https://www.instagram.com/reels/DatvdS-DvMp/
If you find the "all faith traditions" are an "equal pathway" to the "divine mystery universe", can you really be considered an expert in Christianity?
If you believe that "God, Allah, YHWH, Nirvana, and The Great Spirit" are all "equal pathways to the same fundamental truth", can you really be considered an expert in Christianity?
142 comments:
Not an honest one.
I guess I can concede and university graduate having done as least master's level work in theology could indeed be considered an expert while espousing such nonsense, but he wouldn't be a good one. More importantly, he wouldn't be a Christian.
Craig:
If you find the "all faith traditions" are an "equal pathway" to the "divine mystery universe", can you really be considered an expert in Christianity?
I. First of all, you need to read for understanding. For instance, by saying this, do you think that those religious ones (whether naming themselves Christian, Muslim or otherwise) who support slavery, who support forced marriages, who support child abuse or killing of innocents... do you think that Talarico is saying that THOSE human religious traditions are all equally valid and equally the way to Truth?
Can you acknowledge (even without Talarico even having to say it) that, of course, that is NOT what he's saying?
It's a reasonable question with only one reasonable answer, given what YOU know about Talarico. Do you think he's counting the "religion" that kills children or gay folk or that forces marriages and deprives women of rights as one of the "equal pathways..."?
Because the answer is clearly NO. Anyone who can read for understanding can understand that.
Do you understand that?
II. Okay, given that THAT conclusion is ridiculous and out of hand wrong, what IS Talarico saying? To be 100% sure, you'd have to ask him or read more of what he's said to get a more complete understanding of his philosophies. But I can guarantee that what he is saying is almost certainly something like this:
A. There is only ONE truth (or, if you prefer, set of truths). The ultimate Truth is Love. Love, grace, justice, welcome, acceptance, greeting... you know, LOVE. Love is the One Truth.
B. As Jesus said:
Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth...
When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth...
etc.
3. Again, there is only One Truth, and that Truth is Love. That which many of us would name as God, for God is love, as the texts say. God is love. Love is God. And from love, we reach grace, welcome, justice, kindness, solidarity, the beloved community of God. THAT is the ONE Way or Truth which Talarico is speaking of.
For those of us who read for understanding and don't start out from a presumption of guilt for those who disagree with us, it's pretty obvious.
Can you acknowledge that this is almost certainly what Talarico is speaking about?
Or, even if you can't acknowledge it, can you see it's likely what he's speaking of here?
III. Given that, what is Talarico saying, then, when he suggests he affirms the notion that "all faith traditions" are "equal ways" to God? Is he not saying that ALL True religions (being that which looks out for the poor and marginalized... just another way of saying, True religion is that which loves and embraces...) are just different ways of thinking about love of God, love of this creation, love of humanity, love and care for the poor and marginalized..? I'd be willing to bet you $100 that this is pretty close to his intention here.
And so, true religion being Love, then that is True whether or not you're a Muslim living into love, or a Jewish person living into love, or a pagan living into love, etc. It might look a little different, it might have different songs and different prayers, but Love is Love is Love and ALL that Love are of God, as our holy texts say.
Dear friends, let us love one another,
for love comes from God.
Period.
EVERYONE WHO LOVES has been born of God
and knows God.
~St John
So, with all of that clarification, to answer your question:
If you find the "all faith traditions" are an "equal pathway" to the "divine mystery universe", can you really be considered an expert in Christianity?
YES. Obviously so. Of course.
And those religions and human traditions that embrace hate and harm? Well, those are not a religion at all, or at least not a true religion, according to St James. And those who DO love and embrace the poor and marginalized, they ARE of God and of the True Religion, according to St James, St John and Jesus Christ, our Savior, who saves by Grace, which is to say, by Love.
Here's one quote where Talarico clarifies what he's speaking of, and that is, "All religions of love..."
Talarico, a Presbyterian seminarian who is on the campaign trail ahead of his March primary battle with U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, for the U.S. Senate seat long held by Republican Sen. John Cornyn, said that while he believes “Christianity points to the truth,” he also believes “other religions of love point to the same truth.”
https://www.christianpost.com/news/james-talarico-all-religions-have-same-truth-as-christianity.html
So, to be clear, he is NOT speaking about abusive, oppressive, murderous, harmful human traditions that claim to be Christian or Muslim or whatever. THOSE are not true religions, again, as St James makes clear.
...and I point that out because it is an obvious conclusion to reach IF one is, in good faith and decency and grace, trying to read to UNDERSTAND what the other person is saying.
My question to you is, DID you understand that and you're trying to make some other point? Or are you truly not getting the point of what Talarico is talking about?
And of course, it is a given that EVEN IF you understand that he's speaking of those who LOVE and act out on that in grace and justice and kindness and welcome, that this STILL isn't Christianity, to you. And thus, a genuinely loving, gracious, welcoming and just Muslim or Jew or pagan are STILL not following a true religion because they don't ascribe to your particular list of tenets that, to you, makes one a Christian.
Is that correct?
For you, then, is it something close to saying something like,
"True religion is this... of course, taking care of the poor and marginalized CHRISTIANS - St James wasn't wrong insofar as that goes... but moreso, true religion is this: Affirming human traditions like the fallen "sin" nature of humanity and that Jesus saves SOME of us by "paying for" our "sins" so that we can be forgiven..."?
