Tim Staples can’t be faulted for this. The problem lies not with him, but with the false teachings of Vatican II about Islam, which put Catholics in an impossible position. There are numerous reasons why Catholics and Muslims do not worship the same God. I explain some below, and more here. But the ecumenical council says otherwise, and so either its teachings must be accepted and justified, or Catholics find themselves in a crisis of authority that calls into question some of the foremost dogmas of their Church about the authority of the popes and councils.
“Catholic Answers Ducks Loaded Question,” by Jules Gomes, ChurchMilitant.com, September 15, 2020:
SAN DIEGO (ChurchMilitant.com) – A prominent Catholic apologist has sparked an explosive debate after he evaded a charged question asking whether the Catechism was right to affirm that Muslims “together with us [Catholics] adore the one, merciful God.”
A questioner asked Tim Staples how the Catholic Catechism’s teaching on Catholics and Muslims worshipping the same God squared with Jesus’ words “whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him,” from John 5.
In the Sept. 5 video titled, “How Do Muslims Worship the Same God as Christians?” Staples, who is Catholic Answers’ Director of Apologetics and Evangelization, quotes Jesus’ words: “I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father except by me.” (John 14:6)
However, the apologist immediately digresses into a discussion on “invincible ignorance,” insisting that “to knowingly reject the Son is to reject the Father.”
The apologist then links this doctrine to paragraph 841 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst 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.”
Staples acknowledges that paragraph 841 is quoting Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium 16, but insists that this teaching is “not contradicting Jesus Christ.”
“Jesus’ Church is simply elucidating what Jesus teaches,” Staples stresses, in defense of Vatican II.
But nowhere does Jesus or the Bible or 2,000 years of Sacred Tradition teach that Muslims are included in God’s plan of salvation. The theological assessment that “Islam’s God is also the same God as worshipped by Catholics,” as theologian Gavin D’Costa phrases it, appears for the first time in Vatican II in Nostra Aetate 3 and Lumen Gentium 16.
‘Twisting Into Pretzels’
In comments to Church Militant, historian of Islam Robert Spencer observes how “Tim Staples spends a great deal of time in his answer talking about invincible ignorance, but that actually has nothing to do with the question of whether Muslims and Christians adore the same God, as Vatican II and the Catechism state.”
“Catholic apologists such as Tim Staples have to twist themselves into pretzels to make it appear as if Vatican II is correct on this point when there is a superabundance of evidence that it isn’t,” Spencer remarks.
“The Vatican II statement about Muslims says that they profess the faith of Abraham. It has nothing to do with whether they have heard the gospel or not,” he notes.
Spencer, author of 21 books on Islam, explains:
Islam denies the Trinity, the incarnation, and the divinity of Christ (Qur’an 5:116, 19:35), the Crucifixion (Qur’an 4:157) — and hence its redemptive value — and the Resurrection. It denies free will and says that God could have guided some people to the truth but decided arbitrarily to send them to Hell instead (Qur’an 32:13).
“This is part of a larger issue that has bedeviled the Church since the 1960s: What exactly is the authority of Vatican II? Do all its teachings require the assent of mind and will on the part of the believer?” Spencer asks….
“In fact, the false teaching about Christians and Muslims worshipping the same God is one of the foremost arguments for affirming that Vatican II is simply a pastoral council with no dogmatic value.”
The debate over Vatican II has raged recently with Bp. Robert Barron going on the offensive against critics of the council.
“Some Catholics in America today are increasingly vocal in their attacks on the Second Vatican Council — an ecumenical council of the Church summoned and presided over by the successor of Peter. How should we understand this disturbing trend?” asks Barron.
However, in his apologetics in defense of Vatican II, Barron never addresses the Islamic elephant in the conciliar chamber….
Spencer told Church Militant how he’d found “numerous Catholic spokesmen who are reluctant in the extreme to proselytize among Muslims, or to criticize Islam’s teachings of violence and subjugation, or even to speak out against the Muslim persecution of Christians because Vatican II says that we all worship the same God.”
“This teaching has caused an immense amount of confusion within the Church and misled all too many Catholics into thinking that Muslims are some sort of semi-Christian sect, a sect that teaches theological and moral errors which must never be noticed; to do so would be impolite and even un-Christian,” Spencer lamented.
gravenimage says
Catholic spokesman evades question about whether Catholics and Muslims worship the same God
……………………
What a dhimmi–isn’t he supposed to answer questions just like this one as Catholic Answers’ Director of Apologetics and Evangelization?
In fact, the violent “Allah” has almost nothing in common with the loving God of Christianity.
The odd thing is that Tim Staples seems to have once honestly engaged just these kinds of questions. He has a CD, “Islam Exposed”:
“The Truth About Islam Revealed! For nearly 13 centuries Islamic extremists have been dedicated to the destruction of the Christian West. Today’s terrorism is a wake up call from the spiritual descendants of these fanatical followers of Mohammed who demand that the Christian West recognize their radical agenda-or else. And yet, we are told again and again by the secular media, and even some religious leaders, that Islam means “Peace” and that the kind of radical extremism that shocked our nation on September 11th has no basis in the teachings of Mohammed. But what does the Koran actually teach? Today more than ever before, Christian awareness and understanding of this so-called “religion of peace” is absolutely crucial.”
https://www.amazon.com/Islam-Exposed-Crescent-Light-Cross/dp/1570584044
This was released in early 2001–*before* 9/11.
Cindy says
Are you aware Muslims are told via their koran to kill those who do not worship their g-d? Such a friendly religion???
gravenimage says
I do know this, Cindy–thank you.
Jon Sobieski says
What is so disappointing to me is so few in the Catholic hierarchy are calling a spade a spade on this same god BS. It’s absurd. The koran is an awful book of hate and vile sickening ideas. I won’t forgive any of them. They are blind and leading the flock off a cliff.
gravenimage says
True, Jon. And so good to see you posting again.
Seeking Deliverance says
Sadly, that audio product is no longer available. Online searches for it yield nothing save for books similarly titled but not the same product. By chance, do you know if this Islam Exposed came in book form as well?
gravenimage says
Actually, I don’t know, Seeking Deliverance. That was all I found. I just thought it odd that, even without any details, it looks as though Tim Staples once knew more about the threat of Islam than he acknowledges now.
But I have run across this bizarre phenomenon before, even though there is far more evidence for the average person post 9/11 than before to see that Islam is a clear threat to us all.
It is almost as though the greater the threat revealed itself, the more some decided to retreat into willful denial. I think it is just too scary for them–either the threat itself and its implictions, or just the increasing social stigma of being labeled an “Islamophobe”.
Rufolino says
Robert, I had NO IDEA that the Roman Catholic Catechism asserts that the God of Abraham and Jesus is the same as the god known as Allah. Shocked by this atrocious falsehood. In my book Allah is Satan, or one of his aliases.
The site “Church Militant”, fronted by Michael Vorris worries me. There isn’t a single episode of the site on YouTube that does not express delirious hatred and rejection of gay people. On a supposedly Christian site this undiluted hate is deeply reprehensible.
Recently Vorris (who either has a dreadful hairdresser or wears the Worst Wig in the Western World), came out as having been gay, but he said God changed his mind.
curious george says
Gravenimage,
Good point.
Words have meaning. One person identifies as a Roman Catholic, while another states, I am a “devout” Roman Catholic.
What’s the difference?
Maybe it makes a difference when the Roman Catholic Church declares a teaching to be infallible.
Possibly, the Roman Catholic might think, I don’t like this teaching, therefore, I won’t accept it or practice it. While the “devout” Roman Catholic thinks, if the Church deems this teaching to be infallible, then I will obey and practice this teaching, regardless of my personal feelings.
That leads to the question:
Was Vatican II Infallible?
https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/vatican-ii-infallible/
This video runs just under 42 minutes and the wording seems Orwellian to me.
“If” the teachings of Vatican II falls under the Church’s “Doctrine of Infallibility” then, it seems that the Roman Catholic Church cannot, without violating the “Doctrine of Infallibility” change any of the teachings that came forth from this council.
gravenimage says
Of course, some of these teachings contradict other teachings, so this can be dicey in any case.
