[agrace]

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. :)

[Angelus Errare]

"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.