Do you think and affirm a fairly woodenly literal interpretation of "EVERYONE who loves has been born of God and knows God..."? OR, would you add caveats about how, "of course, they have to have had Jesus' blood pay for their sins and affirm something close to the theory of Penal Substitutionary Atonement..."?
Help me better understand your opinions.
"do you think that Talarico is saying that THOSE human religious traditions are all equally valid and equally the way to Truth?"
What a stupid question! Talarico named "God, Allah, YHWH, Nirvana, and The Great Spirit" as all "equal pathways to the same fundamental truth". Craig supplied a video of him saying that. A liar like you didn't even have to "read for understanding". You just had to listen to what he actually said. Putz.
You're a stupid little girl, Dan. And a lying one, too.
I don’t know what the person quoted means. I’m quoting them.
Having said that, you noting the incongruity between the Muslim doctrines endorsing slavery, rape, polygamy, oppression of women and gays, and conquest kind of makes my point.
No, I cannot acknowledge that he didn’t say what he literally said. Why would I lie?
Jesus said “I Am The Truth”, which explicitly contradicts the Quran.
I can acknowledge that the quote is accurate and that I’m not compelled to make assumptions and leaps of logic to try to guesstimate what was secretly meant. That’s your thing.
You’re just making shit up now and pretending that you know what he really meant.
I’ll give you credit for creativity.
Again, points for creativity.
Marshal:
Talarico named "God, Allah, YHWH, Nirvana, and The Great Spirit" as all "equal pathways to the same fundamental truth". Craig supplied a video of him saying that. A liar like you didn't even have to "read for understanding". You just had to listen to what he actually said.
You all read but fail to understand. I ask you again: Do you THINK he's speaking of Muslims (Christians, whoever) who support slavery as "pointing to the truth..."? The ONLY possible correct answer is NO. Of course, not. It's just that Talarico has the grace and humility and wisdom to recognize that not all Muslims, not all Christians, etc believe the same thing. He is differentiating between RELIGIONS OF LOVE and false religions that act contrary to love.
Do you understand that much?
And really, Craig: You're not allowing that MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, you are failing to understand what he said? That it's POSSIBLE that he's using nuance and figurative speaking to address larger truths of Love, Grace, Justice and God? You are SO ALL-KNOWING that you couldn't possibly be mistaken his point?
Of course, you are. Both of you are.
Look, you'll STILL have room to disagree with what he's actually saying if you want, but at the least, you have to begin by understanding what he IS saying.
re: "Pretending to know what he really meant..." It was clear to all who read for understanding. The problem with conservatives, zealots, religious despots and pharisees has always been that you all are so bad at understanding nuance and using grace and humility to read for meaning, not woodenly literal phrases ripped from context or reality.
By way of children's Sunday School level of object lesson, I had said:
do you think that Talarico is saying that THOSE human religious traditions are all equally valid and equally the way to Truth?"
Marshal vehemently responded:
What a stupid question! Talarico named "God, Allah, YHWH, Nirvana, and The Great Spirit" as all "equal pathways to the same fundamental truth".
Marshal, be as clear and succinct as possible and answer this question:
When I said, "that THOSE human religious traditions are all equally valid..."
What do YOU imagine I meant by "THOSE human religious traditions..."?
I’m quoting his exact words, you’re the one engaging n flights of fancy trying to invent a way to show that you know the secrets of what he really meant.
I’m applying standard English definitions and meanings to the literal things he said.
I don’t deal in speculation about what he might have meant.
Craig, demonstrating the fatal, irrational, anti-reading, arrogant flaw of modern conservatism:
I’m applying standard English definitions and meanings to the literal things he said.
I don’t deal in speculation about what he might have meant.
In the real world - in the Bible, in all texts, in all languages - people speak and communicate with allegories, with figures of speech and with nuance - and rational adults learn to move beyond an always literal meaning of exact words... ESPECIALLY when they're ripped from context of the conversation and the person actually being "quoted."
You are engaging in just stupid, childish levels of interpretation on these quotes. Now, personally, I don't think you ARE this stupid, this incapacitated from adult reasoning and understanding and unable to read with nuance. But maybe you just are. That's a question for your and your mental health supporters.
The problem is, if you ARE this stupid, then, well, you probably are just too damned stupid to understand you're this stupid and there's not much hope for you to have rational adult conversations.
But what's worse is that, if you AREN'T this stupid (and again, I don't think you are), then you're choosing to be obtuse, arrogant and a sniveling little pissant in an attempt to demonize an apparently good Christian man. You are an accuser (as warned against in the biblical witness) and a gossip and a slanderer (as warned against in the biblical witness) and an arrogant Pharisaical person deliberately trying to be divisive and harmful.
Come now. I truly don't believe you're as stupid as you're portraying NOR do I believe you want to be as graceless and cruel as you are being. Come now, let us reason. Stop this nonsense and be a better human.
For your own sake. You idiot lies and attacks aren't hurting me. They aren't hurting Talarico. They only serve to make you out to be on the wrong side of simple decent humanity, not to mention Christianity.
Be better.
Craig:
I’m quoting his exact words, you’re the one engaging n flights of fancy trying to invent a way to show that you know the secrets of what he really meant.
Truly, communication and adult understanding does not NEED to be this hard. When there is a text referencing the four corners of the earth, it's not saying the Earth is a square.