Mauricio says
The roman pontiff has the power to change everything within the roman catholic church (canons 331-335 from code of Canon law, and others) even “Doctrines of Infallibility” and “papal supremacy”. This makes him more guilty that he is not taking any actions at all about such issues.
gravenimage says
He should certainly be speaking out about Islam.
curious george says
Mauricio,
I’m stunned. A Pope has the authority to change an Infallible Doctrine? That is way too Orwellian for me.
I’ll think about that tomorrow.
Mauricio says
I understand your reaction George, I also felt stunned when I realized about this. “Vicar” means “in place of”, so it is as if the pope is substituting the physical Christ on earth, that’s why they give him so much authority. Take a look at the following canon:
“Can. 338 §1. It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical council, preside over it personally or through others, transfer, suspend, or dissolve a council, and to approve its decrees.”
This means that a pope has authority without a council but a council does not have authority without a pope. Under a formal act, a pope can invalidate previous dogmas or doctrines and set up new ones. That’s why church schisms began to happen when the pope started proclaiming all this authority for himself (Orthodox, protestants).
curious george says
Mauricio and Ecosse1314,
Thank you for your comments and the cordial exchange of ideas.
May Yeshua HaMashiach keep you and yours in the palm of His hand.
Ecosse1314 says
Only one infallible teaching has ever been proclaimed and that was 150 years ago.
Mauricio says
You are talking specifically about papal-infallibility but everything declared by a pope or council through formal act must be believed by the faithful, which is why we are using the adjective “infallible” in this conversation.
Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.
§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Ecosse1314 says
Actually2. I forgot the assumptionof Mary in 1950
Mauricio says
There are hundreds, if not thousands of decrees and apostolic constitutions issued by popes.
Glad to speak with you all.
Gray says
If there is only one God, and if Christians and Muslims both worship that one creator God, then surely Christians and Muslims do indeed worship the same God? It’s just that Christians and Muslims perceive that one God quite differently, isn’t it?
gravenimage says
Pretty much the same thing, Gray.
Prince Eugene says
The difference is not one of perception. There is the triune God of Christianity. Islam which claims descendancy, franchisement and authority from the Torah and Injeel, rejects Judeo-Christian understanding of the Godhead for a Tawhid oneness that rejects Jesus as God, rejects the Holy Spirit and rejects the multi-person nature of God. Muslims consider Christians to be polytheists. Realize the concept of Muhammad (d. 632) as prophet was an invention popularized by Abd al-Malik in 691 and it took another two-hundred-and-thirty years until Al-Tabari to develop the exegesis of Islam. There are holes in the narrative.
FYI says
Jews might think YHWH is their God alone but Christians believe YHWH to be the SAME God and accept all the OT books as being inspired by a particular Wisdom source which Christians call the Holy Spirit{this is where prophecy comes from}
Jews follow the SAME law as Christians:
Law #1 Deut 6:4-9
Law #2 Lev 19;17-18
The Exodus 20 Decalogue
{Law#1 and Law #2 :defined as the ‘Whole law of Moses and the teachings of all the prophets depend on these 2 commandments'{Matthew 22 v 40}}
And ‘Do for others what you want them to do for you;this is the MEANING of the Law of Moses and the teachings of all the prophets”{Matthew 7 v 12}
So the WHOLE law of Moses and the teachings of the prophets
1] depend on these 2 laws
2]are equated with the Golden Rule which is the MEANING of the laws
so WHERE in islam are these things to be found?
If allah is the same as the Biblical God then the law must be the same.
It isn’t!
allah teaches pretty much the opposite.
No need to love thy neighbor since he is an infidel{koran 5:51}and the WORST of created beings {koran 98:6 =ALL NON MUSLIMS}
all people are NOT equal before allah.
‘allah’ MISSED a few things…
allah missed the 2 chief commandments{law#1 Deut 6:4-9,law #2 Lev 19:17-18}the point of OBEYING the Exodus 20 Decalogue{the koran is an instruction manual to break them},the Golden Rule{=’the MEANING of the law of Moses and the teachings of the prophets’ Matthew 7 v12}the understanding that people are made in the spiritual image of God{Genesis 1:27},the understanding of the key role of the Jews{‘it is from the Jews that salvation comes’ John 4 v22}the Holy Spirit{in koran 5:116 allah has MARY in the Trinity so no room for the Holy Spirit},denies everything about Jesus Christ..
Any time i ask muslims to explain HOW it is possible allah MISSED,denies and contradicts the Law of moses and the teachings of the prophets{defined in 2 chief Laws see Matthew 22:37-40}they’ll say ‘the Bible is corrupted’ or ‘Dunno I never read it”
Yet,allah tells muslims to consult those who know the Bible koran 10:94
Michael Copeland says
When Islamic State demolished the shrine of St. Julien they said it was dedicated to a god other than Allah.
Gray says
It’s not the same thing at all. We’re told it is ‘false teaching’ to assert that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. But both religions assert there is only one God. If there is indeed only one God, then both religions must worship the same God. It seems to me there is no common ground between the Christian perception of God, and the Muslim perception of God, but that does not mean there is more than one supreme deity.
Keys says
Gray- (Tim?)
Likewise, you would say that Jews worship one God, which is the same God Christians worship, but the Jewish “perception of God” is different than the Christian “perception of God”. Both are different than the Muslim “perception of God”.
Would Jews say Christians worship the same God as they do ?
Zoroastrians also worship one God and perceive him differently, as do Jehovah’s Witnesses. Is this the same God as well ?
Further:
The English is probably a translation here, but the meaning of “in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims“ is troublesome. How are Muslims in the first place ?
From a Catholic perspective would not the the Jews be in the first place of “Abrahamic” religions ?
Keys says
Another point regarding the “three great Abrahamic religions” worshipping the same God:
All three believe God has chosen to reveal Himself to mankind.
Could the God who revealed himself through Mohammad possibly be the same God who revealed Himself through Moses and Jesus ?
Of course, the Mohammadans say that the Jews and the Christians have distorted that revelation before and after Mohammad ! Most Jews and Christians would answer this question with an emphatic “No !”
Although, I understand Gray’s point that all three believe in the same God in the sense that He is One and the Creator, to say that it is the same God causes confusion and is not the entire truth about what these three religions believe.
I dare to say that this statement about Islam worshipping the same God has caused more frustration and doubt about the Catholic faith for many Catholics than the sexual scandals in the priesthood. This because these priests have not followed the teachings of the Catholic Church; the CC has never taught their actions are acceptable to God.
But the statement on Islam in Vatican II and in the 1994 Catechism needs to be clarified as to what it means. It is the same God only in the sense that all three religions believe that God, the Creator is One; but beyond that there are chasmic differences.
These documents of the Church, written at a time of and in the spirit of hope for dialogue, ecumenism, and cooperation among the world’s religions, were perhaps meant as a step to come out of a time when only the differences and exclusion dominated world religions.
True dialogue must honestly and fully acknowledge the truth of the similarities and differences, or diplomacy will fail. If one side can not recognize this because they are offended, the other side is on a fool’s errand.
gravenimage says
Gray, I never said that there was more than one supreme deity. I said that there is little practical difference between believing that “Allah” and God are separate figures, and having ideas as to the character of God that are so diametrically opposed. The character of “Allah” is appalling in any case.
Gray says
With respect, Ma’am, you did not say all those things, at least to me. You simply made a cryptic six word riposte, which could have meant lots of things. I took it that the basic intent was to denigrate me and dismiss my contribution. That’s fine. It’s happened before on this blog, and is one of the reasons I tend to comment fairly sparingly.
gravenimage says
Gray, I was in *no* way attempting to denigrate you or dismiss your contribution–I’m so sorry you took it that way. I was in fact *agreeing* with you, and felt that we were essentially getting at the same thing.
