US Conservatives dispute Bush’s portrayal of Islam

"Bringing up the fact that the Jews deny Jesus is God each time a comparison of Allah and Jehovah is attempted is simply a diversion and does not matter to the question at hand."

Not at all. It is simply holding Jael consistent to her own standard that Islam is an "antichrist" religion because it denies the divinity of Jesus or that He came in the flesh. If one wishes to hold to such a standard, then it must be applied consistently, rather than on a pick-and-choose criteria for what religion that Jael happens to like at the time. And applying Jael's standard (not the Bible's, and unless Jael has a direct hot line to the Almighty I feel that we should separate the two) does indeed render Judaism a religion of an antichrist.

"One can compare Allah with the OT YHWH or Allah with the NT Jesus Christ and determine that Allah resembles neither."

That depends very much on one's point of view. The fact that Muslims are entirely wrong-headed about the nature of God (as I believe that Calvinists are as well) has nothing to do with which God they are worshipping. They claim to worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. By applying some scholarship, we can clearly see that, regardless of how skewed a perception they may have of Him, that this is Yahweh, our own God.

"First, the mention must be made of the fact that Islam denies the accuracy of both texts (OT and NT), while at the same time, irreconcilably professing respect for "the Book" and "people of the Book," ie Jews and Christians. Mohammed taught that both texts were corrupted, the originals distorted, changed, things omitted and the original message lost."

Indeed. However, he noted that there were theological truths to be found in those texts, which is the only logical opinion that he honestly could have given that he borrowed heavily both from canonical as well as apocryphal material when compiling the Qur'an.

"That alone raises the notion that the three faiths do not worship the same God, even if only addressed from the Muslim's perspective - how can any Muslim believe that the Christians and Jews are accurately worshipping Allah if they don't even know for sure what He is really like, due to the fact that their scripture has been corrupted and changed?"

Ah, you have reached the crux of the matter. _Accurate_ worship is not the same thing as worship. Muslims of course believe that they are worshipping Allah the way that Allah desires to be worshipped, however they don't exclude the possibility that the People of the Book are worshipping Allah, abeit inaccurately. I feel that the correct ("orthodox") Christian position should be the reverse of this, not entirely different from the Christian stance on Judaism.

Christians readily accept that Jews worship the same God that we do. However, we believe that they have a misperception of the true nature of God because they do not accept the Trinity, the New Covenant, and the divinity of Our Lord. However, whatever their theological errors or misperceptions, Jews are still worshipping the same God as Christians. I see no reason for this same standard not to be applied towards Islam.

Regarding the list you provided as to the theological differences between the Christian God and the Muslim Allah, let me just say that I do not defend the Islamic conception of the Deity, which I believe to be in error. But I do not see misunderstanding of the nature of the Deity as being the same thing as not worshipping the Deity altogether.

Just to draw the point home, let me use the example of John Calvin. Were he alive today, he and I would have quite a few rather apparent differences of opinion about the nature of God. However, this in no way prevents me from acknowledging that the God John Calvin worshipped is the same God that I worship. We simply disagree over the proper perception of that God.

"To suggest that Christians and Muslims worship the same God (regardless of what Allah means in Arabic, which is a trivial point) is to deny both the Koran and the Bible."

I agree that the definition of Allah in Arabic is a trivial point, but Jael brought up the often-used charge that Allah was at one point a Meccan deity so as to prove that Muslims "really" worship some pagan moon god. This charge makes remarkably little sense IMO, as there are millions of Arab Christians who also say "Allah" in their prayers and nobody accuses them of polytheism. That and the fact that there are a number of rather marked differences between Arabian paganism and Allah, not the least of which being that the latter is conceived of as transcendant. If it were otherwise, the Meccan leadership would never have tried to kill Mohammed to begin with.

"Bottom line - if we believe the Bible, we must deny the Koran. And vice versa. If we believe in Jesus, we must deny Allah. And vice versa."

I agree, but here again I think you're creating an unnecessary friction between the two faiths. I can recognize that Jews worship the same God as you and I while simultaneously denying the authority of the Talmud, just as I can acknowledge that the Ethiopian Orthodox Church worships the same God as I without adding 1 Enoch to my Bible's canon. Using the same criteria, I can readily accept that Muslims worship the same God that I do while believing that the Qur'an is completely bogus.

A similar line of thought exists within the Muslim perception of Allah. I believe that the Jews worship the same God that I do despite the fact that they deny the divinity of Jesus and I see no reason not to think the same about Muslims.

A misperception about the nature of God does mean that one does not worship Him.