When there is an ancient text telling a creation story in a mythic style, it's not saying we should interpret that to mean the first man was a guy literally named Adam, literally made from dust, literally 6,000 years ago, literally on the sixth day of creation.
When Jesus literally is recorded as saying that we should hate our mothers and fathers, that doesn't mean we should literally hate our mothers and fathers.
When Talarico mentions in an isolated discussion, without an opportunity to clarify, that "all religions are equally valid, " that does not mean that he's INCLUDING those that preach hate and murder.
Reading and listening for understanding simply isn't that difficult.
Truly, conservatives have deficits when it comes to understanding nuance and figurative and poetic language. I'd suggest more education and certainly, more humility and more grace.
"On the whole, the research shows, conservatives desire security, predictability and authority more than liberals do, and liberals are more comfortable with novelty, nuance and complexity. "
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/conservative-and-liberal-brains-might-have-some-real-differences/
Ironically, science and research may be showing that it's not your fault. You're just a product of how your brain works or, in this case, doesn't.
Talarico named "God, Allah, YHWH, Nirvana, and The Great Spirit" as all "equal pathways to the same fundamental truth".
This came from the aforementioned video Craig posted in another thread. I don't need to open his Dan-ish fake Christian mind. I need only consider what he said and know that he's referring to the the religions related to those deities, and calling them "equal paths to the same truth". There's only One Truth. Jesus (God) said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father (God), but by me." Jesus proclaimed Himself to be THE Way...the "pathway". He proclaimed Himself to be THE Truth...the fundamental Truth.
Talarico named "Allah, YHWH, Nirvana, and The Great Spirit" as "pathways equal" to God. Where's the freakin' "nuance", Asshat??? We absolutely and without confusion understand EXACTLY what he's saying. YOU...being a lying fake Christian who "embraces grace" only where other asshats are involved...pretend there's something hard to understand about what he's saying. It's crystal clear to all HONEST PEOPLE who "read for understanding". You're not among them and that's just as crystal clear.
You're basically doing what you do routinely with Scripture...pretending what's so obvious means something else you can't support in any way, simply because you don't want to accept what it clearly does mean. He's equating other religions with Christianity...a religion you exploit to further your marxist liberation theology.
By way of an adult level of truth and honesty, what you "meant" is irrelevant to your presumption of misunderstanding on our part regarding what Talarico said and what it means as regards his "expertise" as an alleged Christian. Take your unjustifiable condescension and shove it high up your ass, right next to where you keep your head. "Embrace grace" my ass!
Two whole long comments demonstrating an inability to understand what I actually said, and ripping me for allegedly doing what Dan is actually doing.
Dan's pissy because I won’t read a bunch of nonsense into the quotes as he’s doing.
Exactly, it’s pretty clear what he’s saying and there isn’t a lot of room for nuance because he’s so direct.
I've asked you some very specific, clear, clarifying questions, giving you an opportunity to make yourself clear. You didn't answer them directly, just respond with vague pablum.
You made this post to raise the question of "expertise" in Christian theology of Talarico.
Is that because YOU do not believe those answers from Talarico reflect expertise in Christian theology?
I suspect it is, but YOU can answer that question directly if you so choose.
I asked clarifying questions to see if you understood his intent with those words... I asked, "Do you think he's suggesting that ALL religious traditions, including those who do harm, are following the One Way to Truth, to God?"
Feel free to answer directly and clearly. The response you gave, the vague, "it’s pretty clear what he’s saying and there isn’t a lot of room for nuance because he’s so direct." But that isn't an answer to the question asked.
You also replied with the vague, "I’m quoting his exact words, you’re the one engaging n flights of fancy trying to invent a way to show that you know the secrets of what he really meant. " But THAT isn't an answer to the questions asked.
And yes, I DO understand what he meant. As I've explained in some detail. Now, if you want to answer questions to clarify what YOU meant, then I can better know what you're trying to say. But you can't have it both ways - you can't refuse to answer reasonable questions and, at the same time, have the gall to say suggesting I'm not understanding what you actually said.
The bottom line remains the rational reading/comprehension deficit that conservatives like you tend to have - you fail to read with nuance and tend to choose the most literal take on some few words ripped from context.
It's why your collective Bible "study" is so piss poor pathetic.
But you can be better. Engage in an actual conversation. Seek understanding, not excuses to attack and accuse.
"'Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Messiah. For the accuser of our brothers and sisters, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down.'"
~Revelation 12
"Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour."
~1 Peter 5
And, as a Just Said It instance, you see that I quote 1 Peter's mention of the Adversary, that Accuser, that "devil" seeking to devour good people. Now, a LITERAL and un-nuanced reading of my words might have someone say, "Huh, I guess Dan believes in a literal devil going around like a literal lion..." BUT, someone who reads my words in context of my greater writings... they can know I don't believe in that sort of "devil," a literal Lucifer, angel of light.
That is, the wise and nuanced reader will know that I'm not speaking of literal devils roaming around attacking people. And once they acknowledge that easy bit of reality, then they can strive to understand what I AM saying.
Nuance. Reading for understanding. It's what separates adult readers from childish minds.
Feel free to directly, clearly answer the questions I asked directly. Or not, that's on you. I'm just encouraging you to put aside childish things.
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became an adult, I put the ways of childhood behind me.
Ironically enough (or not) from the Love Chapter.
