https://x.com/buzzpatterson/status/2075028094663184628?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
Can someone who claims that “Islam and Christianity are two pathways to the Truth”, really be considered someone educated in Christianity, its history, its doctrine, and Christian Scripture?
22 comments:
The short accurate answer is "NO!"
Craig...
"Can someone who claims that Islam and Christianity are two pathways to truth really be considered someone educated in Christianity, etc.? "
1. There would first have to be some definitions established and intentions established.
2. How is one defining Christianity,..? for instance. How is one defining Islam? for another instance. What truth is in question here? That's another reasonable question that would need to be established first of all to assess the content of your question.
3. If the truth in question is that there is one God, both traditions would teach that and affirm that. Indeed probably most variations of each of those two faith traditions would affirm that, right?
4. If the truth in question is: God is all-loving and merciful and compassionate, both faith traditions affirm this, right?
5. If on the other hand, the truth in question is, "Does God sometimes affirm slavery as a righteous option or rape/forced marriage as a righteous option?" not all Christians would affirm that truth nor would all Muslims. Right?
Which specific Truth or Truths are you speaking of in your comment?
Dan
I can’t speak for the genius who I’m quoting, but given the context of this question as it’s usually asked, I suspect that the implication is that Christianity and Islam lead us to exactly the same place.
1. If you can’t define Christianity and Islam, maybe you should stop talking.
But because I’m amused, let’s define Christianity by what is contained in the Bible and Islam by what is contained in the Quran.
2, See the preamble and #1, because you have this compulsion to ask questions multiple times.
3. Well, if both teach one god, but those gods are not the same one, that would seem to answer the question right there. Do the gods of both traditions teach the same things and have the same attributes? Does Islam explicitly teach that Christianity is polytheistic?
4. We don’t know what the person quoted meant, as noted, but feel free to define terms to fit your fancy. Do they?
5. The Quran explicitly teaches both, so do some Muslims ignore the Quran? What was the primary philosophy which resulted in England sacrificing to attempt the global slave trade, and the primary philosophy of US abolitionists? What “stopped” slavery in the Muslim world? In 2026 what religion governs the majority of countries with the majority of slaves? Likewise what countries, cultures, worldviews does one currently find the highest incidence of forced marriage, child marriage, polygamy, and rape?
Your problem is that you choose to pretend as though a few specific restrictions for the Israelite theocracy are somehow being advocated for by anyone since Christ.
It’s strange that you’ll pick this/these hills to die on because the actual history isn’t going to help you.
For the third time, I’m not going to speak for the person being quoted.
I’ll give you a hint though. If two philosophies are diametrically opposed to each other, there are only two possible outcomes.
1. Both wrong.
2. 1 right, one wrong.
Jesus can’t simultaneously by God and not God.
Craig...
"1. If you can’t define Christianity and Islam, maybe you should stop talking."
Ah, but I CAN define Christianity. The traditions following the teachings of Jesus... but I would not define that the same way that you would define it and you would not define it the same way as I would define it. Correct?
Then who gets to make that call?
Which is why I said some things would need to be defined. Is that not a reasonable point?
The same point with the Quran and Islam. Different Muslims view it differently. Who makes the call? Which again points to the need for some definitions. How am I mistaken?
Craig...
"5. The Quran explicitly teaches both, so do some Muslims ignore the Quran?"
And both can be found in the Bible as well. But that slavery and rape appear both in the Bible and Quran, does that mean that Christianity or Islam affirm rape and slavery as sometimes an option? Or does it depend upon the Muslims and the Christians you're asking?
Of course the latter is the case, which once again shows why we need to have some definitions in place. How is this not a reasonable question to ask?
Dan
Craig...
"Can someone who claims that “Islam and Christianity are two pathways to the Truth”, really be considered someone educated in Christianity,"
"Two pathways to 'The Truth...'"
What specific truth do you think this person is talking about? Help me understand your position. It's a reasonable question. There are thousands of truths in the world. Which one or ones is this person referring to?
Dan
I’ll note that you’ve decided that something “found in” Scripture must somehow be binding on Christians, while you seem to gloss over the explicit teachings of the Quran and mainstream Islam for centuries.
Just because you ask a question doesn’t make it reasonable.
I’ll repeat I can’t speak for the person I’m quoting.
Strangely enough you seem to be trying to lay the groundwork for agreeing with the quote, are you?