In fact, I have agreed with you a number of times, and have said so:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/07/india-muslim-kidnaps-australian-surfer-repeatedly-rapes-her-gives-her-quran-and-prayer-rug#comment-2253260
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/07/after-demonizing-all-who-opposed-jihad-terror-catholic-mag-wonders-why-no-one-speaks-out-against-it#comment-2252964
There are others.
In fact, the only real disagreement with you I can recall is the claim that the West is almost as bad as is Islam on marital rape.
Generally I consider you an excellent poster, and your contributions here to add a great deal to the conversation in the comments threads.
Gray says
legal gravenimage, it seems I must now apologise to you, for misconstruing your post. I do so gladly. I had no idea you were actually agreeing with me. I’m afraid I did not really understand what point was being made, and so just assumed it must be a put down. Mea culpa. And yes, I do acknowledge that you, and other contributors, have frequently agreed with my posts over time, and this support is always noted and appreciated. Thank you for past support, and for your kind words here. That said, there have been several times in the past where I have been roundly criticised by bloggers here for taking certain positions, and for believing certain things, when I have not not in fact taken those positions, nor claimed to believe those things. My alleged ‘claim that the West is almost as bad as Islam on marital rape’ is perhaps a case in point. I haven’t kept a record of my postings. However my recollection is that I was prompted to speak by the number of people appearing to claim that the West has never permitted marital rape, and so is far superior to all those Islamic countries that allow it. I was merely pointing out that we really can’t take the moral high ground here, as marital rape was legal in many Western countries until fairly recently. I certainly wasn’t endorsing marital rape, or praising Islam, or denigrating the West, but that seemed to be how some interpreted my words. As I say, I haven’t kept a record of past postings, but my worst experiences seem to come when I presume to suggest that Islam is not a religion. At the risk of starting up the torrential criticisms again, may I point out that, contrary to criticisms made of me, I do not simplistically believe that all religions must be good, and that I am indeed aware (as a lawyer) that Islam fits within the legal definition of a ‘religion.’ But I agree with the poster who said that it makes no sense for the West to give full legal protection and recognition to a belief system that will not conform, and is pledged to our destruction. Our constitutional guarantees and legal protections will be used to destroy us, unless we change our definitions and outlaw Islam totally, from all Western nations. Many Western countries have recently fundamentally altered the legal definition of ‘marriage.’ Why can’t we all change the legal definition of’ ‘religion’ too? Just a thought! Blessings.
Gray says
gi, sorry typo in line 1. Was wondering where that word got to!
gravenimage says
Gray, thanks for your reply.
Your comments re marital rape start here and continue below:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/08/australia-muslim-migrant-uses-sharia-law-as-an-excuse-for-raping-his-wife#comment-2268786
With all respect, I believe that everyone who stands against marital rape–and all other rape–does indeed have the right to speak out against it, and that they do indeed have the moral high ground, despite laws in the West that remained retrogade fifty years ago.
And Islam is indeed a religion by any definition–that does not mean that it is good or true.
And the West only gives protection to religion to the point where it does not violate our civilized laws. In other words, things like fasting and wu’du are legal; things like waging violent Jihad and imposing brutal Shari’ah law on us are not. We need to enforce our civilized laws more rigorously.
I don’t believe that we should change the First Amendment for Islam; you may, of course, feel free to disagree.
We did not have to outlaw Fascism in order to defend against it–just exposed its horrors until good Americans and other Westerners could see its evil exposed. That is what sites like Jihad Watch are doing re Islam.
I also think we need to curb Muslim immigration into the West–the “Muslim ban” here in the US is a good first step. We also need to deport Jihadists after they have served their prison terms, as well as those Muslims who preach violence.
I don’t think that there is anything wrong with people of good will disputing and sometimes disagreeing on tactics. There are posters whom I respect greatly who sometimes differ with each other on some points.
Gray says
OK Graven Image. You win. Obviously nothing I say is going to change anything, apart from giving your good self and others something further to distort and find fault with. And that’s fine. I’m wasting far too much time reading and commenting on sites like this anyway, and really need to use what time I have left much more productively. Thank you for reminding me of that. Before signing off from this thread, I hope I may be permitted to make a couple more quick observations, in the full realization none of them will find favour with the JW cognoscenti. And that’s fine too.
1.’ And the West only gives protection to religion (i.e. like Islam) to the point where it does not violate our civilized laws.’ That may be true in your neighbourhood, in which case count yourself very lucky. Where I live, Islam has insinuated itself into the very fabric of Society, relying on its status as a ‘religion.’ Any objections are dismissed as ‘Islamophobia’ and risk prompting a prosecution for ‘Hate Speech.’ For example:
(I) Islamic schools are proliferating, thanks to them receiving the same taxpayer funding available to Christian schools, except the Islamic schools frequently funnel a lot of taxpayer money to fund the spread of Islam generally. But its ‘islamophobic’ to note that.
(ii) The fundamental principle of equality before the law is no more. Sharia Courts are proliferating, under cover of the mosques, and the sharia courts will frequently adjudicate domestic disputes and inheritance issues, reaching conclusions that the courts of the land would never reach. Women are invariably the losers in this system, but hey! It’s not for us to interfere in the cultural norms of others, is it? And this parallel legal system is being actively promoted by some politicians, and Christian clerics
(iii) Polygamy has long been regarded as a criminal offence, carrying a term in jail. Unless, of course, you happen to be a Muslim male. As I understand it, polygamous marriages will be recognised here, provided they were entered into in a country which recognises such marriages. And I suspect there would be no problem if a Muslim male with permanent residency here went over to a Muslim country under Sharia, married four nine year old girls, and brought them back to this country, where they, and their progeny, can all live happily ever after, on social security. But the kaffurs are supposed to pay jizya anyway, aren’t they?
(iv) There is a minimum marriagable age for females in the West – it used to be 16 here, I think its now 18, for both men and women. Anyway, there have been several well publicised cases of local imams allowing pre-pubescent girls of nine or ten to marry much older men. After each public outcry, the local Muslim organisations here have been shocked – shocked, I tell you – that such a thing could happen, assuring everyone that this did not represent Islam. And, of course, the local media always laps it up.
(v) I always understood that ignorance of the law was no defence, but that may no longer apply if you happen to be a Muslim male living in the West. There have been multiple cases of Muslim men sexually assaulting very young infidel girls – in one case a very young child was assaulted in a playground; in another, she had lost her mother in a crowded shopping centre. In some of these cases the accused’s lawyer has argued the offender should not be held criminally liable, because the poor fellow was educated in a Muslim madrassa, where he was taught that infidel females we`re war booty and available for the taking. I can’t remember whether that appalling argument has ever succeeded. Hope not.
There are plenty of other examples (FGM, for instance) to show quite clearly that Islam does indeed ‘violate our civilized laws’ every day of the week, with little or no comeback. There is no way we can ever ‘enforce our laws more vigorously’ while Islam is accorded the superior status and protection of a recognised religion. Islam will prevail, and the West will lose. We no longer believe that the price of Liberty is eternal vigilance, and we will pay a bleak and heavy price. Islam doesn’t appreciate the West’s hospitality, its openness or its willingness to share. Au contraire, Islam despises us for being weak, and is confident the wombs of its women living in the West, where birth rates are all declining, will give it victory. In Islamic mythology, Islam is ‘the strong horse’ and we are the ‘weak horse.’ And History shows clearly that Islam will not be a benign ruler. The bloodshed will never end, even if the entire world becomes Muslim.
Even if you and your cohorts are right, and ‘Islam is a religion by any definition,’ this simply means we must carefully study how we define ‘religion.’ Rebecca Bynum has done some work on this. My no doubt totally ignorant view is that we should be looking at the true nature of Islam, and acknowledge that it is an all encompassing, militaristic political philosophy rather than a true ‘religion,’ one that is transcendent, and allows a personal relationship between God and man. Islam does not permit this. As you probably know, a lady in India, who converted from Islam to Christianity, wrote a book about her experiences entitled ‘I dared to call him Father.’ Islam permits no such personal relationship.