Grace, men.
And, just to show you how it's done, answering your two questions AGAIN.
If you find the "all faith traditions" are an "equal pathway" to the "divine mystery universe", can you really be considered an expert in Christianity?
It depends on what one means by "all faith traditions" being " an "equal pathway..." But, IF one is saying that there is one Great Truth and that Truth is LOVE, then ALL faith traditions that teach LOVE are indeed a pathway to the Divine Truth. Because, of course, the teachings of Christ are literally, "the two greatest commands? Love God, Love Humanity." Christianity is all about Love. The person who says that all traditions that teach LOVE are valid, IS understanding Christianity.
If you believe that "God, Allah, YHWH, Nirvana, and The Great Spirit" are all "equal pathways to the same fundamental truth", can you really be considered an expert in Christianity?
God, Allah, YHWH, the Great Spirit are ALL simply different words for God. I'm less familiar with nirvana teachings, but if AI has the right of it:
"In Eastern religions, it is the ultimate spiritual goal representing the extinguishing of the "fires" of greed, hatred, and delusion."
The great extinguishing of greed, hatred and delusion would come from Love, it seems to me, so it doesn't seem wrong on the surface.
Now, if someone is referencing "GOD" or "Jesus" AND they're using those words to describe hateful, harmful, unloving Ways, then that person is not speaking of the same fundamental Truth of Love. Just as if someone is referencing "Allah," (literally what Arabic people say for God, whether they're Muslim or Christian) and they're promoting hateful, harmful ways, then they're not promoting the One Truth of Love.
BUT, for those within these various traditions who are promoting the Great Truth of Love, then yes, whether it is a Muslim, a pagan, a Christian or even a conservative "evangelical..." to the degree that they're promoting Love, they are understanding the great truths of Christianity and so, yes, they could be an "expert" in Christianity, ie, an expert in the teachings of Jesus.
As CS Lewis wisely noted:
"Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted."
Grace. Nuance, grace and love, men. Be great, that way.
Your problem is that I'm not "interpreting" these quotes, I'm taking them at face value and believing that he said exactly what he meant to say. I'm giving him credit for being able to express himself in the way that he believes will best communicate what he means. You are the one interpreting, tweaking, massaging, and inserting your hunches about what YOU THINK he really meant. Which seems pretty stupid and childish.
I do so appreciate the number and variety of the insults, personal attacks, and ad hom BS you've managed to put into one relatively short comment. It's very impressive.
It's also impressive how (after you chose not to argue from ignorance and watch the linked video) you don't care what he means by "truth" and all the other BS you demanded I explain the last time your poster boy for expertise in Christianity made himself look like a fool.
Your actual lies and attacks aimed at me, while I haven't lied or attacked anyone are amusing, yet pathetic.
This bizarre game where Dan pretends like Talarico didn't say exactly what he meant to say is nuts. Talarico literally said exactly what Dan paraphrased him as saying, and Dan has the gall to ask if Talarico really meant what he said. If he didn't mean it, he shouldn't have said it.
It's probably not worth mentioning, but "Nirvana" is literally the state of nothingness. To include it with all of those other things is simply stupidity.
Craig:
Your problem is that I'm not "interpreting" these quotes, I'm taking them at face value and believing that he said exactly what he meant to say.
And yet, he NEVER ONE TIME EVER IN ALL OF HISTORY has said that, "Those who claim a faith tradition and who also believe in forced marriages and slavery... THEY TOO, are following the Truth of God."
Do you understand that objective factual reality?
Given that reality, I'm asking you the reasonable question:
Do you think that, given what Talarico said in your cherry picked isolated quotes, that he thinks that those who claim a religious tradition AND who are okay with rape and slavery are also on the Path of Truth and Love?
It's a simple, clear question. Feel free to take the one little tippy-toe step towards just admitting reality and beginning to read with nuance and grace and reason.
Or not. That's on you.
"Is that because YOU do not believe those answers from Talarico reflect expertise in Christian theology?"
That is correct. I do not see how anyone with expertise in Christianity cold possibly claim that other religions which directly contradict Christian doctrines and the Biblical witness could possibly be considered an equal path to Truth.
I'm not even making an argument that Christianity is True, I'm merely noting that two contradictory things or statements cannot be simultaneously True.
"I asked clarifying questions to see if you understood his intent with those words... I asked, "Do you think he's suggesting that ALL religious traditions, including those who do harm, are following the One Way to Truth, to God?""
The implication that YOU "understand his intent with those words", and that we don't is simply one more example of your incredible arrogance.
Yes, I think that he said what he meant and meant what he said.
"I DO understand what he meant."
Doubling down on the hubris, impressive.
I also appreciate to two random Biblical texts with no relationship to anything that has been said in this thread.
Well for some crap that you just made up, which have no relationship to anything, that even more pathetic than usual.
Research also shows that liberals are significantly more mentally ill than conservatives and significantly less happy.
It's strange that you make "security, predictability, and authority" sound like bad things. Because without those things our society would crumble. If we exclude "security, predictability, and authority" from our legal system we end up with chaos and even more inconsistent enforcement of laws. Likewise, I do appreciate the fact that my ownership of my real estate means that I do not have to spend my days wondering if someone can simply help themselves to my private property because we have relatively secure and predictable property laws in the US and a system that recognizes the authority of those laws.
Again with the insults. That you completely contradict yourself, just makes it better.