First, to get it out of the way, the verse that was originally cited is the following (no doubt you are familiar, just repeating for the sake of my post) -

1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

Adding the articles "an" or "the" (as was done in previous posts) before antichrist distorts the point, imo. The word antichrist simply means against the messiah. Are Jews against the Christian messiah? Absolutely. They of course do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah; therefore, according to John, they are anti-----Christ. But they are of course not THE antichrist, the prophetic extrapolation of the word taken in a modern sense to mean the end times villian worshiped by the world. One additional note - as Jael pointed out, Jews do not deny the Father, so it can maybe be argued that they do not fit the specific criteria of antichrist as in the verse. And of course, you and I disagree as to whether Muslims do.

That said, back to Allah vs Jehovah - how different do two things have to be before they are defined as different? I see no valid means to call Allah the same as the God of Christians. If one acts differently than the other, if one teaches differently than the other, how are they at all the same? In fact, that's a good question - based on the Koran and the Bible, I'd be interested to see references from each that indicate that Allah and God are at all the same.

It is not about Islamic perception vs Christian perception, and a comparison between Calvinists and Muslims is a poor one. First of all, the issues dividing Calvinists from say, Arminians, are that of interpretation of the same text. Not so with Islam. The Koran and the Bible are two different texts with widely divergent teachings.

To further explain, answer this question - do you, despite your disagreement with some of what John Calvin taught, believe that both he and you are bound for heaven based on your shared views of the gospel and the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ?

If your answer is yes, can you say the same for Muslims?

"Bringing up the fact that the Jews deny Jesus is God each time a comparison of Allah and Jehovah is attempted is simply a diversion and does not matter to the question at hand."

Did you bother reading the thread were this discussion originated?

I didn't think so.

And please spare me the Bible quotes, I have several copies of my own.

I read plenty, til things degenerated into nastiness and namecalling. Then I basically skimmed through those.

So are you just not going to address any points I raised in my posts (quite cordially I might add)?

If not, have a great evening.

Very well put, kudos to you! Thanks very much for your post.

I was thinking today when reading this Scripture:

2 Corinthians 11:1 ¶Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me.

2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

Paul was alarmed that the Corinthians might accept another Jesus. And the Jesus of Islam is certainly a false Christ, another Jesus if you will. He is not the Jesus Christ of Scriptures.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Also, Paul says those that preach another gospel are cursed.

Galatians 1:6 ¶I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

10 ¶For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

We don't have to apologize for showing or knowing that Allah is not Jehovah. We don't have to apologize for the Jesus pictured in the Koran being a false Jesus. The very sad thing is that people who call themselves "Christians" are insisting that Allah is Jehovah. By their fruits you shall know them.

Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Mark 13:22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
23 But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.

Nice spin. But it won't wash.

John 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

21 But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me.

22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: ***but now they have no cloke for their sin.***

23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also.

24 If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.

I think you have a misunderstanding of the discussion at hand as it now stands. Jael cited 1 John 4:3 and 2 John 1:7 as "proof texts" for her contentions that Islam is a satanic religion (there is, at least IMO, a very strict difference between a satanic religion and simply a misguided one) and should be regarded as evil and as such destroyed, presumably through a military means.

She also said:

"They say that Jesus Christ is not the Son of God come in the flesh."

While Muslims do not believe that Jesus is God's son anymore than anyone else is, they most assuredly and explicitly do believe that He came in the flesh. Of course, she also believes that modern Jews believe that God has a son because of a verse in Proverbs that seems to imply that, something that I can guarantee with 99% certainty is not the case.

"They of course do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah; therefore, according to John, they are anti-----Christ."

Without turning this into a discussion about Judaism, my contention was simply that Muslims believe that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah (though not a Deity) and did come in the flesh, which is a good deal more than most Jews are willing to concede. This tends to lead me to believe that Islam is further along in its conception of the Messiah and Judaism (i.e. closer to the truth) and thus more open to receive the gospel than Judaism, which explicitly denies that Jesus was the Messiah.

"That said, back to Allah vs Jehovah - how different do two things have to be before they are defined as different?"

This is a rather tough question, which is one of the reasons why I defer to the Pope's judgement on the matter. While I recognize that this may not be applicable to you if you are not Catholic, the way I have always viewed is that Muslims, regardless of whatever nutty ideas they may have about God, claim to worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This, speaking quite simply, is Yahweh.

More to the point, I would say that there is a great deal of difference between say the Calvinist conception of God, that of the liberal antinomian Christians like Episcopal Bishop Spong, and my own. While I think that Spong is a first-rate heretic and would love to see the man regarded as such run out of the Episcopal Church on a rail, I still believe that he worships the same God that I do, just as when the Pharisees and Sadducees worshipped at the Temple, they unknowningly were worshipping the same God that they conspired to crucify.