Anyway, there it is. It is getting very late on this side of the world. Give it your best shot, JW cognoscenti, with my blessing. Right now, I’m too sick at heart to care very much. But I won’t be speaking further on this thread, and will definitely be limiting the future time I spend following this blog.
gravenimage says
Gray wrote:
OK Graven Image. You win. Obviously nothing I say is going to change anything, apart from giving your good self and others something further to distort and find fault with.
……………………….
I’m not sure what you think I have distorted, Gray. After all, re the issue of marital rape, I linked to your own posts.
Then, I don’t think that discussions here are about winning or losing–they are more about how we should approach standing against the threat of Islam. Moreover, I expressed my respect for you and your comments–not sure why you would consider this an attack. As I noted, I expect that Anti-Jihadists of good will are apt to have occasional differences of opinion.
And *surely* you know what we face from supporters of Jihad–if you have a problem with respectful differences of opinion, I’m not sure how you will be able to stand up against smears and threats from savages–yet this is what we all face.
More:
And that’s fine. I’m wasting far too much time reading and commenting on sites like this anyway, and really need to use what time I have left much more productively. Thank you for reminding me of that.
……………………….
I think that taking a stand against the savagery of Islam is the greatest issue of our time–like taking a stand against Fascism eighty years ago. I’m not sure what you might consider to be more important.
More:
Before signing off from this thread, I hope I may be permitted to make a couple more quick observations, in the full realization none of them will find favour with the JW cognoscenti. And that’s fine too.
……………………….
Of course you are permitted to say what you think. Someone disagreeing with you on a couple of points is *not* an infringement of your freedom of speech. Instead, it is actually more freedom of speech.
And I only speak for myself–I am not presenting myself as a representative of some sort of “cognoscenti” as you seem to think.
More:
1.’ And the West only gives protection to religion (i.e. like Islam) to the point where it does not violate our civilized laws.’ That may be true in your neighbourhood, in which case count yourself very lucky. Where I live, Islam has insinuated itself into the very fabric of Society, relying on its status as a ‘religion.’ Any objections are dismissed as ‘Islamophobia’ and risk prompting a prosecution for ‘Hate Speech.’ For example:
(I) Islamic schools are proliferating, thanks to them receiving the same taxpayer funding available to Christian schools, except the Islamic schools frequently funnel a lot of taxpayer money to fund the spread of Islam generally. But its ‘islamophobic’ to note that…
……………………….
I don’t think that what you describe–which I know is rife in much of the West–actually reflects our laws, and it *certainly* does not reflect our values. Much of what Muslims get away with–FGM, polygamy, rape and marital rape, teaching violent Jihad, stealth Jihad and Shari’ah, plotting and waging violent Jihad–is a direct violation of our laws. As I said, we need to vigorously enforce our laws.
Taking a stand against this is more important than ever–no matter the pushback.
More:
Islam will prevail, and the West will lose. We no longer believe that the price of Liberty is eternal vigilance, and we will pay a bleak and heavy price. Islam doesn’t appreciate the West’s hospitality, its openness or its willingness to share. Au contraire, Islam despises us for being weak, and is confident the wombs of its women living in the West, where birth rates are all declining, will give it victory. In Islamic mythology, Islam is ‘the strong horse’ and we are the ‘weak horse.’ And History shows clearly that Islam will not be a benign ruler. The bloodshed will never end, even if the entire world becomes Muslim.
……………………….
We don’t *have* to surrender–we can still fight back, especially by exposing the horrors of Islam to our fellows here in the free world.
More:
Even if you and your cohorts are right, and ‘Islam is a religion by any definition,’ this simply means we must carefully study how we define ‘religion.’ Rebecca Bynum has done some work on this. My no doubt totally ignorant view is that we should be looking at the true nature of Islam, and acknowledge that it is an all encompassing, militaristic political philosophy rather than a true ‘religion,’ one that is transcendent, and allows a personal relationship between God and man. Islam does not permit this. As you probably know, a lady in India, who converted from Islam to Christianity, wrote a book about her experiences entitled ‘I dared to call him Father.’ Islam permits no such personal relationship.
……………………….
*Of course* we should be looking at the true nature of Islam–I have never said anything else. We need to expose the nature of Islam to others, as well.
More:
Anyway, there it is. It is getting very late on this side of the world. Give it your best shot, JW cognoscenti, with my blessing. Right now, I’m too sick at heart to care very much. But I won’t be speaking further on this thread, and will definitely be limiting the future time I spend following this blog.
……………………….
Why would you do that? Even if you think that I am wrong about Islam being an evil religion and that we do indeed have the moral high ground in opposing marital rape, why would you let that drive you away? (and note that it was never my intent to drive you or any other Anti-Jihadist here away in the first place).
You can ignore my comments, or tell me that you disagree with me–that’s fine, I have no problem whatsoever with that. But please don’t leave, and don’t abandon the fight against Islam and leave it to others. There are few enough of us as it is. Please don’t surrender.
Gray says
Graven Image, as is obvious, I was angry when I wrote the last post. I’m still pretty raw, and would prefer not to comment further at this stage. However you are asking further questions, and expressing regret that I may be pulling back as a commentator here, and asking even more questions. Very well. I’ll endeavour to answer your questions now, although I would prefer not to say anything at all now, waiting at least until after I have calmed down. I haven’t calmed down yet. So I trust you will forgive me if I am very blunt, and tell it as I see it.
1. May I say that I am heartily sick of the topic of marital rape, and devoutly wish I had never said anything. Although I’m assured there is’ respect for me and my comments’ offence was taken to my contribution. In a subsequent post, I made it clear that no offence was intended, and that I was merely pointing out that marital rape has been part of Western legal systems for many decades, and was only abolished recently. Other people were unaware of this, and seemed to appreciate the information. None of that seemed to make any difference. Offence was still taken. It seems that, if someone posts, even if that person posting has made his or her stand on Islam clear in many previous posts, offence will be taken if the words of the post can, in any way, be construed to allow such offence to be taken. Surely the clear lesson for people like me is to post as seldom as possible, and then to be very careful of the words used? And that is basically what I was saying I would now do, in my previous post. I wasn’t necessarily saying I would stop posting all together, although that could still happen.
2. Re the above, I’m not saying I’m a tender hothouse flower, who can’t bear any criticism. I am saying that if a known poster says something that another regular considers offensive, then maybe the person posting should be given some latitude, and the benefit of the doubt. Maybe the offence was not intended. I’m still unclear on exactly how I caused offence, and what it is I’m supposed to have said or inferred. Was anyone else offended? However, at this late stage, I no longer care.
3. It would be lovely if contributors could speak freely on this blog, and perhaps be aided in their quest for knowledge, and encouraged by others. From my perspective, that does not appear to be so. There seem to be certain ‘no go areas,’ and areas of groupthink, from which one deviates at one’s peril. The tone really is quite adversarial, and it seems to me quite legitimate to speak of ‘winning’ and ‘losing.’
To illustrate:
4. I firmly believe that Islam is not a religion. I further believe that Western countries, in permitting Islam to claim the status of a religion, are sewing the seeds of their own destruction. It seems utterly ridiculous to me to say that Islam is evil, it is dangerous, it preaches intolerance, it will not coexist with others and all those other defects, and then say that Islam is a recognised religion, it is entitled to statutory and constitutional protection, it is entitled to taxpayer funding to establish schools and establish worship centres, and it will be protected by anti-discrimination legislation.
5. If I dare to say that on this blog, I will be attacked, personally abused and accused of believing all religions must be good (I don’t) and of not realizing that Islam fits within the accepted legal definitions of ‘religion’ (as it happens, I do know that, and am quite familiar with the cases on religion in my own jurisdiction).
6. If Islam does indeed fit within the definition of a ‘religion,’ then I believe our definitions are defective, and that ‘religion’ needs to be defined much more carefully, in a way that excludes totalitarian and fascistic Islam. This was why I spoke about the definition of ‘religion’ in my earlier post. If we don’t do that, if we continue to give Islam sanctuary and protection in the West, many Western countries will not survive. Again, in my earlier post, I tried to point out the calamitous results of that.