Now, several comments later, your random Biblical quote is kind of explained, and that it has no real relationship to anything.
Let's start with the obvious. The verse you copy/pasted does not contain your words. They are someone else's words you seem to want to take credit for.
What you believe about that verse is irrelevant. What is important is what THE AUTHOR was trying to communicate. Again, what you believe about the Satan is completely irrelevant. Now, the fact that you seem to arrogantly subordinate the words of THE AUTHOR to your hunches seems worthy of note.
Coming from someone who regularly ignores clear, simple, direct questions, your bitching is hilarious. This seems to be one of those log in your own eye situations though.
Well, you can certainly spin a good fantasy tale there. The problem we have here is that your fanciful, arrogant, hunches, don't deal with the actual question. No one is asking YOU about YOUR HUNCHES, nor do YOU and YOUR HUNCHES establish someone who is not YOU as an expert. It's just YOU making shit up and attributing YOUR made up shit to someone else.
Craig:
I'm not even making an argument that Christianity is True, I'm merely noting that two contradictory things or statements cannot be simultaneously True.
Ah! But that's the thing. YOU have decided that teachings of Christianity and of Islam are contradictory. AND, if you're talking about conservative "evangelicalism" or Calvinism and extremist Islam adherents, you're absolutely correct. But those sub-groups of Christianity and Islam are not ALL of Christianity and Islam.
You can agree with me that far, I suppose?
This is why I'm asking you to think deeper and get to the POINT that Talarico is making and not making a shallow dig at what is almost certainly not factually correct. I'm talking about reading with nuance and grace.
It's why the question of "Is he suggesting that he thinks a religious tradition that promotes slavery or rape is ALSO part of the religions of Love he speaks of?" is an important question. Let's see if you can take that small step and answer that.
"And yet, he NEVER ONE TIME EVER IN ALL OF HISTORY..."
1. That is quite the unproven claim.
2. Have you exhaustively searched everything he has ever said?
3. Have you exhaustively searched "ALL OF HISTORY"?
4. This is where your ignorance of Islam hurts you and Talarico.
"Do you understand that objective factual reality?"
Well, I understand that you have made an completely unproven claim which revolves around a completely made up quote. So yes, it is highly unlikely that he ever said the exact quote that you made up. But, once again, claiming that someone never said something you made up is hardly some significant flex.
"Do you think that, given what Talarico said in your cherry picked isolated quotes, that he thinks that those who claim a religious tradition AND who are okay with rape and slavery are also on the Path of Truth and Love?"
1. How can my quotes be "cherry picked and isolated" when I literally provided the link to a video of him saying what he said, which would allow for anyone who cared to find the rest of the video.
2. I can't speak to what he "thinks", only to what he said. Further, I can't take this question seriously when it's based on what you've added to what he said.
3. The topic is too long and detailed to deal with here, but given the way that Muslims revere the Quran and hold it's teachings to be ("Yes, Muslims consider the Quran to be the absolute, flawless word of God. They believe it is perfectly preserved in its original Arabic form, devoid of errors, and serves as the ultimate, timeless guide for humanity.") (AI summary), and given the fact that the Quran teaches that things like conquest, slavery, rape, genocide, child/forced/multiple marriage, killing those who leave Islam, etc, it seems hard to try to separate out the icky parts of Islam and pretend like Islam isn't what it's perfect scripture says it is.
4. Where in the Quran does one find the same sort of references to love that one finds in the Bible?
5. Does a religion based in love spread through conquest and forced conversion?
6. He literally claims that Islam is an equal path to "truth" with Christianity.
7. Islam is quite clear that Jesus was merely a prophet, and that Mohammad was the greater/final prophet. Christianity and Scripture paint a picture of Jesus that differs from the perfect Quran, how can two mutually exclusive claims be equal paths to the truth?
The arrogance in your continued demands for an answer, when you chose to ignore the fourth in a series of simple direct questions, is beyond belief.
Of course the chances that you'll answer all, or even most, of the questions here is minimal.
Strange. You have taken it upon yourself to have decided what you claim I "have decided", what an egotistical, arrogant position to take.
This is where your ignorance of Islam and your insistence in misrepresenting me hurt you. When you spout this nonsense you simply reinforce that ignorance and arrogance are a bad combination.
How could I possibly agree with something which you have simply made up out of whole cloth, with no basis in reality.
Yes, I understand that you have arrogantly decided that your "point" which has no basis in anything Talarico or I have said somehow takes precedence over everything else in the conversation. You have also mistakenly concluded that I care about the crap you make up,
We can start with the helpful AI overview.