Are you stupid, obtuse, or illiterate?
This is like the fourth time I’ve said that I’m not going to speak for the person being quoted because I have no idea what they meant.
My position is that no matter how many times you demand that I read their mind or speak for them, I will not do so.
Why do you keep asking me a question that I cannot answer, then ignoring me when I answer you?
Craig...
"I’ll note that you’ve decided that something “found in” Scripture must somehow be binding on Christians, while you seem to gloss over the explicit teachings of the Quran ..."
You read but fail to understand. My point is the exact opposite.
Not all Christians are like you. We would not say that sometimes slavery or forced marriages/rape are an acceptable thing just because there's a line in the Bible. Likewise not all Muslims would reach that conclusion.
Understand now?
And I'm not agreeing OR disagreeing with the quote in question. I'm asking quite literally what is obvious to anyone who's reading my words: which specific truth or truths is being spoken of? THAT question must be answered first before we can assess the validity of the quote in question.
How specifically am I mistaken?
Read for understanding, good man.
Dan
Sigh.
You posted this quote, presumably from some "christian" nationalist or xenophobe on X.
"Can someone who claims that “Islam and Christianity are two pathways to the Truth”, really be considered someone educated in Christianity, its history, its doctrine, and Christian Scripture?"
Why? Do you think it's a good question?
Why?
Even if you think it's a good question worth asking for some vague reason you choose to not address, do you see how the question begs to have answered,
What truth is being spoken of?
Do you see how that's a reasonable question?
And as always I'm not asking you to tell me definitively what they were thinking. I'm asking what YOU think the "Truth" in question is, to YOU? In order to answer that question you don't have to know what they were thinking. All you have to tell me is what you are thinking. Seriously, rational respectful adult conversation does not have to be this difficult.
Dan
Like morality and the teachings of Scripture Itself, "truth" is fluid for those like Dan. As you suggest, each religion claims to lead to "the Truth". Clearly islam doesn't. How any "Christian" would suggest islam is a pathway to truth at all is not much of a Christian. The obviousness of this isn't obvious to those like Dan, a guy who isn't himself much of a Christian.
Dan's really desperate to defend this Talarico buffoon.
Actually I could see the quoter fitting the CN definition to some degree, although you’d disagree.
This is what happens when you commit to commenting from a place of choosing ignorance.
It’s a question, questions aren’t objectively good or bad, they’re just questions.
This one is interesting to me (which is the key) because the person quoted is being positioned as some sort of expert on Christianity. Yet anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Islam and Christianity can see that they don’t lead to the same place, and are simply diametrically opposed on so many critical issues.
Again, not sure if this is ignorance, stupidity, poor memory, or being obtuse, but you keep demanding that I speak for someone else, then bitch when I don’t. You keep asking/whining about this, and I’ll keep responding the same way.
You don’t objectively define reasonable, but you are free to hold your opinion about your question. What's not reasonable is to bitch and whine that I won’t authoritatively speak for someone else.
Now that you’ve modified the question, to something different, I can say that I answered it the first time you asked. Although who cares what I think, why wouldn’t you be concerned with the person who made the claim?
Idiocy, ignorance, memory lapse or obtuse.
I’m thinking that the person who made the claim could not reasonably be considered any sort of expert in Christianity.
Got it, you’re still demanding that I tell you what someone else meant.
Name one Muslim cleric or influential leader who denies specific teachings of the Quran? Muslims see the Quran with much more reverence than Christians see the Bible. That’s why you are exponentially less likely to be harmed or killed for burning a Bible than a Quran.
Your misrepresentations are always amusing. Strangely enough you ignore the prevalence of everything on your little list in the Islamic world today.
Yeah, I know, you and your many truths hypotheses. You’ll have to ask the person who said the quoted words, I won’t speak for them.
Because CNs are big on the idea that Islam and Christianity are two sides of the same coin.
If an atheist like Dawkins can figure this out, you’d think that you could.
Let's play Dan's little game for a minute.
What is "the truth" that the person quoted is referring to, some options.
1. That the Bible and the Quran are equally True.
2. That YHWH as described in the Bible and Allah as described in the Quran are the same deity.
3. That the Biblical portrait of Jesus and the Quranic portrait of Jesus are equally accurate.
4. That the Kingdom of YHWH and the afterlife described in the Quran are the same "place".
5. How each religion deals with those who choose to leave their respective religion.
6. That the Quranic mandate to control civil government and subjugate unbelievers is the same mandate as the Great Commission.