7. It would be advantageous if anti-Jihad sites like this one could grasp the nettle, and turn their collective minds to this question of ‘what is a religion’. Rebecca Bynum might be a good starting point. The ultimate survival of many Western nations might be at stake.
8. I doubt anything like that would ever happen on this site, though, because I doubt it would be allowed. It’s much easier to denigrate and abuse those trying to exercise original thought and ask unpalatable questions.
If I, or indeed anyone struggling with these issues, were to continue contributing to this site, would we really make a difference? Would we ever be allowed to speak freely?
Reply
JamesC. says
gravenimage says
Gray wrote:
Graven Image, as is obvious, I was angry when I wrote the last post. I’m still pretty raw, and would prefer not to comment further at this stage.
………………………..
I’m not sure why you are angry, Gray–has no one ever respectfully disagreed with you? I’ve had people disagree with me–including yourself–and I am not angry.
But of course you don’t have to comment if you do not wish to.
More:
However you are asking further questions, and expressing regret that I may be pulling back as a commentator here, and asking even more questions. Very well. I’ll endeavour to answer your questions now, although I would prefer not to say anything at all now, waiting at least until after I have calmed down. I haven’t calmed down yet. So I trust you will forgive me if I am very blunt, and tell it as I see it.
………………………..
Again, you don’t have to comment now, or later, if you do not feel like it.
But of course you can speak freely.
More:
1. May I say that I am heartily sick of the topic of marital rape, and devoutly wish I had never said anything.
………………………..
I’m sure the victims of marital rape are considerably sicker of it than you may be. But if you really believe that Westerners do not have the moral high ground in speaking out against it due to issues in our own past, you have every right to say this. I will continue to oppose it, though–as well as slavery, child marriage, and other horrors, even if there were times when these ugly things were practiced in the West, as well. The thing is that these crimes were *abolished* here. Of course, you can disagree.
More:
Although I’m assured there is’ respect for me and my comments’ offence was taken to my contribution. In a subsequent post, I made it clear that no offence was intended, and that I was merely pointing out that marital rape has been part of Western legal systems for many decades, and was only abolished recently. Other people were unaware of this, and seemed to appreciate the information. None of that seemed to make any difference. Offence was still taken.
………………………..
I was not offended–I just disagreed with your conclusions that this means we lack the moral high ground in opposing this.
More:
It seems that, if someone posts, even if that person posting has made his or her stand on Islam clear in many previous posts, offence will be taken if the words of the post can, in any way, be construed to allow such offence to be taken. Surely the clear lesson for people like me is to post as seldom as possible, and then to be very careful of the words used? And that is basically what I was saying I would now do, in my previous post. I wasn’t necessarily saying I would stop posting all together, although that could still happen.
………………………..
I don’t think that respect for someone means that one must keep quiet in case of disagreement–especially over such a terrible issue. Again, you may think differently about this.
More:
2. Re the above, I’m not saying I’m a tender hothouse flower, who can’t bear any criticism. I am saying that if a known poster says something that another regular considers offensive, then maybe the person posting should be given some latitude, and the benefit of the doubt. Maybe the offence was not intended. I’m still unclear on exactly how I caused offence, and what it is I’m supposed to have said or inferred. Was anyone else offended? However, at this late stage, I no longer care.
………………………..
Again, I was not offended.
More:
3. It would be lovely if contributors could speak freely on this blog, and perhaps be aided in their quest for knowledge, and encouraged by others. From my perspective, that does not appear to be so. There seem to be certain ‘no go areas,’ and areas of groupthink, from which one deviates at one’s peril. The tone really is quite adversarial, and it seems to me quite legitimate to speak of ‘winning’ and ‘losing.’
To illustrate:
………………………..
How have you been prevented from speaking freely here? So far as I know, all of your posts have come through just fine.
And I *have* encouraged you here several times, as I indicated above. And save for a few extreme matters such as threatening other posters (which is *clearly* not the case with either of us), there are no no go areas here. There are some things that many here agree on–but there are many issues where you find sometimes sharp differences of opinion. And why not? There are people here from six different continents, men and women, ages teen to nonagenarians, many religions or none, differing political views, etc, All of us are figuring out the best ways of successfully opposing Jihad and Shari’ah.
More:
4. I firmly believe that Islam is not a religion. I further believe that Western countries, in permitting Islam to claim the status of a religion, are sewing (sic) the seeds of their own destruction. It seems utterly ridiculous to me to say that Islam is evil, it is dangerous, it preaches intolerance, it will not coexist with others and all those other defects, and then say that Islam is a recognised religion, it is entitled to statutory and constitutional protection, it is entitled to taxpayer funding to establish schools and establish worship centres, and it will be protected by anti-discrimination legislation.
………………………..
I have *never* said that public monies should go to funding Islam–really, you are *quite* mistaken. Saying that Islam is a religion by definition does not mean that we have to fund it. Moreover, there is nothing in the US Constitution that says that any faith must be taxpayer funded.
More:
5. If I dare to say that on this blog, I will be attacked, personally abused and accused of believing all religions must be good (I don’t) and of not realizing that Islam fits within the accepted legal definitions of ‘religion’ (as it happens, I do know that, and am quite familiar with the cases on religion in my own jurisdiction).
………………………..
Of course you can say it–you just did. I have never attacked or abused you, and am not doing so now.
More:
6. If Islam does indeed fit within the definition of a ‘religion,’ then I believe our definitions are defective, and that ‘religion’ needs to be defined much more carefully, in a way that excludes totalitarian and fascistic Islam. This was why I spoke about the definition of ‘religion’ in my earlier post. If we don’t do that, if we continue to give Islam sanctuary and protection in the West, many Western countries will not survive. Again, in my earlier post, I tried to point out the calamitous results of that.
………………………..
I don’t believe that we should have to change our words or their meanings for Islam, nor change the First Amendment for it, either. The First Amendment is a foundational document crucial to maintaining our freedoms. Like everything else, you can of course disagree,
More:
7. It would be advantageous if anti-Jihad sites like this one could grasp the nettle, and turn their collective minds to this question of ‘what is a religion’. Rebecca Bynum might be a good starting point. The ultimate survival of many Western nations might be at stake.
………………………..
I have great respect for Rebecca Bynum, and in fact corresponded with her for a time when she was editor at the New English Review. But I disagree with her here. Most people understand that Islam is a religion by all definitions (although not all understand that it is an evil religion). So I don’t think that trying to change the definition of our words for Islam is either wise or useful.
I think that exposing the evil of Islam is more rational and, again, more useful. As with everything else, you may disagree if you want to.
More:
8. I doubt anything like that would ever happen on this site, though, because I doubt it would be allowed. It’s much easier to denigrate and abuse those trying to exercise original thought and ask unpalatable questions.
If I, or indeed anyone struggling with these issues, were to continue contributing to this site, would we really make a difference? Would we ever be allowed to speak freely?
………………………..
This is silly–you have not been disallowed from saying anything you like here. And–again–politely disagreeing with someone is *not* denigration or abuse. And saying that Islam is not a religion is not all that original–other posters here periodically make the same claim.
And we are *all* struggling with how best to oppose Islam.
Your claim–yet again–that you have somehow been censored here makes no sense. Of course you can speak freely. Others can speak freely, as well.
I will most likely leave things here at this point.
Gray says
I will too. Goodbye.
TruthWFree says
The God of Christians and Jews is the God of Abraham, no question. From Abraham to Muhammad was 2600 years and the Arabs worshiped all sorts of gods in the Kaaba in that time but to my knowledge never the God of Abraham. The Quran is supposed to be the word of the allah god to Muhammad via the being in the cave starting in 610 AD. Mo later claimed it was Gabriel but at first he thought he was possessed by a demon and his wife Khadija convinced him it was from God. The Quran, their god’s supposed word, says Jesus was only a prophet and that he did not die on the cross. These are LIES against the eye witnessed Gospels. Muhammad had no witnesses to his revelations and did not perform any miracles. I have studied Islam since 9/11/2001 including reading the Quran and over 30 books on Islam, many by apostates who leave at the risk of death for apostasy. Jesus Christ says in John 8:44 that Satan is the father of all lies and one of the names of the allah god is the greatest of deceivers. I logically conclude that the allah god of Islam is Satan,and he has deceived over 1 billion Muslims and also this apostate Pope Francis or Bergoglio or who ever.