"In fact, that's a good question - based on the Koran and the Bible, I'd be interested to see references from each that indicate that Allah and God are at all the same."

Any chance we can take a rain check on this? I'm going to see the midnight viewing of LOTR and hence do not have the time to compile such a list.

"It is not about Islamic perception vs Christian perception, and a comparison between Calvinists and Muslims is a poor one. First of all, the issues dividing Calvinists from say, Arminians, are that of interpretation of the same text. Not so with Islam. The Koran and the Bible are two different texts with widely divergent teachings."

I still think it's a fair one because even within Islam there are quite a few differences over the perception of God, some closer to the Christian perception, others further away. Failure to acknowledge multiple interpretations of the same text within Islam is one of the biggest fallacies that numerous Freepers have made when it comes to understanding the religion.

As far as the issue of differences of opinion over the same text versus that of two separate texts, I imagine that adherents of the Hanafiyyah sect would argue that several of the verses from the Qur'an need not be taken literally, anymore than Christians take Jesus's "if your eye causes you to sin ..." literally. And if one sect comes up with a method of exegesis that allows them to frame a perception of God similar to that of our own and claim that they are worshipping our God, why should we fail to acknowledge them on this fact?

More to the point, how "similar" do the beliefs have to be before you would acknowledge them as worshipping the same God?

Take the Calvinist-Arminian differences which you brought up. The classical Calvinist perception of God, as codified in TULIP (ask if you need an explanation), is extremely different from that of Arminians. Yet Arminians acknowledge the Calvinists as worshipping the same God because the two schools share the same Bible? That's fine, except when you get into the fact that say ... the Ethiopian Orthodox Church comes to the same conclusion as the Arminians and the Jehovah's Witnesses come to a conclusion similar to that of the Calvinists (we're talking about perceptions of God, not the Trinity here). This is part of the dilemma and if you start defining whether or not someone worships Yahweh based on whether or not they use the Bible you run into a huge divide because you're ultimately setting an arbitrary standard based on how "similar" the two perceptions are.

Also, Judaism is not just the Torah but also the Talmud and some Jews take their canon quite a bit further than that.

"To further explain, answer this question - do you, despite your disagreement with some of what John Calvin taught, believe that both he and you are bound for heaven based on your shared views of the gospel and the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ?"

Whether or not Calvin ended up in heaven is between him and God, not me. The man did a great deal of evil in his life, IMO, and I am in no position to judge the state of his soul.

"If your answer is yes, can you say the same for Muslims?"

I am somewhat hesitant to answer this question because it would lead to a potential flame-filled discussion of my orthodox (Catholic) views on soteriology, which is quite a different topic altogether from that which I desired to convey in this thread: i.e. that _all_ Muslims are not the enemy and that some are indeed our active allies in the War on Terror. The question of their salvation doesn't factor into this equation, IMO, and here again I am in no real position to judge any of them because I view their salvation as being between them and God. However, if you want I can explain Catholic doctrine concerning soteriology and you can feel free to draw your own conclusions from that.

Thanks much to both of you for the responses. I can't take the time to get back tonight, but I will asap - unless I am unable due to labor - 3rd due any day now. :) Otherwise, I'll post tomorrow. Have a good night.

"So are you just not going to address any points I raised in my posts"

No I am not, I don't have to argue Christian beliefs with you, I am a Christian and quite satisfied with my personal relationship with God, and with all due respect, I do not require your help. Not only that, but I don't consider throwing Bible quotes around any sort of debate.

I am debating the person in here who made the statement that those who do not believe Jesus Christ is who He is, are the anti-Christ.

My question was quite simple, does she mean that Jews are the anti-Christ?

The person with whom I was debating proceeded to call me a liar without once pointing out a lie that I have told, called me a racist, even after the point where I provided proof that she was completely misconstruing my statement, and twisting the meaning of a well-known FR expression to raise the old and tried liberal tactic of destroying an well-founded debate with a false charge of racism...you would think that I was talking to the Right Reverend Al Sharpton.

My point is real simple, take it or leave it, it means little to me.

One cannot claim understanding of a religion by reading bits and pieces of that religion's sacred documents, it can't be done with Christianity, Islam, or Judaism.

To escalate this into a religious war is to fall right into bin Laden's and the rest of Muslim extremist's hands, to condemn and blame all of Islam for the actions of the adherents of one small faction, is to unite Islam, and make enemies of those who otherwise are not enemies.

