In response to Tim Staples’ article here, I sent these three points to Church Militant:
1. Mr. Staples argues at great length that the Vatican II statement that God’s plan of salvation includes Muslims means only that God desires them to be saved. No Christian could possibly disagree with that, and that is not what is actually controverted about the phrase. The ambiguity is not in the Church Militant article, but in the Vatican II statement itself. Many observers have noted that Vatican II maintains a posture of studied ambiguity, making statements that were intentionally vague and can be taken in any number of ways. All too many people, Catholic and non-Catholic, have taken the phrase about the “plan of salvation” to mean not just that God desires Muslims to be saved, but that Islam is itself a salvific faith. This has led to many Catholics thinking that it is wrong not only to share the Gospel with Muslims, but wrong even to criticize the Muslim persecution of Christians and to note Islam’s denial of basic Christian teachings: speaking these unwelcome truths has become in many areas of the Church synonymous with uncharity. That is, I believe, a disastrous effect of Vatican II’s ambiguity.
2. The same can be said of Mr. Staples’ second point. He is right that as fellow monotheists, Muslims are worshipping the one true God while being unaware of many of His attributes. St. Paul says the same thing of pagan Greeks in Acts 17. But here again, the problem is with the ambiguity of the Vatican II text. I have spoken to many Catholic groups and always encountered Catholics who believed that it was wrong to oppose even jihad violence and Sharia-based oppression of women and others because the Church taught that we worshiped the same God. The phrase can be interpreted in an orthodox manner, as can the phrase about the plan of salvation, but it can also be taken in a way that leads to numerous blind alleys and outright heresies, including indifferentism and the relativization of all religious ideas without regard for truth. I hope Mr. Staples’ interpretations will win out in the Catholic Church. They haven’t yet. In fact, the Pope has just quoted the Qur’an in an encyclical, which will lead many Catholics to believe that the Qur’an is holy writ.
3. Mr. Staples then acknowledges that Vatican II was a pastoral council that made no dogmatic statements, but invokes the responsibility that Catholics have to assent to its teachings anyway. Here again, there is ambiguity and clarification is needed. Mr. Staples is basing his view on this statement from Lumen Gentium: “This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.” All right. But what character of document must be assented to, and what character of document need not be? How many times must a doctrine be repeated before all Catholics must give religious submission of mind and will to it? What manner of speaking conveys that assent is required? I have been told by a Catholic cleric that I must believe that Islam is a religion of peace because several Popes have said words to this effect, and therefore he believes it falls within this category of doctrines to which Catholics must give assent. Yet I know this to be a false statement, based on years of study of Islam’s core texts, doctrines, and history. Consequently, this cleric maintained that I was a heretic. This presents a problem far larger than my individual case. If the Church is requiring assent to claims that are demonstrably false, this will cause millions of believers to have a crisis of faith. The nature of this assent, the conditions for it, and to what it is applicable — all this and more must be clarified. It looks as if Mr. Staples and I don’t really disagree on the issues at hand here. But there are deeper issues that all this raises that could cause considerable trouble for the Church if they are not addressed, and there is no sign that they will be anytime in the foreseeable future.
“Tim Staples: Allah, Trinity Refer to Same God,” by Jules Gomes, ChurchMilitant.com, October 8, 2020:
SAN DIEGO (ChurchMilitant.com) – Catholic apologist Tim Staples has reiterated his support for controversial Vatican II claims about Islam, clarifying explicitly that Allah and the Holy Trinity refer to the same God.
Church Militant asked Staples if his position could be summed up in the proposition: “The Allah of the Koran is the Holy Trinity of Christians.”
Staples responded: “I don’t think you yet understand the position of the Catholic Church. Even though it is true that ‘Allah’ and the Blessed Trinity are each referring to the same God.”
“You seem to want to imply by that, that unless you accept the truth of the Trinity, you are talking about another God. That is not true,” he explained.
Confusion Rooted in Vatican II
The theological postulate that “Islam’s God is also the same God as worshipped by Catholics,” as British theologian and academic Gavin D’Costa phrases it, appears for the first time in Catholic teaching in Vatican II in Nostra Aetate 3 and Lumen Gentium 16.
Robert Spencer, author of 21 books on Islam, noted he had no difficulty with Staples’ claim that the Vatican II statement that God’s plan of salvation includes Muslims meant “only that God desires them to be saved” and “no Christian could possibly disagree with that.”
However, “many observers have noted that Vatican II maintains a posture of studied ambiguity, making statements that were intentionally vague and can be taken in any number of ways,” Spencer explained.
“I have spoken to many Catholic groups and always encountered Catholics who believed that it was wrong to oppose even jihad violence and Sharia-based oppression of women and others because the Church taught that we worshiped the same God,” he continued, adding:
The “same God” phrase can be interpreted in an orthodox manner, as can the phrase about the plan of salvation, but it can also be taken in a way that leads to numerous blind alleys and outright heresies, including indifferentism and the relativization of all religious ideas without regard for truth. In fact, the pope has just quoted the Qur’an in an encyclical, which will lead many Catholics to believe that the Qur’an is holy writ.
Staples later responded: “When you say, ‘Is the God of the Koran the Blessed Trinity,’ that cannot be answered with a yes or no answer. Some will take that to mean the Church is saying the Koran is inspired or something like that.”