FYI says
“The messenger of allah said ‘the most hated of men before allah on the day of resurrection,and the most wretched,and the man most hated to him,WILL be a MAN who was called the King of Kings{malik al amlak} for there is no king but allah’
{Sahih Muslim volume 5 hadith #5611}
allah’s adversary is not ‘shaitan’:it is a MAN with this title,a MAN who WILL be present on the day of resurrection in opposition to ‘allah’
Who is the man that was/is called the ‘king of kings’ ?
That’s the one in Revs 19:16
allah is ‘the BEST of deceivers’ {koran 3:54}and his greatest enemy is a MAN called the king of kings.That makes allah antiChrist and you know what Biblical prophecy teaches about the fate of all antiChrist ideologies{islam,fascism,communism,globalism,false versions of christianity etc }
allah cannot be the Biblical God because the koran does not conform to the Laws of Moses and the teachings of all the prophets.
Gray says
Graven Image, as is obvious, I was angry when I wrote the last post. I’m still pretty raw, and would prefer not to comment further at this stage. However you are asking further questions, and expressing regret that I may be pulling back as a commentator here, and asking even more questions. Very well. I’ll endeavour to answer your questions now, although I would prefer not to say anything at all now, waiting at least until after I have calmed down. I haven’t calmed down yet. So I trust you will forgive me if I am very blunt, and tell it as I see it.
1. May I say that I am heartily sick of the topic of marital rape, and devoutly wish I had never said anything. Although I’m assured there is’ respect for me and my comments’ offence was taken to my contribution. In a subsequent post, I made it clear that no offence was intended, and that I was merely pointing out that marital rape has been part of Western legal systems for many decades, and was only abolished recently. Other people were unaware of this, and seemed to appreciate the information. None of that seemed to make any difference. Offence was still taken. It seems that, if someone posts, even if that person posting has made his or her stand on Islam clear in many previous posts, offence will be taken if the words of the post can, in any way, be construed to allow such offence to be taken. Surely the clear lesson for people like me is to post as seldom as possible, and then to be very careful of the words used? And that is basically what I was saying I would now do, in my previous post. I wasn’t necessarily saying I would stop posting all together, although that could still happen.
2. Re the above, I’m not saying I’m a tender hothouse flower, who can’t bear any criticism. I am saying that if a known poster says something that another regular considers offensive, then maybe the person posting should be given some latitude, and the benefit of the doubt. Maybe the offence was not intended. I’m still unclear on exactly how I caused offence, and what it is I’m supposed to have said or inferred. Was anyone else offended? However, at this late stage, I no longer care.
3. It would be lovely if contributors could speak freely on this blog, and perhaps be aided in their quest for knowledge, and encouraged by others. From my perspective, that does not appear to be so. There seem to be certain ‘no go areas,’ and areas of groupthink, from which one deviates at one’s peril. The tone really is quite adversarial, and it seems to me quite legitimate to speak of ‘winning’ and ‘losing.’
To illustrate:
4. I firmly believe that Islam is not a religion. I further believe that Western countries, in permitting Islam to claim the status of a religion, are sewing the seeds of their own destruction. It seems utterly ridiculous to me to say that Islam is evil, it is dangerous, it preaches intolerance, it will not coexist with others and all those other defects, and then say that Islam is a recognised religion, it is entitled to statutory and constitutional protection, it is entitled to taxpayer funding to establish schools and establish worship centres, and it will be protected by anti-discrimination legislation.
5. If I dare to say that on this blog, I will be attacked, personally abused and accused of believing all religions must be good (I don’t) and of not realizing that Islam fits within the accepted legal definitions of ‘religion’ (as it happens, I do know that, and am quite familiar with the cases on religion in my own jurisdiction).
6. If Islam does indeed fit within the definition of a ‘religion,’ then I believe our definitions are defective, and that ‘religion’ needs to be defined much more carefully, in a way that excludes totalitarian and fascistic Islam. This was why I spoke about the definition of ‘religion’ in my earlier post. If we don’t do that, if we continue to give Islam sanctuary and protection in the West, many Western countries will not survive. Again, in my earlier post, I tried to point out the calamitous results of that.
7. It would be advantageous if anti-Jihad sites like this one could grasp the nettle, and turn their collective minds to this question of ‘what is a religion’. Rebecca Bynum might be a good starting point. The ultimate survival of many Western nations might be at stake.
8. I doubt anything like that would ever happen on this site, though, because I doubt it would be allowed. It’s much easier to denigrate and abuse those trying to exercise original thought and ask unpalatable questions.
If I, or indeed anyone struggling with these issues, were to continue contributing to this site, would we really make a difference? Would we ever be allowed to speak freely?
JamesC. says
If a god in a story creates a host of angelic beings, and one of those created beings rebels and poses as a creator-god, and is identified with his Creator by the rebel angel’s worshippers: is the rebel angel his Creator ?
Ascribing the same attributes to God, and to a false god, does not mean that both beings are identical. And Mahometan allah rejects crucial elements of the New Testament. So the Mahometan worship-object cannot be identical with the God of the NT.
King Kong and Harambe have some things in common – it does not follow that they are identical as one individual.
George Bush, George Bush, George Washington, George Floyd, and King George III were all men, & were all called George. So by some people’s reasoning, George Floyd must have been King of Great Britain, crossed the Delaware River, fought two wars with Iraq, and been President of the USA, after which he was killed in 2020. They are all called by the same name, so – supposedly – they must be the same individual.
JamesC. says
Marduk, the patron god of the holy city of Babylon, and supreme god of the Babylonian pantheon, is called “merciful” in prayers offered to him.
The God of Christians is called “merciful”.
So according to some people, the God of Christians would be identical with Marduk.
Marduk’s father is Ea, the god of wisdom
Marduk’s mother is the goddes Damkina
Marduk’s wife is the goddess Sarpanitum
Marduk’s son is Nabu, the god of scribes
So apparently, the God of Chriistians would have the same divine relatives as Marduk.
Marduk’s sacred beast is the mush-hush-shu dragon. If the God of Christians were identical with Marduk, that dragon would be the sacred beast of the God of Christians.
The logic of identifying the God of Christians with the Mahometan allah leads to equally ludicrous results.
Seeking Deliverance says
Islam is religious plagiarism nothing more. I would NEVER say Islam (Muslims) have (nor do they worship) the same God as Christians/Jews.
TruthWFree says
AGREED!!!
livingengine says
CAIR attacks Catholic priest Nick Vandenbroeke on the notorious TV station KMSP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttESCqQDQ3M
talleyrand says
CAIR opens its mouth andthe bullshit flows,backed by media hacks with a mike in their hands
GOOD ON THE PRIEST
FYI says
Do you know what muhammed would wonder if he saw Jaylani Hussein?
Where can I get another one:i need two….?
Sahih muslim 3901
Wellington says
Aside from once again illustrating what a disaster Vatican II was, this article by Robert Spencer reveals so much. You bet.
Yes, I know Pope John XXIII {1958-1963}, who called Vatican II, was a beloved man in his time but he was, nevertheless, a fool because he tried to fix something that wasn’t broken and the debacle of Vatican II is the result (and confirmed by that bureaucratic mediocrity who succeeded John XXIII, Paul VI {1963-1978}).
Thus, and taking into account that we live in an age over the past two hundred years or so when information can be distributed far faster then in previous times, John XXIII can arguably be put down as just about the most destructive Pope in history. Oh yeah, he was well intentioned, but good intentions without proper knowledge, shrewdness, common sense, wisdom, et al. is either worthless or often times worse than worthless. John XXIII serves as Exhibit #1 here. He did a lot of damage and one knows this or should know it.