To engage in the sort of name-calling so apparent in this forum, and to openly call for nuclear strikes on Muslims Holy sites, and the capitals of Muslim capitals around the world, is to award bin Laden with the victory he so desires.

And yes, those suggestions have been made, quite frequently as a matter of fact, by members in good standing of this forum.

Clear heads are required to abort the possibility of a world war where the enemy could be living right next door to you.

What do I think God thinks about Muslims?

He loves us all.

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life."---John 3:16

Let me ask you something.

Do you believe that Christ would have us judge Muslims?

Or do you think that He would have us witness to them, and warn us that passing judgment belongs to His Father?

Proverbs 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?

"Israel is my firstborn son...'Let my son go.'" (Exodus 4:22,23.)

"...3rd due any day now."

CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!

No I am not, I don't have to argue Christian beliefs with you, I am a Christian and quite satisfied with my personal relationship with God, and with all due respect, I do not require your help. Not only that, but I don't consider throwing Bible quotes around any sort of debate.

That's fine, no problem. However, I do disagree that I was "throwing Bible quotes around." I was simply making a comparison between what the Bible says about Jehovah and what the Koran says about Allah, which I thought was the gist of the original discussion.

I am debating the person in here who made the statement that those who do not believe Jesus Christ is who He is, are the anti-Christ...you would think that I was talking to the Right Reverend Al Sharpton.

I probably missed the brunt of the nastiness, because like I said, I started skimming when that happened. The only reason I copied you on my post was because I thought you were part of the original discussion. I apologize if I included you in error. But with regard to the verse in question, my only point was that there is a difference betweeen someone being "antichrist" and someone being "AN or THE antichrist." The verse has no article and to add one changes the whole meaning, especially in light of how modern Christianity uses the word.

One cannot claim understanding of a religion by reading bits and pieces of that religion's sacred documents, it can't be done with Christianity, Islam, or Judaism.

Of course not. I didn't suggest that one can and argue that I didn't do that myself. I feel I'm familiar enough with Islam to make solid statements. If I can be shown otherwise, great. I have no problem admitting error.

To escalate this into a religious war is to fall right into bin Laden's and the rest of Muslim extremist's hands, to condemn and blame all of Islam for the actions of the adherents of one small faction, is to unite Islam, and make enemies of those who otherwise are not enemies.

I agree. And on the other hand, to ignore the deeply rooted historical and contemporary problems of Islam that permeate throughout the faith is just as bad.

To engage in the sort of name-calling so apparent in this forum, and to openly call for nuclear strikes on Muslims Holy sites, and the capitals of Muslim capitals around the world, is to award bin Laden with the victory he so desires. And yes, those suggestions have been made, quite frequently as a matter of fact, by members in good standing of this forum. Clear heads are required to abort the possibility of a world war where the enemy could be living right next door to you.

No disagreement from me.

What do I think God thinks about Muslims? He loves us all. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life."---John 3:16

Agree again.

Let me ask you something. Do you believe that Christ would have us judge Muslims? Or do you think that He would have us witness to them, and warn us that passing judgment belongs to His Father?

There is a difference between judging and weighing against scripture. Jesus was not afraid to call a spade a spade. His Word has already set the standard. And that perspective must be maintained if we are to be effective witnesses at all. If we indicate that we believe Muslims are on the right track (ie believe in the same God but with a different perception of His character), can we honestly approach them with the salvation message? We have to believe that they are headed for trouble and in need of a savior, a Savior whom their Koran tells them to wholly reject.

Thanks much for the post...and for the congratulations. And no offense but I sure wish I were not still here and posting to you this morning - I'm ready to be done! :)

"There is a difference between judging and weighing against scripture."

Thanks for the post, and I remember quite well my wife being ready to be "done with" her pregnancies, our oldest will turn seven tomorrow.

Good luck, and God bless.

There are many passages in the Koran which speak highly of Jesus, and while not recognizing Him as the Saviour, they venerate Him, and speak highly of Mary, and Christians in general.

Wahhabism comprises about 10% of Islam, with the more moderate Sunnis being the majority. Wahhabism and Saudi petrodollars are the true enemies here, and any talk of a religious war plays right into the enemy's hand.

One last thing, and I am certain that your knowledge of scripture far surpasses mine, but I distinctly remember reading that the anti-Christ would "come from us"...that us being Christians.

I think you have a misunderstanding of the discussion at hand as it now stands. Jael cited 1 John 4:3 and 2 John 1:7 as "proof texts" for her contentions that Islam is a satanic religion (there is, at least IMO, a very strict difference between a satanic religion and simply a misguided one) and should be regarded as evil and as such destroyed, presumably through a military means.