Staples elaborated:
Of course, the Catholic Church acknowledges that the Qur’an is not the inspired word of God. It is filled with errors. … There is little doubt that Satan, the Father of Lies, has inspired much of what we find in the Qur’an. But that does not mean that the Qur’an does not acknowledge what the Devil himself acknowledges — ‘you believe God is one, you do well, the demons believe and tremble’ (James 2:19).
“It seems to me if people want truth, they go beyond six-word statements and try to ascertain truth,” Staples remarked.
Scant Evidence, Ample Interpretation
Staples, however, does not provide evidence of a Catholic magisterial document which states that “the Qur’an is not the inspired word of God” or is filled with error.
Indeed, as Islamic scholar David Marshall observes, “since no explicit theology of the Qur’an is stated either in the conciliar documents or indeed in post-conciliar teaching, the field has been open for Catholic scholars to argue for a range of approaches.” Catholic scholars, he says, are “at the positive end of the spectrum,” claiming that “the Qur’an is ‘an authentic Word of God, but one in part essentially different from the one in Jesus Christ.'”
Pope St. John Paul II kissed the Qur’an in public. Pope Francis quotes the Qur’an approvingly in his latest encyclical, Fratelli Tutti.
In his 2013 apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, Francis affirmed the Qur’an as “sacred writings of Islam [that] have retained some Christian teachings,” adding that “the proper reading of the Koran [is] opposed to every form of violence.”…
Walter Sieruk says
An error that is ignorant and foolish is also awful is that ,many times, it has been declared by a number of apologists for Islam, some are imams and mullahs and strangely enough, even some so called “Christian” priests and pastors, who don’t really obey the instruction of the Bible against such folly, as in Ephesians 5:11.II Timothy 3:16. Those “Christian” clerics have even made the outlandish claim that Christians and Muslim both believe in and worship the same God. So it stands to reason that it’s important to know if this claims valid and true or invalid and false.
The facts are that the god of Islam or the Muslims is a single being. In great contrast the God of Christianity, of the Christians consists as the Trinity. By the Trinity it means that “Within the essence of the one True God there are Three Persons. Being God the Father. God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Not three gods in one But Three Distinct Persons in One God. Being the Tri-Personal Nature of God, Matthew 3:13-17. Second Corinthians 13:14. . The Bible teaches, the Father is God, Galatians 1:1.The Son is God, First John 5:20. The Holy Spirit is God, Acts 5:3,4. Not three gods but the one and only Triune God.
As further explained in the Christian book MAJOR BIBLE THEMES by Lewis Sperry Chafer on page 39 which informs the readers that “Many believe that the doctrine of the Trinity in implicit in the use of the word Elohim, as the name of God which is in a plural form and seems to refer to the Triune God. “ Likewise, in the Christian magazine PERHAPS TODAY November/December 2013 on page 8 it reads about Genesis 1:1. “In the beginning God [this is the plural noun Elohim, meaning ‘more than one’] created the heaven and the earth.” Furthermore, a bit of a view of the inner workings of the Trinity together may be seen in that the God the Father raised Jesus from the dead. Romans 10:9,10. Jesus raised Himself from the dead, John 2:19,20. The Holy Spirit raised Jesus from the dead, Romans 8:11.The inner-workings of the Trinity of God may also be seen in the fact that the Father sanctifies, First Thessalonians 5:23. The Son sanctifies, Ephesians 5:26. Hebrews 2:11; 9:12,14;13:12.The Holy Spirit sanctifies ,Romans 15:16. Second Thessalonians 2:13. Getting back to the Bible book of Genesis. In Genesis 1:26 in reads “The God said let US make man in Our image , according to our likeness…” The words are the plural “Us” and “Our.” As in “We the Trinity” For the very next verse, 27, it further reads “So God created man in His own image…” In verse 26 it’s the plural “Us” and “Our” to the singular “His” That is Three Persons in One God.
In addition, in the New Testament in Matthew 28:19 It further reads the Jesus said “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the the Son and the Holy Spirit.” [N.K.J.V] That is “name” not “names.” In conclusion the many apologists and propagandists for Islam for Islam who make the claim that Christians and Muslims believe in and worship the same God are make an untrue and outright false claim. For the God of Christianity, Christians and the Bible is not the god of Islam Muslims and the Koran.
There is the Christian internet site which replies the many different claims made by the imams and mullahs as well as the other apologists for Islam. It’s http://www.answering-islam.org
Walter Sieruk says
The scholar as well as author, Nabeel Qureshi of the book entitled ANSWERING JIHAD who in the past was a Muslim but now a Christian had explained clearly that god of Islam is not the God of the Bible. For on page 113 in his book he informs the reader that “Islam roundly condemns worship of the Trinity [5:73], establishing in contrast its own core principle of Tawhid, the absolute oneness of God. Tawhid emphatically denies the Trinity; so much that it is safe to say the doctrine of God in Islam is antithetical to the doctrine of God in Christianity. Not just different but opposed.” Further on page 116 he elaborates that “Tawhid is antithetical to the Trinity, fundamentally incompatible and only similar superficially and semantically, Muslims and Christians do not worship the same God.”
Terry Gain says
Nabeel Queresh, a medical doctor and David Wood’s roommate was a fantastic Christian apologist and excellent critic of Islam. Unfortunately, he died on September 16, 2017.
gravenimage says
Yes, Walter and Terry–Nabeel Qureshi is missed.
