Posted on 05/31/2014 11:09:11 AM PDT by ealgeone
However, on the flip-ah-de-doo-dah side:
SO I think it's a tough call. I noticed with wry pleasure that the Catechism says
... these profess to hold the faith of Abraham ...To me, saying that instead of saying these
“But that does not mean that they worship the devil.”
Really? Their “god” tells them to go out and slay unbelievers. That doesn’t sound like my God. It sounds an awfully lot like some other spirit though.
No need. It's quite plain, no matter how often you repost it.
I explain it as simple pandering. There are still many Catholics that live under the boot of Muslim dictatorships, and Rome doesn’t want to antagonize them.
Well, in the OT similar commands were given now and then.
I have no interest in being “right” about philosophy. Where and when the Scripture chastises its high-mindedness vs. the simplicity that is in Christ Jesus, so will I. Remember, Virgil could not guide Dante beyond Purgatorio. He symbolized the highest reason, unaided by faith. Though fictional, Dante “got it” that philosophy can only take you so far.
... these profess to hold the faith of Abraham ...
To me, saying that instead of saying these profess to hold the faith of Abraham... is no accident.
Astute observation, mi amigo. ;-)
Mad Dawg, I can’t go there with you, FRiend. The last part of that sentence says (paraphrasing) “together with us they adore the One, the true Judge.” I know it isn’t the Muslims saying we adore the same god together.
BTW, off topic for just a second...a few weeks ago there was a discussion about e-readers. I don’t want one, but you posted to me about yours, and it was such a (nearly!) persuasive view that I bookmarked it for the future, in case I change my mind. I just wanted to say thanks, even this late.
/thread hijack off
Quoting JP II’s Catechism is useless. It’s not consistent with prior Catholic Catechisms.
http://catholicexchange.com/which-saint-is-most-popular-with-protestants
Which Saint Is Most Popular with Protestants?
Which Catholic saint is most popular among Protestants?
It’s not even a close call: Augustine is by far the most respected and revered of the Catholic saints among Protestants, at least those in the Reformed tradition.
That’s something that may be surprising to some Catholics—it’s not like Augustine has been pushed off to the fringes of Catholic thought and spirituality. Just how central is Augustine? Well, in the current Catholic catechism, he’s cited more than even Thomas Aquinas: 87 citations to Aquinas’ 61.
So I asked Dr. Carl Trueman, a top evangelical scholar and expert on church history at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, to explain how Augustine became such a beloved figure in Protestant circles. Here’s what he had to say:
The Princeton theologian, B. B. Warfield (1851-1921) once commented that the Reformation represented the triumph of Augustine’s understanding of grace over his doctrine of the church. Like all such pithy sayings, it is something of an over-simplification but it does contain a significant truth: Augustine is as important to Protestants as to Catholics. His Confessions helped to shape Protestant understandings of the Christian’s inner spiritual conflict; his work on the Trinity was carried over into the Reformation with no significant alteration, beyond a certain skepticism among some about his use of psychological analogies; and his work on predestination was fundamental to Protestant reading of the Apostle Paul. Indeed, one could write a history of the Reformation as an extended debate over the interpretation of Augustine’s works and, indeed, who owns them. Polemically, he was critical: both sides needed him in order to establish key points of historical continuity with past teaching.
Moving beyond the early Reformation, Augustine continued to be the most significant early church Father in Reformed theology. Calvin uses him extensively, as do Bullinger and Vermigli. Then, as Reformed theology established itself within the university context in the later sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Augustine continued to be a significant influence, both directly through primary texts and as mediated through medieval scholastic theologians such as Thomas Bradwardine and Thomas Aquinas. Put simply, the questions he raised about Pauline interpretation, and about grace, predestination and human agency, were hardy perennials for Protestants who had no desire either to reinvent the wheel in such areas nor to innovate where no innovation was necessary.
— Dr. Carl R. Trueman, Paul Woolley Professor of Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary.
Then you sound right enough, or very nearly, whether you care to be or not. ;-)
Here's a possibly pertinent thought:
I have heard it said by some Muslims that Allah could command a believer to blaspheme him (not in a predestination sort of way,) and that the believer ought to obey Allah, blaspheme him, and go to everlasting torment.
PERSONALLY I think that that is a philosophically crippled idea of God and of what it means to be in the image of God (so already I'm appealing to revelation -- but there's a lot in general revelation that supports this.) It suggests that Allah is beyond good and evil, and that the "duty" to obey is divorced from the duty to to right.
So there's a kind of sundering of the ONENESS of God. I think that is, as I say, a philosophical problem.
So here's a place where IMHO good philosophy and special revelation walk hand in hand.
Two more things:
One is that good philosophy makes a good basement for good theology, and good theology enables evangelism to certain folks.
The other is, as I like to say, you have to know a little anatomy to be a good lover. But studying anatomy books is not making love. Similarly, you have to know a LITTLE about God to live into the relationship he offers, but reading Aquinas (or even Dante, though I hate to admit it) is not the same thing.
My tweet-level critique of philosophy has me trampling Augustine under foot now? Have a sense of proportion here! Philosophy only takes you so far, and quite often directly away from the Truth. My critique—in brief snippets of internet posts—of philosophy is of the high-minded kind which exalts itself above God’s “foolishness” (read Romans, or Augustine).
Allah is Ba’al. The moon god that Mohammed chose for his monotheistic religion, and after capturing Mecca he destroyed the images of every other pagan deity except the moon god.
Mohammed made Ishmael, not Isaac, the true son of Abraham and so propagated a tremendous lie against what Scripture says.
FWIW try to get a straight answer online as to why the crescent moon is the dominant symbol of Islam.
Muzzies worship the same Deity as Jews & Christians? My foot!
Well put.
Interesting, thanks.
IF it was really I, then thanks be to God. In fact, Deo gratias in any case!
Have you read the Narnia books? Lewis tackles a related question neatly in The Last Battle when a Calormene soldier is accepted by Aslan. The soldier's name, interestingly, is Emeth, which is Hebrew for "truth."
you are very correct!
...and your statements would stand in relation to modern philosophy which is destructive to Christianity and God(nietche, positivism, the historical christ and more). But these things need to be stated.
You could hate art, but modern art would be the target.
You could hate Christianity, but modern reversed-morality Christianity would be the target.
However,my apologies for this one and for other slights.
Accepted! Love in Christ!
The One True God that I confess is the Triune God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I am unable to understand how Allah can be grafted into this Godhead; nor conjure a valid cause for anyone to attempt such a travesty.
Nothing in the Catechism suggests that “ Allah can be grafted into this Godhead.” Nothing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.