OK. Considering the length of the thread, I'm not going to go back and dig for the exact posts. I certainly don't agree that Islam should be destroyed by military means. There is obviously a difference between secular military defense against a threatening enemy and warring between religions, of which Christianity should NEVER be the aggressor - it flies in the face of everything Jesus taught. But, I will address your comment here, that there is a "very strict difference between a satanic religion and a misguided one." But aren't misguided faiths influenced by satan by default? Look at it this way. Satan is the master of deception and seeks to cause confusion in order to lead people away from the gospel. Any false religious systems are misguided with his encouragement. It stands to reason, doesn't it?

She also said: "They say that Jesus Christ is not the Son of God come in the flesh." While Muslims do not believe that Jesus is God's son anymore than anyone else is, they most assuredly and explicitly do believe that He came in the flesh.

But the two statements are inexorably linked. To remove one phrase changes the whole doctrinal meaning. It doesn't matter that they believe he came in the flesh - what matters is that they don't believe that He was GOD come in the flesh. Muslims can believe that Jesus was born miraculously, did miracles while on earth (both of which the Koran states), but if they don't believe that Jesus is God's Son, the only acceptable sacrifice for the sin of man - acceptable because He was NOT just a man but a perfect one, wholly man and wholly God, it doesn't matter WHAT they believe about Jesus. They've missed the whole point, because if what they DO believe is not enough to save their souls, then what good is it at all?

This is a rather tough question, which is one of the reasons why I defer to the Pope's judgement on the matter. While I recognize that this may not be applicable to you if you are not Catholic, the way I have always viewed is that Muslims, regardless of whatever nutty ideas they may have about God, claim to worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This, speaking quite simply, is Yahweh.

And speaking quite simply in turn, claiming something doesn't neceassarily make it so.

More to the point, I would say that there is a great deal of difference between say the Calvinist conception of God, that of the liberal antinomian Christians like Episcopal Bishop Spong, and my own. While I think that Spong is a first-rate heretic and would love to see the man regarded as such run out of the Episcopal Church on a rail, I still believe that he worships the same God that I do, just as when the Pharisees and Sadducees worshipped at the Temple, they unknowningly were worshipping the same God that they conspired to crucify.

I totally and vehemently disagree with you on Spong - I assume that because you call him a first-rate heretic, you have read the man's manifesto. He denies every single tenet of the Christian faith! He claims that God is NOT AT ALL what the Bible teaches He is. If you can honestly say that Spong worships the Jehovah of the Bible, IMO we could just stop right here, because seriously, he's about the worst example you could have used, Christian or otherwise.

"In fact, that's a good question - based on the Koran and the Bible, I'd be interested to see references from each that indicate that Allah and God are at all the same." Any chance we can take a rain check on this? I'm going to see the midnight viewing of LOTR and hence do not have the time to compile such a list.

Ooo, I'm jealous. I'm sure it was awesome! :)

...And if one sect comes up with a method of exegesis that allows them to frame a perception of God similar to that of our own and claim that they are worshipping our God, why should we fail to acknowledge them on this fact?

I'm not saying common ground is a bad thing - it could open a door that would not ordinarily be available to us. However, if we neglect to point out the differences, we are doing them a disservice. For example, the following is a statement from the vatican that I think applies -

Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium 16, November 21, 1964 "But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place among whom are the Muslims: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Now I have heard it argued that including them in the PLAN of salvation is different from claiming that they are already saved because they profess to worship Jehovah, but the language is confusing. Muslims and Catholics alike might read that to say, "OK, Muslims are covered, cool," and think no more about their eternal state. And besides, if it simply means they are included in the plan, well, mankind as a WHOLE is included in the plan. Why the special mention of Muslims if it isn't to be taken to mean that they are already saved?

The following is an excerpt from a statement Pope John Paul 2 made to Moroccan Muslims in 1895 -

"I believe that we, Christians and Muslims, must recognize with joy the religious values that we have in common, and give thanks to God for them. Both of us believe in one God, the only God, who is all justice and all mercy; we believe in the importance of prayer, of fasting, of almsgiving, of repentance and of pardon; we believe that God will be a merciful judge to us all at the end of time, and we hope that after the resurrection He will be satisfied with us and we know that we will be satisfied with him.

"Loyalty demands also that we should recognize and respect our differences. Obviously the most fundamental is the view that we hold onto the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth. You know that, for Christians, Jesus cause them to enter into an intimate knowledge of the mystery of God and into the filial communion by His gifts, so that they recognize Him and proclaim Him Lord and Savior.

