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. :)