7. That all roads lead to the same place (whatever that means).
8. That countries governed by Sharia are equally free and prosperous as those founded on Christian principles (but with a secular government).
Those are 8 attempts to guess what the person quoted meant. Having said that, I repeat that I don't know what was meant nor am I attempting to put words in their mouth. I'm just seeing if playing along to Dan's little game will satisfy him or if he'll find something else to bitch about.
Art,
Dan has been clear that he does not think that there is any singular Truth. That every single tiny truth is it's own separate and distinct entity existing without any connection to any other truth.
Strangely enough, Jesus was fairly clear that He was The Truth, yet Dan denies the existence of The Truth. Does that mean that he denies Jesus, or denies that Jesus was what He claimed to be?
I would say Dan is mistaken in asserting "what truth" is a legit question here. The claim is quite clear...that both provide a pathway to the truth. Those of us who abide true Christianity know that Christ is the Truth. How does the Quran provide a pathway to Christ when they do not regard Christ as God? Immediately, the Quran demonstrates it has no notion of truth/Truth.
In light of this, one is hard pressed to understand what Dan needs to know about the claim asserted regarding "two pathways" to truth? That there is a God/god? How is this "truth" significant enough to praise both faiths as actual pathways to truth? He might as well be saying both tomes mention the existence of mountains and thus, both are pathways to "truth" because it's a "truth" that mountains exist.
The only "truth" of any significance is the Truth which saves us. The path to that is only found in the Holy Bible of the Christian faith. Dan believes he's asking an intelligent question, but lacks intelligence to see just how stupid the question is.
"I always think of all the world's faith traditions as a circle, with that divine mystery of the universe in the middle. We all have different names for that mystery, whether it's God or Yahweh or Allah or Nirvana or Great Spirit. Whatever you call it, this is all different pathways to the same fundamental truth."
The person quoted in their own words.
Art,
This is your comment, slightly edited, to make the larger point. I hope that you understand why I have done so. My edit does not, in any way, change what you are trying to communicate. Thank you for your understanding.
"The question now is whether or not Dan agrees with the person who was quoted position along with an explanation for why he does or doesn't. He's been defending him as a Christian. How does the above square with the faith if he truly is, and more importantly, if Dan truly is?"
The above is a slightly edited comment from Art.
Again, I'm copy/pasting my small edit of your comment. I hope you understand why.
"The day Dan shows he understands what truly respectful "adult" conversation is will be a day I mark on the calendar for annual celebration.
"Adults" don't go out of their way to accuse opponents or their sources of being related to something they assert is a nefarious threat to the nation or decent people...such as constant and tiresome mentions of "white Christian nationalists" (because adults always make sure they make racist accusations) or "xenophobes" (because adults always make sure they express their hatred for opponents by attributing hatred to them).
But it doesn't matter who provided the quote in the link. It's the quote which matters and Dan assaults you and those who provided the quote in defense of a heretic and lover of perversion...that is, a person cut from the same strip of used toilet paper as is Dan himself.
The question, then, submitted by Craig is indeed a good one given the quoted person's comments as it belies his clam of mastery of the Christian faith. That is to say, that anyone with a "Master of Theology" degree, and who dares get up in front of a congregation to "preach" wouldn't suggest that islam provides a path to any truth of significance to true seekers of God.
Then for Dan to ask "what truth?" is absurdly irrelevant if Dan wants to pretend he, too, is a true seeker of God/Christ/Truth. For what other "truth" matters to such a person who claims to be a Christian, as Dan so falsely does?
There's truly nothing "reasonable" about Dan's question, just as there is rarely anything "reasonable" about anything Dan promotes or believes. Indeed, it is more than merely "reasonable" to assert that Dan hasn't a sound "adult" understanding of what constitutes "reasonable" in the first place. Like truth, morality, Christianity."
Art
I would say that Dan makes his claim on the basis of what Dan considers to be personally reasonable to himself. By that definition, it could be considered reasonable.
As per the second quote from the person, it is clear that this person clearly believes that there are more than two paths to the Truth, which only makes this more troubling.
Dan needs to believe that there is no ultimate or overarching Truth. That life is merely a collection of small little truths, that are likely impermanent and malleable depending on the circumstances.
Paul, in 1 Cor 2 speaks of the kind of wisdom Dan seems attached to.
Post a Comment