"Those are the important differences which we can accept with humility and respect, in mutual tolerance; this is a mystery about which, I am certain, God will one day enlighten us.

My issue is with the last sentence - a mystery about which God will one day enlighten us? No offense, but we have already been enlightened! We need the saving blood of Jesus Christ and that goes for everyone. I read this statement to say that "oh well, Muslims don't believe in Jesus, but we are sure God will tell us how they fit into His plan of salvation someday." The Pope says in the first paragraph I pasted that "we HOPE that after the resurrection He will be satisfied with us" - in other words we hope that God will be satisfied with Muslims as well as Christians, with how we've practiced our faith and lived our lives. How can his words be taken in any other way? The problem is, God has already told us what His requirements are, and Islam falls short of that.

(Just so you don't think I am being disingenuous, the excerpt comes from a longer statement found on a page called Vatican Council and Papal Statements on Islam from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops website.)

Whether or not Calvin ended up in heaven is between him and God, not me. The man did a great deal of evil in his life, IMO, and I am in no position to judge the state of his soul.

I appreciate your intent here. Mine was not to judge his soul. Maybe I should have made it more general, as in do Calvinists and Arminians believe the gospel of Jesus Christ, and therefore, are both camps secure in their salvation.

"If your answer is yes, can you say the same for Muslims?" I am somewhat hesitant to answer this question because it would lead to a potential flame-filled discussion of my orthodox (Catholic) views on soteriology, which is quite a different topic altogether from that which I desired to convey in this thread: i.e. that _all_ Muslims are not the enemy and that some are indeed our active allies in the War on Terror. The question of their salvation doesn't factor into this equation, IMO, and here again I am in no real position to judge any of them because I view their salvation as being between them and God.

Forgive me, I didn't realize that the topic which you desired to convey was that all Muslims were not the enemy but rather our allies in the war on terror - I certainly agree with that. The discussion I was inserting myself into was whether Jehovah and Allah were the same. That of course has everything to do with salvation. And as I said to Luis in a previous post this morning, judging is different from weighing against scripture. If we allow for every person's salvation (or lack thereof) to simply be between them and God, we are ignoring the great commission. Part of preaching the gospel is addressing error through showing truth. Jesus had no problem pointing out the mistakes of His generation, and Paul spoke much on false teachings in light of the gospel. If Muslims do not believe in the saving blood of Jesus Christ, how are we helping them by glossing it over?

However, if you want I can explain Catholic doctrine concerning soteriology and you can feel free to draw your own conclusions from that.

Actually, I would LOVE that. And if you would prefer to take that aspect to FReepmail instead, since it's pretty off topic for the thread, I look forward to hearing from you. :)

One last thing, and I am certain that your knowledge of scripture far surpasses mine,

Oh please don't assume that! It's pretty shameful actually when I think of all the time I waste when I could/should be studying. I've just collected some good resources. I doubt we'd have the same sort of discussion if we were in the same room and you had to wait for my answer while I flipped through stuff. You'd probably be longing for a chess timer. :)

but I distinctly remember reading that the anti-Christ would "come from us"...that us being Christians.

I've read argument of all sorts of origins, and you're absolutely right - one of them holds that a verse in Revelation (I think) suggests that he will be a Gentile Christian, though probably just a nominal one. I certainly would NOT be surprised if he came out of liberal Christianity - scary things going on in a number of mainline churches today. And I agree - talk of religious war certainly feeds the fire. And thanks much for the kind words. God bless you and yours too.

"I've read argument of all sorts of origins, and you're absolutely right - one of them holds that a verse in Revelation (I think) suggests that he will be a Gentile Christian, though probably just a nominal one."

1 John 2:18: Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
1 John 2:19: They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

"I certainly don't agree that Islam should be destroyed by military means."

I agree. My own opinion, along with that of Luis, is that such comments only serve to fuel bin Laden's propoganda, providing him with great "sound bytes" to convince Muslims America that really is out to get them.

"There is obviously a difference between secular military defense against a threatening enemy and warring between religions, of which Christianity should NEVER be the aggressor - it flies in the face of everything Jesus taught."

Again, agreed. This is one of my major problems with Christians who advocate (and originally this started out as a joke, but now it's grown to the point of actually being discussed seriously) thermonuclear attacks on Medina and Mecca, regardless of how many civilians happen to be there at the time.

"But, I will address your comment here, that there is a 'very strict difference between a satanic religion and a misguided one.' But aren't misguided faiths influenced by satan by default?"

