we have with differences in other religions, or even within Christianity itself. Hopefully it causes us to do some serious thinking about our own theology and doctrine.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If Jesus is not God, then orthodox Christians are wrong and there is no reason to cast aside the law of non-contradiction so that nobody has to have their feelings hurt.
I say that Jesus was not God when he walked this Earth - he couldn't have been.

What do you mean "couldn't"?

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If Jesus is not God, then orthodox Christians are wrong and there is no reason to cast aside the law of non-contradiction so that nobody has to have their feelings hurt.
I say that Jesus was not God when he walked this Earth - he couldn't have been. We can't be asked to do what God does, but we can certainly be asked to do what Jesus did.

He was full of God's Spirit, more so than any person before or since, but he wasn't God imo.

Now he is with God and part of God - and he can be with us too, through God's Spirit.

Orthodox Christian? I don't feel the need for that label.

Why couldn't Jesus be God?

And er, no, we really can't be asked to be born of a Virgin, walk on water, turn water into wine or be resurrected from the dead.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Yeah and THIS Muslin is just SO wrong!

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If Jesus is not God, then orthodox Christians are wrong and there is no reason to cast aside the law of non-contradiction so that nobody has to have their feelings hurt.
I say that Jesus was not God when he walked this Earth - he couldn't have been. We can't be asked to do what God does, but we can certainly be asked to do what Jesus did.

He was full of God's Spirit, more so than any person before or since, but he wasn't God imo.

Now he is with God and part of God - and he can be with us too, through God's Spirit.

Orthodox Christian? I don't feel the need for that label.

Why couldn't Jesus be God? Begging the question isn't acceptable to us in a faith tradition that prides itself in not wanting to leave our brains at the door. Jesus was both fully human and fully divine. What Jesus expects of us is not only possible for humans it is what humans were meant to be prior to the fall. Of course, Jesus was perfect in His humanity. We are not as of yet. God does not expect us to establish a new covenant by dying for the sins of whole world. Only a God could do that.

Believe me I've never been tempted to call what you believe orthodox.
[Biased]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Why couldn't Jesus be God?

Because a God could not live a fully human life. God knows too much, sees too much, understands too much encompasses too much. OK - you can get round it by saying 'it's a mystery' or 'God can do anything, even live as a human'. But I'm not buying that. To be human and full of God's Spirit is possible. To be human and God is not, even for God imo.

Back to the question - all religions which preach goodness and truth have part of that goodness and truth imo. None have it all - because we are only human.

[ 29. April 2014, 13:07: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I have problems with lots of things Boogie, but not this one. Kenosis seems to adequately describe the way in which the omniscient God can be a limited human.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Why couldn't Jesus be God?
Because a God could not live a fully human life. God knows too much, sees too much, understands too much encompasses too much. OK - you can get round it by saying 'it's a mystery' or 'God can do anything, even live as a human'. But I'm not buying that. To be human and full of God's Spirit is possible. To be human and God is not, even for God imo.

Back to the question - all religions which preach goodness and truth have part of that goodness and truth imo. None have it all - because we are only human.

So if we were 'full of God's Spirit' we could be born of a Virgin and walk on water? [Confused]

Also, saying 'we could be like Jesus but we don't try hard enough' seems to be dangerously close to 'name and claim' theology.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Why couldn't Jesus be God?
Because a God could not live a fully human life. God knows too much, sees too much, understands too much encompasses too much. OK - you can get round it by saying 'it's a mystery' or 'God can do anything, even live as a human'. But I'm not buying that. To be human and full of God's Spirit is possible. To be human and God is not, even for God imo.

Back to the question - all religions which preach goodness and truth have part of that goodness and truth imo. None have it all - because we are only human.

Like I said you are begging the question. Jesus being both God and not God is not possible. Jesus being both fully human and fully divine is not a logical contradiction. Therefore, an omnipotent God can become incarnate as a human and live a fully human life. Kenosis is one possibility.

[ 29. April 2014, 13:28: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Jesus being both fully human and fully divine is not a logical contradiction.

I agree - because for 'divine' you could read 'as full of God's Spirit (the divine) as it's possible for a human to be'. In other words Christ was the ultimate 'Divine Human'. But not God. Jesus was not God imo.

[ 29. April 2014, 13:46: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
So if we were 'full of God's Spirit' we could be born of a Virgin and walk on water?

Nope. But neither was/did Jesus imo.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Jesus being both fully human and fully divine is not a logical contradiction.
I agree - because for 'divine' you could read 'as full of God's Spirit (the divine) as it's possible for a human to be'. In other words Christ was the ultimate 'Divine Human'. But not God. Jesus was not God imo.

OK...in your opinion...Jesus was not God. Fair enough. Your claim that Jesus could not possibly be God is just circular reasoning which doesn't count for anything.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

If we start off with the Johannine text " God is Spirit" then it seems to me that we can claim that Jesus was 'Divine' by virtue of the fact that he was filled with the Holy Spirit i.e. God.

But that is not the same as saying "Jesus = God".

God is, by definition Omnipotent: Omnipresent; Omniscient. Jesus was none of these.

But the NT does not define God by any of these "omnies". It speaks of God in terms of Spirit and of Love. And Jesus is Love incarnate.