SKA says
How can one claim that Christians and Muslims worship the same “one true G-d” much less that Nabataean deity “Allah” is identical with the Christian Trinity?
This idiot obviously does not know if Sural al Ikhkas that is part of the five daily prescribed prayers in Islam that states “he begets not, nor is he begotten, and there is none like unto him?”
This so called apologist is a deceiver and the weakest of dhimmis who will likely convert at the slightest touch of persecution!
Shame on him and on Francissco has encouraged this nonsense!
Rufolino says
Horrified to hear John Paul I kissed the Koran in public. It suggests he was ignorant about what is in it. On the other hand maybe he wasn’t ignorant about what is in the Koran. Catholics have become experts on cognitive dissonance regarding Islam.
gravenimage says
I think that John Paul II was almost entirely ignorant about Islam.
SKA says
Ikhlas* Francis who has*
My apologies for hasty writing and poor editing but this nonsense enraged me.
FYI says
allah’s EPIC misunderstanding of the theology behind the Trinity..
“And when allah saith’O Jesus,son of Mary!Didst thou say unto mankind:take me and my mother for two gods beside allah?”
koran 5:116
And these academics:they didn’t bother to check the koran??
3 questions for the ‘scholars’.
1]What is MARY doing in allah’s EPIC misunderstanding of the Trinity?
2]If allah is omniscient he would KNOW that MARY is not in the Trinity.
So clearly the allah of the koran is not omniscient{he would also know Abraham had to be Jewish and yet the koran,laughably,tells us ‘abraham was not a Jew'{koran 3:67}despite insisting in koran 45:16 that the prophethood was given to the Jews}
3]In koran 4:171 allah appears to be having a fit when he says ‘ say not 3-cease!It is better for you’ but the Trinity is NOT a 3 god polytheism/dividing God in three:and one of the 3 is the Holy Spirit.
How can allah not understand Theology?Because the allah of the koran is a false god.
gravenimage says
Good points.
mortimer says
Tim Staples is wrong. Allah is the Arabian god of war and Jehovah is the eternal name of Israel.
Jehovah’s name appears in the OT 6823 times.
Exodus 3:15,16:
15 And God said moreover unto Moses: ‘Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel: The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you; this is My name for ever, and this is My title unto all generations.
Exodus3.15 I am who I am. Eternal name.
Isaiah 43 I am YHWH the only savior of the world
Isaiah 42 I am YHWH that is my name I will not give my glory to another.
Deut 18 Every prophet must come in the name of YHWH
The Koran doesn’t refer to Jehovah once. The author of the Koran was a human who had not read the Hebrew Bible.
David says
If muslims think Allah and Yahweh are the same God, where does the Holy Spirit fit in?
mortimer says
Allah is a different god from the Catholic Trinity.
Athanasian Creed
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
owensgate says
The “Catholic Trinity”? Don’t you mean “The Judeo-Christian God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob Trinity”? The simplest “That’s a yes or no” question in Theology is, “Are allah and the Judeo-Christian God the same”? Spoiler alert: They ARE NOT the same.
Zimriel says
The Koran and the Bible refer to the same god but that is meaningless as doctrine. Dr Wendy Doniger can write an essay about Ganesha of the Hindus which will assuredly refer to Ganesha, but Doniger does not accept Ganesha as her god and accordingly comes to different conclusions than a Hindu might.
Terry Gain says
I am shocked and appalled that Robert Spencer would claim that Muslims worship the same God as Christians do. The Muslim god does not believe in free will. He commands his followers to listen and obey. Thinking about God is not permitted. The Muslim god commands his followers to perform acts which are objectively evil. The Muslim god thinks that the world is flat and the sun sets in a muddy pool. The Muslim god believes that the Trinity consists of God the Father, Jesus and Mary. The Muslim god chose as his prophet a man who was objectively evil. The Muslim god purportedly sent down an allegedly holy book which is incoherent and contradictory.
The Muslim god does not and has never existed. Allah is a poorly conceived notion of god. All of the borrowing from Judaism and Christianity did not create a coherent set of beliefs. Islam does not accept free will, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech or the separation of church and state. Islam is a supremacist, totalitarian, political ideology. It not a religion. It seeks world domination and is a threat to peace and tranquility. We should not give it more than it is due.
Robert Spencer says
You rather spectacularly misunderstood what I wrote, to the extent of thinking I said the opposite of what I actually said.
Terry Gain says
Mr Spencer
As someone who has great respect and admiration for you I am glad you have responded. But I don’t agree that my opinion was arrived at spectacularly. I based my misunderstanding on the following statement made by you.
“The same can be said of Mr. Staples’ second point. He is right that as fellow monotheists, Muslims are worshipping the one true God while being unaware of many of His attributes.”
If Muslims are worshipping the one true God, then what are Catholics worshipping if we are not worshipping the same God? It seems to me that you said we worship the same God although Muslims don’t have the same understanding of him that we do. With respect, I don’t see that you stated in your article that Muslims do not worship the same God that we worship.
Robert Spencer says
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/08/do-christians-and-muslims-worship-the-same-god-absolutely-not-heres-why
gravenimage says
Thank you, Mr. Spencer.
Terry Gain says
Robert Spencer
Thanks for posting a link to your 2019 article which contradicts what you said in today’s article. It helps to explain why I was shocked and appalled by today’s article. Pretty spectacular of me to get you to correct your error, if I do say so myself. With the greatest respect, i think that thanking people when they bring errors to our attention Is the best practice.