They are, but let us not forget that we humans are quite capable of screwing up on our own without any help from the Prince of Lies, thanks primarily due to our own damaged nature and original sin. While Satan can exploit these errors for his own purposes, we need to be very careful about ascribing all religious errors to him because it works to removes the component of individual responsibility from the situation.

In the case of Islam, I see it as containing quite a few decent spiritual truths within it, such as monotheism and the idea of a day of judgement. Certainly I view it as having far more spiritual truth to it than say Wicca or Hinduism.

"Look at it this way. Satan is the master of deception and seeks to cause confusion in order to lead people away from the gospel. Any false religious systems are misguided with his encouragement."

I don't believe so because one needs to distinguish between false religious systems and those that are simply misguided. From the Christian perspective, I believe that Judaism certainly falls in the latter category. Similarly, I see the tiny bits of spiritual truth contained in many world religions as being fragments of what were once known and believed only to have been lost at some point in the murky past. The universal presence of such things as the myth of the flood in world religion and even quite a few similarities when it comes to ethics seem to support this viewpoint IMO.

Also, regarding Old Nicky, he is by no means limited towards using simply false religious systems in order to lead people astray from the Gospel. He also tries to weaken Christianity with heresy from without and apostacy from within.

"But the two statements are inexorably linked. To remove one phrase changes the whole doctrinal meaning."

I disagree due to my exegesis of the verse in question. The way that I have always read was as referring to the Gnostic heresy that was the major opponent of the Church for the first three centuries of its existence, which taught that Jesus was simply a spirit that "appeared" to be human.

"It doesn't matter that they believe he came in the flesh - what matters is that they don't believe that He was GOD come in the flesh. Muslims can believe that Jesus was born miraculously, did miracles while on earth (both of which the Koran states), but if they don't believe that Jesus is God's Son, the only acceptable sacrifice for the sin of man - acceptable because He was NOT just a man but a perfect one, wholly man and wholly God, it doesn't matter WHAT they believe about Jesus."

Your statement here covers a lot of ground, so let me just try to address this by clarifying my position on the matter:

The Muslim belief regarding Jesus is considerably kinder than the Jewish one. My argument towards Jael was that if she desired to tar and feather Muslims as a religion of an antichrist that she should, in all consistency, apply the same standard to Judaism. I do not dispute that Muslims reject the divinity of Our Lord.

"They've missed the whole point, because if what they DO believe is not enough to save their souls, then what good is it at all?"

Here again, this gets us involved in differences over soteriology, and Catholic doctrine on the matter relies a great deal on the salvation of the thief on the cross (Luke 23:39-43), the idea that we are judged by God by the same standards by which we judge on another (Romans 2:1), and that all humans possess an innate and, though inferior to Christianity, sense of natural law that allows them to be saved through the baptism of desire even if they had never heard of Jesus (Roman 2:12-29). I recognize that most of this is likely to be in conflict with your beliefs on the matter and here again would prefer not to sidetrack the topic by getting into a drawn-out discussion concerning soteriology.

"And speaking quite simply in turn, claiming something doesn't neceassarily make it so."

While this is true, I don't view whatever errors someone has about the nature or character of the Godhead as being indicative that they aren't worshipping that Godhead, just as liberals have some rather erroneous ideas about the Consitution, but this doesn't change the fact that they are referring to the Constitution.

"I totally and vehemently disagree with you on Spong - I assume that because you call him a first-rate heretic, you have read the man's manifesto."

I was unfamiliar with the manifesto, having only had the displeasure of reading one of his books. If that information is correct, I concede the point to you and would like to ask your permission to cite a different example (say Jimmy Swaggert or just about any Seventh Day Adventist).

"Ooo, I'm jealous. I'm sure it was awesome! :)"

You have no idea. Whenever your circumstances allow, SEE the film. You will not be disappointed.

"However, if we neglect to point out the differences, we are doing them a disservice."

I agree. However, acknowledging common ground is the best means through which to promote dialogue (with its focus, at least from the Christian perspective, being to secure temporal peace between religions, coordinate activities of mutual interest, and to learn more about them in order to help in efforts to convert them), which doesn't exactly we work if you're accusing the other religion and all of its followers (as some Freepers have done) as being direct followers of Satan.

"Now I have heard it argued that including them in the PLAN of salvation is different from claiming that they are already saved because they profess to worship Jehovah, but the language is confusing. Muslims and Catholics alike might read that to say, "OK, Muslims are covered, cool," and think no more about their eternal state. And besides, if it simply means they are included in the plan, well, mankind as a WHOLE is included in the plan. Why the special mention of Muslims if it isn't to be taken to mean that they are already saved?"