"While both share Abrahamic roots, Islam and Christianity fundamentally diverge on the nature of God, the identity of Jesus, and the path to salvation. Christians believe in the Trinity (one God in three persons) and that Jesus is the divine Son of God who died for humanity's sins. Islam strictly upholds absolute monotheism (Tawhid) and views Jesus as a revered prophet, denying his divinity and crucifixion.The main areas where the two religions disagree include:1. The Nature of GodChristianity: Teaches the Trinity—that God is one being manifested in three distinct persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit.Islam: Strictly opposes the Trinity, emphasizing Tawhid (the absolute oneness and indivisibility of God or Allah). The concept of God having a son or being addressed intimately as "Father" is considered a major theological error.2. The Identity and Role of JesusChristianity: Identifies Jesus as the Son of God who is both fully God and fully human. He is considered the Savior whose death and resurrection provide atonement for humanity's sins.Islam: Views Jesus (or Isa) as one of the greatest prophets and a messenger of God, but strictly human. Muslims believe he did not die on the cross (a substitute was used) and was taken directly to heaven.3. Salvation and AtonementChristianity: Teaches that humanity is inherently fallen and burdened by original sin. Salvation cannot be earned through good deeds alone; it is a gift from God obtained through faith in Jesus Christ's sacrifice.Islam: Rejects the concept of original sin. Muslims believe individuals are born pure and are judged on the Day of Judgment based on their faith, repentance, and good deeds (along with the mercy of Allah).4. Holy ScripturesChristianity: Regards the Bible (Old and New Testaments) as the inspired, authoritative Word of God.Islam: Believes the Qur'an is the final, uncorrupted, and literal word of God revealed to the Prophet Muhammad. While Muslims respect the original Torah and Gospel, they believe current biblical texts have been altered over time.5. Concept of Sin and the Human ConditionChristianity: Emphasizes that humanity needs a Redeemer because of an innate human inability to meet God's perfect standards.Islam: Views humanity as inherently forgetful and weak, rather than inherently sinful. Consequently, humanity does not need a savior but rather divine guidance and reminders on how to live righteously."
https://calvarychapelmagazine.org/articles/answering-islam-objections
https://pastorvlad.org/islam/
https://pastorvlad.org/islam/
I'll answer your questions when I'm on the computer so I can do them justice but quickly...
I would suggest that the problem with understanding that you're having here is that we're talking about two different styles of religion. Here, I do not mean Christianity and Islam. I'm talking about the Way of grace style of religion and the Way of legalism style of religion.
For you, Christianity and Islam and other religions are defined by a set of tenets and rules that they affirm, agree to, or live by. Understanding the tenets correctly and affirming them is essential to being identified as a follower of that religion. Those who follow in the way of grace have no use for such rules and tenets or at least little use. The point is love, the point is grace, the point is higher truths of love and grace and justice and welcome. For you it matters. If they say I'm a believer in the Quran, to you that means a certain set of things but that's because you're in the way of legalism.
For us when someone says they're a follower of the Quran, we might ask what they mean by that. They would say that it teaches them that God is great and that God is love and that we should love. For those Muslim followers of the way of grace, they have no use for the legalistic rules that you would use to define Islam and that some in Islam would use to define Islam. It's two different ways. You seem incapable of understanding those who do not cling to the way of legalism and tenets.
Pray. Give some thought to that. Perhaps you're missing a point that is vital to understanding your fellow humans in the spirit of love and grace.
Dan
"The law of noncontradiction is a foundational principle of logic stating that contradictory statements cannot both be true simultaneously and in the same sense. Formally expressed as \(\neg (p \land \neg p)\), it means a thing cannot be both "A" and "not-A" concurrently. For example, a car cannot be entirely red and not red at the exact same time.Rooted in classical philosophy, the principle is universally considered a necessary bedrock for all rational thought, scientific inquiry, and meaningful communication. Without it, the principle of explosion applies, which dictates that if even one contradiction is accepted, any conclusion—even an absurd or false one—can be logically proven."
Again, without even addressing the Truth of any of the belief systems Talarico claims are all equal paths to the truth, I'm pointing out the fundamental fact that the Law of Non-Contradiction applies. Two diametrically opposed claims cannot both be True simultaneously.
Islam and Christianity contain diametrically opposed claims, therefore that cannot both be a path to the truth.
I'll believe that when I see it.
"we're talking about two different styles of religion."
You might be doing so, but I am not. But feel free to keep making assumptions.
Yes, you are correct that all religions make claims and set out doctrines, tenets, and rules. Of course, it is perfectly acceptable and normal to evaluate the veracity of a religion based on the claims it makes about itself.
For example, Mormonism makes some wild, fantastical, and absurd claims bout all sorts of things. The problem is that their claims about historical events have uniformly been found to have zero evidence to support their claims. Based on that evidence, we can draw some conclusions about Mormonism.
Christianity and Islam make many claims and have many tenets, and it is obviously correct to evaluate those claims and tenets.
The issue at issue here is how those comparisons survive being held to the Law of Non-Contradiction.
You're just making shit up and pretending like your made up shit is reality.
The rest of your self serving BS is irrelevant to this conversation. Especially when one evaluates the Quran and it's teachings, and the actions of Muslims as they live out those teachings. 57 countries where oppression, subjugation, ethnic cleansing, and mutilation are practiced because the Quran commands them is hardly a demonstration of grace or love.
Based on the overly long, self serving, self referential, self focused, load of crap Dan published at the cesspool, this conversation boils down to one thing.
"Can you acknowledge (even without Talarico even having to say it) that, of course, that is NOT what he's saying?"
Dan's incoherent position is that we shouldn't believe Talarico and what he actually said, but that we should believe Dan and his hunch that Talarico didn't really mean what he literally said. Maybe Talarico was unaware of the words he spoke when he spoke them? Maybe Talarico was speaking in a secret code that only Dan can comprehend? Maybe Talarico was drunk or high? Who knows what creative excuses that we can come up with to explain how Talarico didn't mean what he literally said.
Creative, and overly verbose, but with the redeeming quality f being full of BS. Like most of what Dan posts at the cesspool.