Robert Spencer says
Terry Gain: Sorry, there is no contradiction between my 2019 article and what I said here.
Zimriel says
Also, wherever someone substitutes “Muslims” for “Islam” I know him for a poltroon. The Muslims are in God’s plan of salvation… al-Islâm is not. I see this trick played by Left media here all the time, that if you object to Islam or to its goals You Hate Muslims.
eduardo odraude says
It’s true that some counter-jihadists not only hate Islam, but feel much antipathy against all Muslims. But the most effective opponents of Islam (like Dr. David Wood and Father Boutros), the opponents who create the most apostates, act with love toward Muslims and seek to save them from Islam by pointing out what many Muslims are not aware of, namely how Islam’s most trusted sources (in the Qur’an, Hadith, Sira, and Tafsir) record actions by Muhammad that show anyone who is not in denial an ugly fact, namely that Muhammad was an expansionist dictator, a con artist, a sex slaver, a pedophile, a mass beheader, an encourager of liars and assassins, a crusher of freedom of conscience, and someone who tortured a man to get hold of a treasure, etc. Wood and Boutros have both created what must amount by now to thousands and perhaps even hundreds of thousands of apostates from Islam, perhaps even millions, simply by showing Muslims their own sources and making it clear that imams have been lying about Islam, white-washing it and so on. Tens of millions of people have watched Boutros on television, tens of millions have watched Wood’s often brilliant videos. Wood’s and Boutros’s efforts are not based on hate but on a desire to save Muslims from a violent, expansionist, totalitarian cult. The same motive is true of Robert Spencer, but in his case that is less obvious because he does not bring his Christian motives front and center and prefers to leave those motives mostly private, and instead he comes forward simply as an objective reporter and analyst. That stance has certain advantages of its own, but I suspect those advantages are not as great as the ones conferred by bringing Christian love and Christian motives more to the obviously to the foreground. As Wood and Boutros have shown, the Christian approach does not preclude truth-telling and even mockery with respect to Islam. But the hard medicine goes down more easily when Christian love sweetens the taste. I’ll add that some not insignificant proportion of the apostates minted by Wood have not become Christians but have simply abandoned Islam. Wood merely tries to put out the truth, albeit with the Christian message as a background, and then people do with all that whatever they will.
Kepha says
Excellent points, Eduardo. I’ve noted a number of times before that a lot of Christian missions organizations found themselves caught flat-footed (and humbled, and grateful) over the number of Muslims who have either become Christians or inquirers into Christ, his person, and work.
As for Staples and his ilk, I believe that religious studies in major institutions is in total disarray, sunk in liberal dishonesty and prey to every secular fad.
eduardo odraude says
If Person A is described falsely as a murderer by Person B, but is described truly as innocent by Person C, are Persons B and C both talking about person A? In a deeper sense no, but in a superficial sense yes. So it matters a great deal that if one claims Islam and Christianity worship the same God, one should also specify in what sense that is so (superficially) and admit that “the same God” claim is at most a half-truth or rather a quarter-truth.
Chrissie01 says
yes. And we all know that even 10% added to the truth makes a full lie.
Basics of desinformation 🙂
Chrissie01 says
10% lie…
or more blunty: half truth = full lie
Tony Naim says
Islam is NOT only a religion, it is a political dogma, (an evil one to the core). This is how Islam defines itself, therefore, this is how it must be confronted.
If the Catholic Church is reconciliatory towards Islam, the religion, trying to find commonalities , it is mainly because this will serve one purpose, to defuse tensions created by 15 centuries of religious wars, which the Church has no intention to reignite.
It is too late for western governments to abdicated their role to the papacy in dealing with political matters, especially when it comes to political Islam.
Muslim immigration took place for economic reasons, compelled mainly by a sharp decline in fertility rate due to the application of widespread measures of birth control (some barbaric and some not) in the west.
Hence, political Islam came to pose a present and imminent danger to the western way of life.
Political Islam can be defeated easily if western governments can gather the political will to launch an ideological War against it.
Other than that, the Catholic Church does not intend to replace the personality of Jesus with anyone else, certainly not Muhammad, for the contrast is so repugnant.
Ade Fegan says
To say that there is only one God is plausible
To say there is no God is also plausible
When you understand these things
By all means, call God Allah if you like
But don’t pretend that muhammad was any sort of prophet !
robyt says
The Vatican Cuncil II led many into confusion because of too many different and modern theological interpretations. It is not all fault of the Council itself (even if maybe a new council should be done to clarify), that some kind of interpretations became mainstream. In the Cathechism (CCC) it is still written “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus”, so there is no need to argue all of this nonsense on muslim salvation and any other. The long and diplomatic answer in coformance to the VC-II is that: yes, everybody can be saved; but the principle is as clear to anybody who can understand it: extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (no salvation is granted out of the Catholic Church). He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/p123a9p3_lt.htm
somehistory says
The number of fools…Jesus said , “broad is the gate and spacious is the road leading to destruction and many are going on it.”
To make the claim that the God Who is the Creator, Life-giver, Who is the Personification of Love, sent His “only-begotten Son” as a ransom so we might live, is the same as the fake ‘god’ that moslims worship…satan the devil…deceiver, slanderer, murderer, the one causing death… is blasphemy of the worst kind.
“Narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading to life, and few are finding it.”
These idiots would do themselves a huge favor if they took the time to learn that pandering to evil does not make “Friends in the Highest places.”
It’s easy to find that “broad gate and spacious road.” But it is also so stupid.
God is not fooled by this stupidity and neither are True Christians. Fools such as he are only fooling themselves. And committing blasphemy against our Creator and His Son.
Frank Anderson says
s.h., +1!
Glenwood Jarman says
I do not claim to be a biblical scholar but I believe that in Mathew 15 lies the answer and completely refutes this idiot who dares to refer to himself as leader of any church:
15. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17. Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Also, when Robert Spencer says that some Catholic groups seem to think it is “wrong to oppose even jihad violence and Sharia-based oppression of women and others because the Church taught that we worshiped the same God,” are completely stupid and immoral. I would like them to stand on a dusty road in Jos or any number of small villages in Nigeria or Burkina Faso as the Muslim sub-human creatures come riding in on horseback or motorized vehicles and start killing them one by one. I wonder if they had family members on any of the planes that flew into the Twin Towers or family members who went down with the towers, would they feel it wrong to criticize jihad.
From the very beginning, Christians were slaughtered in the name of Allah because the Christian God and His Son were false as well as the Jews for their version of the “Old Testament” on the Arabian Peninsula from Mecca to Egypt. These were Christian lands and cities such as Aleppo and Antioch all the way to Jerusalem and far beyond, so for anyone tell us that to criticize jihad is wrong can kiss my you-know-what.
Chrissie01 says
Yes, it is true. Islam is a murderous cult.
And I suspect it was so successful for one small rule it introduced with regard to jihad:
One fifth of the booty to Allah and his Prophet.
The rest went to the followers.
Now, that might have been a worth-while venture in many places..
Chrissie01 says
in other contexts, this would be called war crime and looting and slave-taking..
David says
After Muhammad died who took one fifth of the booty?
Rarely says
There is only one thing that I clearly get out of this discussion (debate?) — the Almighty has a great sense of humor. If He/She/It had sides they’d be splitting.
BTW exactly how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? I suggest 38.
Chrissie01 says
that is a deepl question.
God is not only infinitely great, He is also infinitely small.
I suggest the number is 38 billion?
And they don’t dance. It just looks like it. ‘They hover.
Rarely says
Of course no one could possibly understand the infinite although many claim the ability.
I prefer the number 38 because I can count that high but, of course, you might be right.
David says
How many on the point of a pin?
Kepha says
As pure intelligences, the angels lack mass and dimension, so you can have as many as there are dancing on the head of a pin in a cushion in the kit of a seamstress in the 12th century Quartier Latin of Paris, while simltaneously dancing on a star 50 million light years from earth. I grant that a 13th century Schoolman would not have added the second part; but the question is not as absurd as we like to think it is. At the same time, I wonder where Mother Nature, Historical Necessity, and other modern deities stand?
gravenimage says
Rarely, you need not believe in any deity to see that the characters of the Christian God and that of the Islamic Allah are *very* different.
The teachings of Jihad terror come from the conception of Allah as a violent god.
This is of concern for *all* potential victims of Islam–which would be all non-Muslims, including Agnostics and Atheists.
Chrissie01 says
I do not know which god is which and what his/her/its qualities are specifically. Jehova, or Allah, or Thor or Freya or Shiva or the other few million deities that are worshipped across the universe.
Nobody does with their rational minds. These are entities not accessible with the three-dimensional human cognitions.
What I know, however, then is:
TIt is utter stupidiy to fight over religious dogma that noone can verify..
There is nothing more stupid than jihad (because it is an act of fanatism for something one cannot have any personal insight into or knowledge of, but I guess that is the very definition of fanatism).
This stupidity is directly followed by forceful or voluntary conversions, which Christianity is guilty of, menacing people that they will go to hell if they do not follow the dogma and thus putting them into a spiritual prison.
Believers are never awfully smart.
Seekers are or become so.
My five cents.
I do like people who trust their god.
Rarely says
Of course if islam and Catholicism are both correct absolutely no one could get to heaven.
Kepha says
However, we have God becoming man and walking among us in the person of Jesus the Messiah. We’ve had his witness going on for 2000 years now, and it is an anvil that has worn out many a hammer.
Rarely says
It’s pretty simple really. If two religions claim that only their adherents get to Heaven and both are correct then absolutely no one would get there. (0+0=0).
somehistory says
If you knew what you were writing about, you would know that “Christianity” is not “guilty” of anything. Some people…not by any means all or even the majority…who claim to be Christian have done things like try to force others to “believe” as they do (did), but it is not Christianity or True Christians who do (did) this sort of thing.
Christianity is a way of life, not a person who can be “guilty.” And those who have tried to “force” others were wrong in their thinking , believing that God wanted them to behave thus. Christ never forced anyone to follow Him. He invited people to follow Him, but when they didn’t, He allowed them to make that choice.
Chrissie01 says
you see: That is exactly what I mean. This is your view and you are – of course – entitled to it and entitled to respect for your faith.
But my opinion differs. It differs greatly. In my view, Christianity is a false doctrine that was forced upon the pagans to disempower and dominate them. It was forced on European pagans with utter unspeakable cruelty, the Spanish Inquisition just being the peak of the iceberg, and possession of a rune alphabeth punished with death by burning. I personally believe that Christ is fictional.