PR?

Seriously, the plan of salvation refers to those faiths which worship the Yahweh godhead and acknowledge the Messiah in some fashion or another. The Church doesn't believe in salvation en masse for any sect or another, and the state of an individual's soul after death is between that person and God. More to the point, by acknowledging our shared spiritual heritage with Muslims and Jews (i.e. that we all revere Abraham as our forefather), it works to help end the conflict that has so frequently plagued all three religions for the last three millennia (the references to Protestantism inside the Catechism are there for basically the same reason). You can't easily justify a religious war against people whom your major commentary on your holy book says are included in God's plan.

"The following is an excerpt from a statement Pope John Paul 2 made to Moroccan Muslims in 1895 -"

I think you mean 1985, lol, but I'm familiar with the speech in question.

"My issue is with the last sentence - a mystery about which God will one day enlighten us? No offense, but we have already been enlightened! We need the saving blood of Jesus Christ and that goes for everyone."

First of all, the statement was worded in diplomatic language and should be understood within that context. I also think that here again we are getting into differences over soteriology between Catholicism and Protestantism because what is quite orthodox theology within Catholicism is quite correctly (under Protestant presuppositions) viewed as otherwise within Protestantism.

"I read this statement to say that 'oh well, Muslims don't believe in Jesus, but we are sure God will tell us how they fit into His plan of salvation someday.' The Pope says in the first paragraph I pasted that 'we HOPE that after the resurrection He will be satisfied with us' - in other words we hope that God will be satisfied with Muslims as well as Christians, with how we've practiced our faith and lived our lives. How can his words be taken in any other way?"

First of all, God desires for all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4) and the statement should be understood in that context. As Catholics once again believe that the judgement of souls falls to the Almighty alone, hoping for a thing to occur, regardless of how hopelessly pollyanish you may view it, does not necessarily mean that it will occur, nor does it preclude the possibility. His Holiness, you notice, stated his personal hopes, not a definitive "you will be saved if you're good Muslims."

"Just so you don't think I am being disingenuous ..."

Never thought that for a moment. As I said, I'm familiar with the speech.

"Maybe I should have made it more general, as in do Calvinists and Arminians believe the gospel of Jesus Christ, and therefore, are both camps secure in their salvation."

I'm not entirely certain that can be historically defended because at numerous times during their history, Calvinists have explicitly defined non-Calvinists and even many Calvinists as being non-elect (i.e. hellbound). So while Arminians may view the situation from that perspective, I'm not certain that the reverse is held in the Calvinist camp.

"Forgive me, I didn't realize that the topic which you desired to convey was that all Muslims were not the enemy but rather our allies in the war on terror - I certainly agree with that."

Hooray! At the very least one of my original goals has been accomplished.

"The discussion I was inserting myself into was whether Jehovah and Allah were the same. That of course has everything to do with salvation."

Agreed.

"If we allow for every person's salvation (or lack thereof) to simply be between them and God, we are ignoring the great commission. Part of preaching the gospel is addressing error through showing truth."

Perhaps I should explain myself better in this regard. The ultimate state of person's soul as far as what they believe or in the case of the baptism of desire, what they would have believed had they had the opportunity to do so, is at the heart of Catholic teaching on judgement. Despite the often legalistic tones to Catholic teaching on mortal sin, the only person who knows whether or not they have committed a mortal sin is that person and God because one of the primary criteria for mortal sin is having full knowledge that what you are doing is wrong.

Also, Catholic teaching holds that there is a huge disconnect between deliberate error and unintentional error (i.e. the Jews before Jesus came were living in error because of the teachings of the Pharisees and the Sadducees but were unaware of it), which also factor into the salvation discussion.

"Jesus had no problem pointing out the mistakes of His generation, and Paul spoke much on false teachings in light of the gospel."

I fully concur, which is why Catholic soteriology on the matter is quite clear that our teachings concerning Islam should not be viewed as an excuse to neglect our duty to evangelize.

"If Muslims do not believe in the saving blood of Jesus Christ, how are we helping them by glossing it over?"

We aren't, because Christ's blood was shed for everybody (1 Peter 3:18) whether they believe in Him or not. However, the crux of Catholic teachings concerning Islam and the potential salvation deals with the belief that many a Muslim would convert to Christianity were they exposed to an accurate portrayal of the religion, rather than the caricature that they are taught in the madrassas.

"Actually, I would LOVE that."

Cool. I agree that FReepmail would be the best course of action in this case, so just send me whatever questions or comments you have and I'll be happy to answer them.