As for the Islamic deity, I have long argued that either: 1) this entity is the same as the Judeo-Christian deity but horribly bastardized and distorted; or 2) this entity is not the same as the Judeo-Christian deity, perhaps some silly Moon deity derivative from the pre-Islamic Arabian peninsula, and thus a total rip-off of the Judeo-conception of a monotheistic deity by Mohammedans.
Whichever, it doesn’t really matter because Islam, virtually all of it, is so terribly wrong. Rather like the phantom distinction between Obama not being a Muslim or Obama actually secretly being a Muslim—whichever, it had essentially the same result, that being a disaster for the American Republic and the cause of freedom since dhimmis excusing Islam and Muslims excusing Islam have the same effect.
curious george says
Nothing new here, it’s the same ole bullsh*t.
The Roman Catholic Church is not going to change its position on the teaching of Vatican II. We can bi*ch and complain until the cows come home, nothing will change. The powers that be, will continue to live a life of luxury, while steadily defending the teachings of Vatican II, and the rest of us can eat cake.
This is “data overload” just another depressing story in a long line of depressing stories.
JamesC. says
Totally agree: The CC has committed suicide. Maybe it was always rotten to the core, but better at hiding the rot than now.
There are good things in Vatican 2, but the nonsense about islam’s god is not one of them.
Wellington says
What are the good things in Vatican II? I would be interested in knowing.
gravenimage says
Pope Benedict was not a dhimmi apologist for Islam.
JamesC. says
He backed down from his criticisms in the Regensburg Address – a massive error.
He was party to “A Common Word”, which paved the way for PF’s Abu Dhabi document: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Common_Word_Between_Us_and_You
Text of ACW: https://www.acommonword.com/
Answering Islam responds: https://www.answering-islam.org/authors/green/acommonword.html
Lots of B16 on Islam here: https://www.usccb.org/committees/ecumenical-interreligious-affairs/vatican-council-and-papal-statements-islam
– scroll down.
B16 is no better than the other dhimmi popes since 1964.
gravenimage says
Perhaps I should have said Benedict was better initially, James.
Wellington says
I think the “retreat” by Benedict was not due to a change of conviction but rather a realization that lives needed to be preserved against the barbarism which is the Islamic faith, which has no good in which can’t be found elsewhere and much wrong in it which is difficult to find anywhere else.
gravenimage says
Agreed, Wellington.
staffsgt7 says
A few years ago I used to comment about how come the Church Militant don’t bring up the blasphemy in the Vatican II catechism. He never really responded. I used to send him proof that allah was not God and more easily comparable to Satan! And also brought up the blasphemy of islam regarding God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. I am glad the Robert Spencer is talking to them in Church Militant about this.
JamesC. says
If the Mohammedan god is the God of Christians, why does the Mohammedan god disagree with the teaching of the great prophet Jesus, in the Gospel, about such things as marriage, and love of enemies, and so forth ?
The Mohammedan god is no more the same as the God of Christians than Thor, Osiris, Manannán, Garuda, Enlil, Quetzalcoatl, Mot, or indeed Lovecraft’s Hziulquoigmnzhah or Azathoth are.
Mohammedan allah has no more claim to be identified as the God of the Bible and Christianity than any other false god has.
A religion that cannot get right very very basic issues such as the identity of the God it supposedly worships, cannot be trusted to be right about the inferences it draws from the identity of that worship or that God. To call this error mischievous and catastrophic does not begin to describe it adequately.
It is of course, always possible that the Vatican is engaging in studied ambiguity, rather than saying out right and unequivocally that the Muhammadan allah and the God of Christians are one and the same. But the official Church explanation of those words has been that Mahometan allah is the same as the God of Christians. And ambiguity on such a point is inexcusable, and corrupts the faith of Catholics.
Wellington says
Easy per Muslimthink (which I deplore). To wit, Jesus was misquoted, distorted, etc. After all, if you’re going to deny the Crucifixion and Resurrection, which Islam most certainly does (particularly in Sura 4), then dismissing “the love of your enemies” stuff, et al. is a pretty easy matter.
Islam can never sink too low (or edit the OT and NT egregiously to its purposes). This serves as a solid starting point for understanding the monstrous religion which is Islam.
TruthWFree says
Agreed! IMO the allah god is Satan. See my post below.
curious george says
JamesC,
Good points.
The corner stone, the very foundation of the Christian Faith, is the “death and resurrection” of Yeshua HaMashich.
“Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.”
1 Corinthians 15:12-14
Islam denies the very foundation of Christianity. Both can’t be true.
“Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.”
– Matthew 7:20
TruthWFree says
The supposed allah god of the Quran (Muslims believe) says that Jesus was not divine and did not die on the cross. These are lies against the eye witnessed Gospels. The allah god says he has no sons in the Quran. The alllah god also Exhorts Muslims to fight and subjugate Christians in Sura 9-29. Jesus says in John 8:44 that “Satan is the father of all lies”. My logical conclusion is that the allah god of Islam is Satan. He has deceived over a billion Muslims and Islam is a recipe for eternal fighting among man. Satan has to be pleased with his religion Islam. The Gospels were written by eye witnesses. Muhammad had NO witnesses and no miracles.
Durand Garcia says
There is only one conclusion to be drawn by the facts you present. In addition, Mohammad traveled to Medina where he was told there would be a tribe that worshiped one god – allah. Mohammad declared himself the prophet of this pagan god called allah. That does not make allah the God of Abraham. We know that all pagan gods are demons. Allah is Satan. 350 million murdered and counting, countless rapes, slavery and racism, what other reasonable conclusion can be drawn from this.
somehistory says
Just say “no.” moslims say “no.” But then, the way the pope talks and his fellow henchmen, speaking for themselves only, but claiming to spake for all, they claim that moslims worship the same deity.
Of course, since moslims actually spurn the Bible and its description of our Creator…loving, kind, wise, Truthful, Just, and having a Son Who came to earth and “resided among men,” to save everyone who wishes to be saved, moslims can’ possibly be worshiping the same God as Christians and Jews.
Since Catholics say they are Christian, then how can any agree that they worship the same deity as moslims? The fake ‘god’ of the moslims, written about in their filthy book…is a liar of the first order; a murderer, unjust, unholy, depraved, demands moslims worship murder and rape while lying about everything to promote islam.
Such a contrast between the Holy One of the Bible and the unholy, evil demon responsible for islam, satan the devil.
gravenimage says
Somehistory, it is not just Catholics who are ignorant about this. Here are confused Lutherans:
“Christians and Muslims: Do They Worship the Same God?”
https://www.elca.org/JLE/Articles/963
And Episcopalians:
“Do Christians and Muslims Worship the Same God?”
https://www.sainttimothys.com/rogers-blog/2017/1/18/do-christians-and-muslims-worship-the-same-god
There are others, as well.
somehistory says
Yes, g,
I know there are idiots everywhere. the only reason I wrote “Catholics” is because the headline…cannot read the entire thingy…was about a Catholic spokesman and what their papers say about this subject. Stupidity does not discriminate. It will spread any place, to anyone, who is willing to be stupid, esp in this day we are living.
If not for the “blind leading the blind” there would not be so many moslims in this country being helped by people of every denomination that claims to follow Christ.
If not for the “blind,” there would not be so many lies being told…by the clergy and the “flocks” they are leading.
When the “blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit.”
Thanks for providing the links that others who didn’t know about the Lutherans, etc. , can read for themselves the proof of what you wrote. The Truth about the lies being told, the excuses made, the evil that is spreading, needs wide coverage. 🙂
gravenimage says
Thanks, Somehistory–you are right. Lots of stupidity and denial to go around right now–and the Catholic Church does tend to be among the worst, starting with the pontiff himself.
On other matters, when will you be able to get surgery?
somehistory says
Surgery is scheduled for early October. A few more weeks. I’m a little afraid, but have to go with it. Thanks for asking.
gravenimage says
Best of luck, Somehistory!
curious george says
Gravenimage.
Thank you for the information.
Christianity is under attack from many sources, the church in the West is declining at an alarming rate as it has been infiltrated by false teachers and the Gospel is being watered down. Below are a few more issues the church is dealing with.