But then again, I have no 100% certainty to prove my point and I am just voicing an opinion, just like you, to which I am entitled.
The most decent thing we can do is to agree to disagree. Don’t you agree?
gravenimage says
Actually, most Europeans embraced Christianity. European Paganism was actually quite violent, including the practice of human sacrifice.
My guess is that you generally ignore this aspect of Paganism–most modern Pagans do.
Chrissie01 says
this is the politically correct version. However, it is wrong. It was forced on them.
Rarely says
William Manchester, a noted and very well respected historian, in his book “A World Lit Only By Fire” does a very nice analysis of Christianity in the Middle Ages. It’s well worth a read.
gravenimage says
Rarely, that is indeed a very good book. It says more about the behavior of humans during the Middle Ages than it does the nature of Christianity, though.
James says
I’d like to see these “academics” and “scholars” peddle this stuff in a public square in a strongly Islamic country. The Islamics view Catholics as polytheists, believers of three gods, hence pagans. The Islamists have so little of the understanding of the concept Trinity.
Rarely says
Monty Python may have something to say about all this.
gravenimage says
Actually, the members of Monty Python are too cowed by Jihad violence to make fun of Islam–both Michael Palin and John Cleese have openly noted this. They had no such concerns with making fun of Christianity. That should tell you something right there.
Fred Middleton says
Surely, the fact that the False Prophet himself said that Jews and Christians worshipped different Gods, and called the Trinity polytheism, settles the argument. Or does this theologian want to rewrite the Koran?
Chrissie01 says
actually, this is not all false, to my knowledge.
Christ, from the orthodox Jewish view, is a blasphemer, doomed to boil in feces until doomsday, or something like this.
He healed the lepers, fed the hungry, revived some dead and forgivinglyl blessed the adulteress.
Then you have Jehova or Jahwe that commanded Lot’s wife to turn into stone for turning back and destroyed the two sinful cities, but not before Lot offering his daughters to the homosexual mob so he would be able to fulfil his duty as a host to protect his guests…
Rarely says
Where do you get the info on the Jewish view of Christ? Sources please.
Chrissie01 says
torah and talmud, just do some research
gravenimage says
Many Jewish people, including Rabbis, consider Jesus to have been a learned scholar–they just don’t believe that he was the Messiah, and that any such mentions are to be taken symbolically, or were added later.
And there is no direct mention of Jesus in the Torah–this scripture preceded his birth.
tim gallagher says
I fail to see how the Christian God, who calls for us to try to love one another and calls for peace and calls on us to behave towards others in the same way that we would wish them to behave towards us, has anything in common with this disgusting version of god that Muslims believe in, a god which calls on Muslims to hate non-Muslims and to even go out and kill them. To say that these are the same God is ludicrous. That would have to be one weird, schizoid God, (a God that is both loving but full of hate at the same time) that’s for sure. The Christian God and the Islamic version of what god is are completely different. I honestly can’t believe the rank stupidity of some of these clowns, such as this guy Staples. I think that fantasists like Staples should keep their mouths shut and then people won’t know what complete fuckwits they are. You would think that Staples would be embarrassed to talk such rubbish as to say that the Christian God and hate-filled, vicious allah are the same.
gravenimage says
+1
tim gallagher says
Thanks for the +1, gravenimage. It seems so obvious to me that Christianity and islam are polar opposites. I truly can’t believe the absolute nonsense some of these characters, like this guy Staples, come out is. As I said above, you’d think they’d be ashamed to spout such complete rubbish.
truthout says
Why are we arguing this? Allah and Islam are nothing more than Satan’s war plan. There is no other explanation that makes a stitch of sense
gravenimage says
I don’t think that exposing these inconsistencies is a bad thing.
JB says
I was just thinking the Triune God and Allah are the same, if you live in California.
Kepha says
You mean, somewhere between Cloud Cuckoo Land and Flake-Fruit-Nut-istan?
gravenimage says
Hey–not all Californians are nuts!
gravenimage says
Catholic apologist: Allah, Trinity refer to same God
…………….
What claptrap. Firstly, Islam specifically rejects the Trinity (never mind that they get this wrong, claiming that Mary is part of the Trinity).
But most of all, the character of the loving Christian God and the cruel savagery of “Allah” could not be more different.
Muslims also regularly murder Christians for a belief in the Trinity.
Wellington says
“Muslims also regularly murder Christians for a belief in the the Trinity.”
True, gravenimage, or even for asserting that Jesus was crucified, as denied in Sura 4 of the Koran. How any Christian can have respect for Islam is beyond me.
gravenimage says
Grimly true, Wellington.
Wellington says
I don’t know if God exists. May. May not. No one really knows. If one knew, faith would not be necessary. For an agnostic like myself, it really is a very abstract matter, though a highly interesting abstract matter.
But here’s what I do know: 1) Vatican II serves as a classic example of the maxim, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. The Catholic Church was not broken. It did not need reform. Pope John Paul XXIII who called Vatican II was perhaps a very good man but was certainly also a very foolish man. 2) Islam is the one major religion which is totalitarian, both in structure and ideology as Bertrand Russell observed in his The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism, published one hundred years ago this year. 3) Christianity is a far more enlightened religion than Islam. No contest—and so consider this: Every Christian wakes up tomorrow a devout Muslim OR every Muslim wakes up tomorrow a devout Christian. Which would be better for the world at large, keeping in mind especially the matter of liberty? No contest as I see it.
gravenimage says
+1
curious george says
Wellington,
The answer to God existing might be found in the existence of the Jewish people and their return to the land of Israel.