I choose "divine" to speak of Jesus because he was as much of God as can be compressed within the limitations of a genuinely human existence. To take a ridiculous example you cannot get a gallon of milk into a quart bottle. But what you do get is milk; essentially and substantially the same stuff quality-wise.

McQuarrie, an Anglican theologian of considerable note spoke of God as Being". He then denoted Jesus as "Expressive Being" and the Holy Spirit as " Unitary Being".

Any Trinitarian statement becomes heretical once you move from the statement itself and try and explain it. Either it becomes tritheistic or modalistic.

Given that alternative I know which side I would rather come down on.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Jesus wasn't just filled with Spirit of God. Jesus was the Word of God made flesh. The Word was with God in the beginning and through the Word all things were created. Saying merely that Jesus was filled with the Spirit of God is not a complete understanding of Johanine theology.

Claiming that God is not any of the omnis because the NT doesn't specifically say that God is any of the any of the omnis has several problems. One, it's an argument from silence. Given scripture as a whole, I see no reason why any of the NT authors would need to specifically say God was all powerful and all knowing. Two, limiting what we say about God to the NT fails to take in consideration that Jesus accepted the OT as valid and Marcion was declared a heretic. Three, being an Anglican, I believe scripture should be interpreted by tradition and reason. Four, if prooftexting is your thing, I give you Matthew 28:16-20.

All simplistic descriptions of the Trinity tend to be either tritheistic or modalist. That does not mean we have to choose either modalism or tritheism. It means we have to be careful about simplistic descriptions of the Trinity.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Because a God could not live a fully human life. God knows too much, sees too much, understands too much encompasses too much. OK - you can get round it by saying 'it's a mystery' or 'God can do anything, even live as a human'. But I'm not buying that. To be human and full of God's Spirit is possible. To be human and God is not, even for God imo.

Actually, you are simply expressing the orthodox truth there that Jesus had to be fully human by nature, and that this human nature could not possibly mix with Divine nature in any way. The union with Divine nature is effected in the Person, not at all in the natures, according to orthodox teaching. It is also not that Jesus is somehow a human body possessed by God, He does have a human soul as essential form. But you are not just something, a thing with specific qualities and capabilities, you are someone. You are you, Boogie, in the execution of this specific chunk of humanness, in the process of how this particular embodied humanness interacts with its environment we find Boogieness. That's your personhood. And the point orthodox teaching makes about the specific chunk of humanness called Jesus Christ is that it gets executed by the same Someone who is executing the "specific chunk of Divinity" that is the Logos (disregarding for sake of simplicity that the Trinity cannot be "chunked" in the same way as a human being). One process of interaction, one Driver, two different units of reality that get driven, one human and one Divine. This is a step up from the saint who gives their person to God. There is no giving of personhood to God there, there is a Personhood that is in the Godhead coming as gift. There is no contradiction here with the various Divine qualities because the claim is not that Jesus Christ as human is Divine. The claim is that when we speak to Jesus Christ we speak to God being human, to a Person Divine in the sense of also executing Divine nature.

If that is all too abstract, here's the practical outcome: there is one, and only one, fully and entirely human being before whom you can kneel and exclaim "My Lord and my God!" and not commit absurd blasphemy, and that is Jesus Christ. If you can live with doing that, somehow, then you have accepted orthodox teaching, somehow. The details of the "somehow" are then not so important. But if you cannot, then that is a significant difference.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Actually, you are simply expressing the orthodox truth there that Jesus had to be fully human by nature, and that this human nature could not possibly mix with Divine nature in any way. The union with Divine nature is effected in the Person, not at all in the natures, according to orthodox teaching. ......there is one, and only one, fully and entirely human being before whom you can kneel and exclaim "My Lord and my God!" and not commit absurd blasphemy, and that is Jesus Christ. If you can live with doing that, somehow, then you have accepted orthodox teaching, somehow. The details of the "somehow" are then not so important. But if you cannot, then that is a significant difference.

This is spot on correct. I wish that more people knew orthodox teaching and discovered how liberating, even liberal, it is.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

I've basically come to the conclusion that theological debates only matter if all parties to the debate agree on a certain set of a priori assumptions about the world, reality, sources of authority, etc. In the case of different religions, this consensus on where to start an argument is not likely to happen.

As for debating within a faith tradition whether that religion should believe that other religions are wrong/misguided/further from the complete truth than their own, I acknowledge that small-o orthodox Christianity has historically seen this debate as settled: Christianity is right and other religions are not.

I already know that I diverge from that historical/traditional Christian belief. I think that within Christian theology it is fine to make all kinds of arguments about God and Christ, etc. But I see no value to rejecting the beliefs of other religions. As long as these beliefs do not manifest themselves in ways that cause scientifically demonstrable physical, psychological, or environmental harm, I see nothing wrong with them. Theology is all about taking unproveable assumptions and maybe some sacred texts that may or may not in reality be divinely revealed and then trying to make some extrapolations from them that are aesthetically pleasing in their coherence, if not in their substance (eternal damnation for example being not the prettiest thing to think about). That's really it. I don't think God really cares about what we believe other than insomuch as it affects what we say and do. What is the opposite of sola fide? I would go farther than that - I would say that faith does not exist as any mental process. Faith only has meaning as a set of words and actions. That's why I think traditional liturgy is the way to go whether or not the theology behind it is correct.

[ 29. April 2014, 19:04: Message edited by: stonespring ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0