7 Biblical Arguments Against ‘Grave Soaking’
https://www.charismanews.com/opinion/the-pulse/49952-7-biblical-arguments-against-grave-soaking
How the Deception of Tolerance and ‘Chrislam’ Is Destroying America
https://www.charismanews.com/culture/53942-how-the-deception-of-tolerance-and-chrislam-is-destroying-america
The New Age Church
https://christinprophecy.org/articles/the-new-age-church/
gravenimage says
curious george, thanks for those links. I had to look up “grave soaking”, which I had never heard of–definitely *not* a Christian concept.
And the “New Age” church is rampant out here in California, as you might imagine.
Most concerning of all is “Christlam”, though–whitewashing Islam for Christians, and stealthily introducing the horrors of Shari’ah to civilized Christians (and needless to say, “Christlam” does not actually blunt the savagery of Islam at all).
curious george says
gravenimage,
You’re welcome. 🙂
Down Under Observer says
Muslims believe there is more than one god. When they cry, “Allah akbar “ – ie our god is greater than your god – they are comparing their god to at least one other god, if not many others. Now there’s your pretzel.
Seeking Deliverance says
Exactly. Moreover, Islam itself is not a religion per say but an ideology and Islam is nothing more than religious plagiarism.
Mauricio says
Robert Spencer wrote:
“But the ecumenical council says otherwise, and so either its teachings must be accepted and justified, or Catholics find themselves in a crisis of authority that calls into question some of the foremost dogmas of their Church about the authority of the popes and councils.”
—————-
+1
Mateen says
It is rightly said that there is only one true God, who has revealed Himself through the Bible and preeminently in the incarnation of His Son. It is equally true that there are many close (and not so close) counterfeits. Allah is one of those counterfeits.
gravenimage says
Well put, Mateen.
OLD GUY says
If we worship the same god as the ecumenical council claims, why are the followers of Islam so hell bent on killing Christians and Jewish worshipers of their vary same god?
I don’t think the Popes is going to convince the Islamic followers we all worship the same God.
Rarely says
Interesting question. Logically there can only be one supreme being — I chose to call that supreme being “God”. Whatever attributes I assign to that “God” does not change His (Her, Its) nature one iota. Different religions and sects attribute various different characteristics to that supreme being. More often than not the attributed characteristics and motives are human which, of course, is ridiculous. As if we can understand the infinite. One characteristic I know God must have is a sense of humour.
.
curious george says
Rarely,
Interesting comments, thank you for posting.
Anyone remember the “Thrilla in Manila,” Muhammad Ali vs Joe Frazier?
That was thrilling but not as thrilling as the “Thrilla in Egypt,” the gods of the Egyptians vs the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
That was a 10 rounder, ending with Pharaoh being drowned in the Red Sea. Now, all these centuries later, the Jews are still standing, a little battered and bruised from centuries of abuse, but, as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has promised, they are back in the land of milk and honey.
Anyone who doubts the existence of God, just look at the Jewish people, back in their own land with their original Hebrew language after being dispersed all over the world for nearly 2000 years.
The Regathering of the Jewish People
https://christinprophecy.org/articles/the-regathering-of-the-jewish-people/
James says
JamesC: Catholics do not believe that Mary is a goddess. She is a created creature, a created child of God. Created beings are not god-like. There is but one God. Jesus elevated her to Queen of Heaven status (Revelations), but it is not as a god.
curious george says
James says
JamesC: Catholics do not believe that Mary is a goddess. She is a created creature, a created child of God. Created beings are not god-like. There is but one God. Jesus elevated her to Queen of Heaven status (Revelations), but it is not as a god.
………………………………….
Please explain the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church that Mary in giving birth to Our Lord and Savior, Yeshua HaMashiach, did so pain free and retained her virginity?
“The troublesome part is the middle — Mary’s virginity in giving birth to Christ. We remember that one of the sufferings inherited because of original sin is that of “child bearing pains”: The Lord God said to Eve, “I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children.” (Gen 3:16) Since Mary was free of original sin by her Immaculate Conception, she would be free of “child bearing pain.” In wrestling with this belief, the early Church Fathers then struggled to explain this virginity.”
Mary’s Virginity During Jesus’ Birth
https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/mary-s-virginity-during-jesus-birth.html
And now from Chapter 12 of the Book of The Revelation of Yeshua HaMashiach.
And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was pregnant and ***was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth.***
Revelation 12:1-2 (ESV)
Both can’t be correct. It’s either the Bible is the infallible Word of God or the “tradition” of the Roman Catholic supersedes the Bible.
suburbanbanshee says
Actually, the standard early Christian way of explaining this was that the Christian who gets the rod of iron by overcoming is birthed by the Church, in a close but not exact parallel to how Jesus was birthed by Mary. Just as Christ and the Christian who overcomes are a connected pair, so are Mary and the Church/Israel. For nine months, Mary was literally the Ark of the Covenant, and the Church is also the Ark in an ongoing way. And so on. The bishops are paired up with angels. The bad guys are paired up with other bad guys.
The Book of Revelation recaps all of salvation history up to the point of writing, as well as talking about what can be expected all the time for the Church, as well as what will happen at the end of the world and after. The forward and back rhythm is noted in all the earliest commentaries.
It’s a complicated book; and it draws on pretty much every book of the OT, if you read it in Greek and compare it to the Septuagint. Deep stuff; but it’s not impenetrable.
suburbanbanshee says
So whether you read it as the Church birthing a Christian, or Mary spiritually birthing a Christian in her role as Mother of the Church, you can be assured that birthing someone to suffer persecution will indeed result in labor pains, just as Mary spiritually felt worse than birthing pains on Calvary, because she was watching her Son die.
And again, all this stuff is covered in very early works of the Fathers, Bible commentaries, et al. If you’re looking for early Christianity’s teachings from Jesus and the Apostles, there you go.
FYI says
Regarding that Book of Revelations:it is a detailed amplification of what is neatly summarized in the Parable of the Net {Matthew 13 v 49-50}and the Book of Daniel in the OT.
ALL prophecies in the OT and NT come from a particular Wisdom source{i.e via the Holy Spirit} and this source is required to properly understand Biblical prophecy
{2 Peter 1 v 20-21}
Two ways to read it…
1]without the Wisdom source {which may lead to error}
2]with the Wisdom source{2 Peter 1 v 20-21}{which will not lead to error}
“allah” has no concept of this Wisdom source.In fact in koran 5:116 allah has MARY in his misunderstanding of the Trinity.Note what it means for allah to have missed the Holy Spirit.
The author of the koran obviously heard about the Christian Doctrine but he gets it all wrong {koran 4;171}.”cease say not three it is better for you” but one of the three is the Holy Spirit!That is where prophecy comes from and allah missed it…allah prefers muslims do not know about this Wisdom source.
gravenimage says
True, James. The Catholic Church does not claim that Mary created and maintained her own virginity. This is considered a miracle of God’s, just as Christ in human form is a miracle.
Whether one personally accepts this or not is another issue.
Jan Favre says
The basic alliance of Yahweh and Abraham through Isaac open the subsequent alliances at Sinai then through Christ. The basic alliance iBRAHIM AND ALLAH THROUGH iSMAEL LEADS TO MUHAMAD.Both alliances are incompatible and the God concept of Orthodox Christianity is not the same as in Orthodox Islam, hence Allah is not the same as Yahweh. Nostrae Aetete of Vatican II is an heresy.
Larry says
Jesus was a prophet of peace, love and forgiveness. Mohammed was a violent, sadistic warlord. Take your pick.
robyt says
I think the dogma of “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” is self explanatory to all these arguments. Also a detailed explanation is within articles of the CCC from 846 to 848.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/p123a9p3_lt.htm#Paragraphus%203%20ECCLESIA%20EST%20UNA,%20SANCTA,%20%20CATHOLICA%20ET%20APOSTOLICA
The main problem is not the article 816 (which can lead to confusion if taken alone, but disregarding all the CCC and the dogma). The real problem is the venomous idea of ecumenism, which has not brought any good fruit.