The Jews were scattered all over the world for almost 2000 years. They are back in their land with their original Hebrew language.
In the book of Isaiah, God promised to bring His people back to the land.
But now thus saith the LORD that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art mine.
When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee.
For I am the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.
Since thou wast precious in my sight, thou hast been honourable, and I have loved thee: therefore will I give men for thee, and people for thy life.
Fear not: for I am with thee: I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west;
I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth;
– Isaiah 43:1-6
Wellington says
With respect, curious george, the continued existence of the Jewish people does not prove that any God exists. What it does prove is that, looked at from a pure probability standard, it was likely, not a given but likely, that such a people as the Jews with their very sophisticated religious perspective would survive throughout the millennia while many other peoples with a sophisticated religious perspective (an example being the ancient Egyptians who had a very complex religious system and with a first-rate artistic tradition) would eventually fade away.
Just as it was likely that mankind would get one or two major religions that would work very well with the democratic tenets first invented by the ancient Greeks. Mankind did. Mankind got Christianity and Judaism which, because of their emphasis on the dignity and worth of the individual, go quite well with democracy. Ditto for the probability that there would be a people here or there that would come along who were amazingly original and inventive—like the ancient Greeks.
Where people see design, curious george, I see probabilities. Here’s another: Likely but not a given that mankind would get a major religion which is rotten to the core. Mankind did. Mankind got Islam.
There is no way to prove that God exists or that God does not exist. I rest my case with this statement. The example you provided does not prove that God exists; it “merely” proves the existence of the role probabilities play in life.
curious george says
Wellington,
As I mentioned once before, my trying to have a deep-thinking dialogue with you would be akin to my getting in the ring with Muhammad Ali, that just isn’t going to happen.
I have the deepest respect and admiration for you and what I refer to as, “first principles thinking.”
With that said, I’m going to mention four people, people who had the courage to follow the evidence where it led them, and not try to bend, shape and mold it to fit their narrative.
The 1st is the late Joan Peters, author of the book, From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine.
Joan Peters originally started out to report on the plight of the “Palestinian Refugees.” Two years into her research, she discovered the narrative that she was led to believe, was a lie. The result, she wrote about the plight of the Jewish Refugees, hence, the book, From Time Immemorial.
You can see her interview with the late Messianic Rabbi, Zola Levitt, by clicking the links below.
“From Time Immemorial” with Joan Peters, Part 1
https://www.levitt.tv/media/watch/680
“From Time Immemorial” with Joan Peters, Part 2
https://www.levitt.tv/media/watch/681
The 2nd person is, Josh McDowell, author of the book, The Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Josh started his journey, intent on disproving the Bible and more specifically, Christianity. Today, he is a one of the foremost defenders of the Christian Faith.
The 3rd person is, Lee Strobel, author of the book, The Case for Christ. He also started his journey intent on disproving the Bible and specifically Christianity. Today, he, like Josh McDowell, is a staunch defender of the Christian faith.
And last, but not least, Rosaria Champagne Butterfield, author of the book, The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert.
She has a PhD in English Literature and Cultural Studies. Prior to writing her book, she was an associate professor at Syracuse University, recently tenured in the English Department also holding a joint teaching appointment in the Center for Women’s studies.
I’m working from memory, really a bad thing for me to do, but I seem to recall that her journey started with an article she had published in a local newspaper. The article created a lot of controversy and responses by mail.
She started to sort the responses into 2 stacks, one positive, the other negative. While she was doing this, she came across a letter from a local Pastor, she didn’t know what to do with it. After throwing it away and then retrieving it several times, she accepted the Pastor’s offer to have dinner with he and his wife.
As only the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob could arrange, this Pastor and his wife were highly educated and very well read, an immediate bond was established.
The rest is history, after a period of several years of searching and following the evidence where it led her, she accepted Yeshua HaMashiach as her Lord and Savior. She is married, has adopted children, her husband is a Pastor and she remains a force for preaching the Gospel.
“There is no way to prove that God exists or that God does not exist. I rest my case with this statement. The example you provided does not prove that God exists; it “merely” proves the existence of the role probabilities play in life.”
Proof? How about evidence?
The Bible has provided a multitude of Prophecies, many that have been fulfilled, others, partially, and others still to be fulfilled, that pertain to the Nation of Israel and the Jewish people.
For the First Coming of Yeshua HaMashiach, according to Dr. David Reagan, Lamb and Lion Ministries, after taking the duplicate Prophecies out of the equation, there are approximately 105 remaining, all of which Yeshua has fulfilled.
One can only gather so much information, then it’s time to make a decision.
Wellington says
curious george: I have read one of the four books you mentioned, i.e., “The Case for Christ.” I found it utterly unconvincing. I noticed when I read it that it had only one reference to Michael Grant in the Index and that was to a very minor point made by Grant. Grant’s work, which I highly recommend, “Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels,” posits a theory about Jesus which I think is quite accurate. I highly recommend getting a copy. It was published in 1977 and when I read it I thought I was reading my own thoughts.