Deut 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: [a]The Lord our God, the Lord is one! 5 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.
Matt 22: 37 Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’
Mark 12:30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’
Luke 10: 27 So he answered and said, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’
From the earliest foundation of Judaism, the faith was one which engaged the mind or intellect. In the Deut passage, the term translated as "heart" includes more than just the emotions as we would think today. It included the intellect as well.
Jesus, was more clear when He included "mind" in the first commandment. He was seemingly clear that following Him was something that engaged the intellect. The Hebrew and Christian Scriptures make specific claims that place the events recorded in specific times. Archeology continues to provide evidence to support the claims being made. The Quran makes virtually zero claims which are specific enough to be verified independently, while simultaneously being presented as "perfect".
Given the importance of engaging the intellect, then it makes sense that a comparison of the competing claims of Christianity and Islam would be a reasonable exercise. Studying the tenets and doctrines and how those work out in real life, seems a valuable exercise.
This becomes more worthwhile when we use the Law of Non-Contradiction as our yardstick. While we can absolutely compare the claims of Islam and Christianity to determine whether or not they are True or accurate, in this case it's more about whether the two can be reconciled in a way that allows them both the be paths to the truth.
I think that I've demonstrated that both cannot be equally true simultaneously, which would seem to rule out the possibility that both can be equal paths to the truth.
Yet, I do not doubt that YHWH could use Islam to lead someone to The Truth as He absolutely uses all things for His purposes. Yet to tell someone that they have an equal chance to find The Truth through both seems like bad advice.
And ALL of that is very much what a disciple of the human traditions of legalism would say.
But not what the followers of the Way of Grace would say.
You see, you're trying to evaluate another philosophy using your own human philosophies/traditions which are not part of those who follow the way of Love and Grace.
You read but fail to understand and, failing there, you fail to even understand that you're failing to understand.
Good luck.
Well, I'm a disciple of Jesus and no one else.
If you want to follow some mythical "Way of Grace", feel free.
The Law of Non-Contradiction is not my "own" anything. It's simply a fundamental law of logic. I guess you are deciding that you are somehow exempt from the Law of Non-Contradiction.
Heaven forbid that anyone evaluate the competing claims of multiple religious worldviews based on the Law of Non-Contradiction.
It's bizarre that the more I demonstrate that I do have a grasp on the significant differences between Christianity and Islam, and point out those differences and you retreat into these platitudes and made up philosophies.
"Good luck"
Which means that you're not going to answer questions as you promised to. Not surprising.
Here’s I think might be happening.
My post is about knowledge of facts, about being able to do a comparison of A to B and see what’s different or what is the same. I posit that anyone who compares Islam and Christianity side by side cannot come to the conclusion that they both lead to the same truth. Anyone that does come to that conclusion should not be labeled as an expert in Christianity.
Dan seems to be making an entirely different argument based on some undefined “Way of Grace”(hereafter WAG) and his overly generous guesses about what Talarico really means. Dan also seems to have a problem with the Law of Non-Contradiction and with applying it to Christianity and Islam.
I’ve offered many examples of the irreconcilable differences between the two, which Dan has ignored so far. Yet both of these religions cannot be simultaneously and equally True.
It appears as if Dan has taken his leave, but he’s returned after saying that he’s done before so who knows.
It’ll be interesting to see if he takes his side of the conversation to the cesspool where I’m mostly unwelcome and certainly unwilling to be censored at his whim.
Answering questions:
1. How can my quotes be "cherry picked and isolated" when I literally provided the link to a video of him saying what he said, which would allow for anyone who cared to find the rest of the video.
When you choose ONE speech or discussion with a very few words, ripped from the context of his greater collection of speeches/opinion pieces/writings/conversations, that is the definition of cherry picking isolated words from a greater context. How do you not understand that?
2. I can't speak to what he "thinks", only to what he said. Further, I can't take this question seriously when it's based on what you've added to what he said
And that is your problem. I can read Jesus' words, taken in context of the whole collection of his words, and reach a reasonable conclusion of what he's thinking/intending. It's called adult reasoning and capacity for understanding.
3. The topic is too long and detailed to deal with here, but given the way that Muslims revere the Quran and hold it's teachings to be... and given the fact that the Quran teaches that things like conquest, slavery, rape, genocide, child/forced/multiple marriage, killing those who leave Islam, etc, it seems hard to try to separate out the icky parts of Islam and pretend like Islam isn't what it's perfect scripture says it is.
And the bible has passages "teaching" things like slavery, conquest, slaughter of children, forced marriages/rapes, etc. That these lines actual exist literally in these ancient texts do not mean that followers of these books believe they represent a moral norm or acceptable behavior. Right?
How do you not understand this?
4. Where in the Quran does one find the same sort of references to love that one finds in the Bible?
I'm no expert in Quran - any more than you are. What I DO know is that many Muslims speak of the loving nature of Allah and how we are to love one another. I trust them over bigots to speak for themselves.
AI:
"Sufi masters teach that the cosmos is born from an infinite Divine Love. True love for humanity requires seeing past egos and dogmatic boundaries to recognize the sacred essence within every person, viewing selfless service and universal compassion as the ultimate spiritual practice."
Are you familiar with the delightfully wise writings of Rumi?