As for prophecies, I adhere to what David Hume, the great 18th-century Scottish philosopher, said about miracles, which of course would include prophecies, to wit, that no miracle can be accepted UNLESS the natural explanation for the event in question would be even more remarkable than the miraculous explanation. Not one miracle in the Bible, or for that matter in any religious literature, meets this test whereby the natural or non-miraculous explanation is even more remarkable than the miraculous assertion. Go ahead and try me. Give me three or four miracles in the Bible, including prophecies if you like. I can give you a non-miraculous explanation for any one of them. I have challenged many people over the decades on this point and have never been defeated, but perhaps you can be the first. Give it a shot.
I do appreciate the courtesy with which we disagree and know full well that I admire the Judeo-Christian ethic, though I don’t accept the theology found in the Bible. Of course I find the Islamic ethic despicable—here I think we have no disagreement. And keep in mind what I mentioned in my post above, i.e., that probability explains so much and it is an error to see some kind of cosmic design where “only” probability is existent. Take good care.
curious george says
Wellington,
Thank you for your courteous reply.
I’m not the person to have a deep theological discussion with. The people that are equipped to handle the questions you ask would be:
Ravi Zacharias
https://www.rzim.org/
or
Josh McDowell
https://www.josh.org/
or
Probe Ministries
https://probe.org/
Take care.
May Yeshua HaMashiach keep you and yours in the palm of His hand.
David says
Did God scatter the Jews across the World? Just so he could bring them together again? Just a thought.
James says
Terry Gain, all Mr Spencer is saying is that is that we believe in one God and the Islamists believe in one God. The Islamists, however, do not understand the Trinity. The Trinity is hard to grasp, but we believe three persons in one God; with God all things are possible. Nevertheless, the Islamists don’t understand it and they think we are polytheistic. Of course, we are not.
Chris says
The words of the encyclical that “whoever kills a man is like the one who kills all mankind” are only a distorted quote from the Koran. In the Koran we read: “Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely.”
So first there are two important exceptions. You can kill in the case of murder and in the case of “corruption”. But anyway – these words are not aimed at Muslims, but at Jews.
Second: the Koran supposedly quotes the Jewish Word of God, therefore it says “We decreed”; here is God speaking. But the author of the Koran made a mistake. The words “anyone who kills a man” and so on are not from the Torah. They come from the Talmud, books of Sanhedrin 37a. This is a rabbi’s commentary on the story of Cain and Abel, written several hundred years after Christ.
And third: the words about killing addressed not to Jews but to Muslims we see right in the next verse 5:33. “Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment “.
All this shows how naive Francis is and how little he knows about Islam.
gravenimage says
Good points, Chris.
And I believe you are new to Jihad Watch? If so, welcome.
David says
I would love to see the two verses 5:32 & 5:33 on buses and billboards throughout the World.
Rob Callow says
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION paragraph 841
The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “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.”
gravenimage says
This thing is pretty recent. The Catholic Church has traditionally recognized that the Islamic deity is very different from God.
David says
This makes me want to throw up! Can you imagine for one second that Muslims could put into words the same sentiments? Peace and Love is wonderful.
vcragain says
Who anyone thinks ‘God’ or ‘Allah’ actually is is irrelevant since nobody knows in fact IF there is a ‘God’ or an ‘Allah’ anyway – all is speculation & feelings & a decision to believe a specific ‘truth’ – we sit here on an orb floating thru the sky with no means except our own brains to decipher what is going on, and all is imagination layered over the little reality we can perceive. I prefer to believe that any super power is just watching this mash-up of ideas & wondering how far humans will go to defend what they have ‘decided’ is the ‘God’ figure. Nothing in my 80 years has convinced me that he/she/it cares one jot for the welfare or happiness of any creature here….we might be in an experiment or an accident of existence, it’s all too messy for words – yet we try to kill each other over various interpretations of ‘what this is’ !!!. Yes the sheer beauty of it all begs for explanation….or is that too just our wiring that wants to explain things as ‘rational’ ? I would love to discover the ‘God’ that part of my largely Christian education tried to get me to believe in – but so far the cruelty of this actual physical world leaves me with a big hole in my trust – way too many questions to allow that trust – if/when I go there I just get very angry at all the inexplicable horror other humans suffer – I did nothing special to deserve my lovely, prosperous, interesting life while innocents die in horrendous ways thru no fault of their own !!! Any arguments about ‘which God is real’ is entirely pointless !
gravenimage says
Not everything about life is cruel, vcragain. Besides your larger questions, there are also humans who are loving and caring.
David says
gravenimage, I think you miss the points made by vcragain. You counter with: “Not everything about life is cruel” That is true, but there is so much suffering by innocent people. The question is why, if there is a loving God? I think God is at best indifferent. We are all in a game, because the Bible prophesies the future. God is omnipotent, so why does the Devil exist? You could say he is an essential part of the game. So much of our entertainment consists of good V evil. Crime; War; Death. ‘Nice’ is boring! (to many people).Violence is exciting!
I am sure that most commenters on this site are loving and caring.
Rarely says
To our fragile and limited human minds there MUST be an all-powerful deity of some sort. With those very same fragile and limited minds we imagine that deity to have certain qualities.
Whatever characteristics we attribute to that god does not make them so — even if all mankind were to agree on what those attributes are.
I don’t see how anyone can understand the infinite. If you can kindly explain it to me.