Come, come, get closer. Till when is this banditness going to continue? Since you are I and I am you, what is this ‘us and them’? We are God’s holy light, we are God’s mirror. So why are we struggling with each other? Why is one light running away from another light so much? We, all human beings, are gathered like a body in the being of a mature human. But why are we squint-eyed? Although we are limbs of the same body why do the rich look down on the poor?
Etc. I trust Rumi more than you to speak for Islam. Fair enough?
cont'd...
Answering questions:
5. Does a religion based in love spread through conquest and forced conversion?
NO. But then, not all Muslims advocate that, do they? Only bigots believe such fearmongering. (And to be clear: Too many Muslim extremists ARE advocates of violence, just as too many Christian extremists are).
6. He literally claims that Islam is an equal path to "truth" with Christianity.
Again, what he's literally saying is that ALL "religions of love" are preaching the path to the Truth of Love. And I agree with that, as well. That you can't understand what he's saying doesn't make him wrong.
7. Islam is quite clear that Jesus was merely a prophet, and that Mohammad was the greater/final prophet. Christianity and Scripture paint a picture of Jesus that differs from the perfect Quran, how can two mutually exclusive claims be equal paths to the truth?
Does being a lover and follower of the Way of Love HAVE to have 100% correct understanding of Jesus or Mohammad or Moses? Or, does grace allow that it's not perfect knowledge of all mysteries that saves us? If we're saved by perfect knowledge, who is saved? I don't see those passages, as far as they might exist, to be mutually exclusive, but then, I'm not a follower of the way of Legalism.
Answered. Feel free to answer my many questions to you.
While we can absolutely compare the claims of Islam and Christianity to determine whether or not they are True or accurate, in this case it's more about whether the two can be reconciled in a way that allows them both the be paths to the truth.
I think that I've demonstrated that both cannot be equally true simultaneously, which would seem to rule out the possibility that both can be equal paths to the truth.
And yet, you literally haven't demonstrated that. You've demonstrated that IF Islam AS YOU DEFINE IT is the set of rules YOU understand them to be, then THAT understanding that you have is different than Christianity AS YOU define it. But you don't speak for Islam or Christianity and in both cases, there is a range of beliefs held by a range of believers of each tradition.
Do you understand that?
So, no. Fail. You have not established that, at all. That's a huge and arrogant swing and a miss.
And you don't even get that it's not established as you imagine it is.
Truly rational adults do not resemble Dan's lying ass in any way. Truly honest, rational adults don't play the games Dan does, trying to make deceitful claims about rationality, "nuance" and whatever other turds Dan tries to throw against the wall to see which sticks (none do).
Then, this non-Christian douche dares accuse us of idiocy, lies and nefarious attacks on a guy who's as much a liar about Jesus as Dan is.
And again Soy Boy Dan dares to encourage us to be better humans! Amazing!
Dan, being the soy boy liar he is, pretends Talarico's pronouncement that all religions are equal pathways to the truth are somehow analogous to Scripture Dan craps on with impunity and arrogance.
Conservatives have no deficit which marxist liberation theologians like Dan and Talarico can fill. Conservatives have truth. Dan's type has "nuance"...which is progressive-speak for "lying".
"I've asked you some very specific, clear, clarifying questions, giving you an opportunity to make yourself clear."
The issue here is no a matter of Craig being unclear...because he hasn't been. The issue is Dan again equivocating rather than deal with the facts of the matter like an actual man with even the slightest shred of honor.
"Is that because YOU do not believe those answers from Talarico reflect expertise in Christian theology?"
For someone who drones on about "nuance", this is a comical question. Craig's post indicated to me...right off the bat...that he was absolutely shredding the laughable notion of Talarico being possessed of expertise at all! We once again have a fake Christian who is either incredibly stupid or lying about the faith. Like Dan and his troll, this guy claims to be studied in the faith and like Dan and his troll, he says so much which is so anathema to the faith, so contrary and very often blasphemous. Is it ignorance, stupidity or lying? Those are the only options.
"It depends on what one means by..." ---Dan Trabue
""It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is,"" ---Bill Clinton
This is what for Dan passes for "adult" conversation. For Dan, "grace" = "prevaricate".
Furthermore Dan's "reasonable" question (*guffaw!*) is a willful distraction. He can't make Tararico's actual words truly reasonable and factual, so he invents these nonsensical questions instead. What Dan lacks the mental capacity to fathom is that no answer we might give to his not-at-all-reasonable question makes any difference to the fact that Talarico is equating non-Christian religions (or worse, false gods) with Christianity. There's no truth in them at all which is worthy of consideration. Nothing in them compels an honest, thinking Christian to study them for "teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
Christianity and islam are contradictory. Christianity teaches Christ crucified (and what it means for us). islam doesn't and also says what Christianity says about Jesus is untrue. They are diametrically oppose on the only Truth which matters. There's no "nuance" which changes that in any way.
"I'll answer your questions when I'm on the computer so I can do them justice...."
BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That never happens.
"Those who follow in the way of grace..." are those who, like Dan, have rejected all of Scripture which they choose not to follow, including direct commands of God to OBEY THE COMMANDS OF GOD.
"Those who follow in the way of grace!" What a sham! What a false religion! What an anti-Christ pretentious preference of embracing crap Dan calls "grace"!
"WAG". That makes things easier.
WAG means, "anything goes". It allows for whatever Dan needs it to allow while continuing to pretend there's a legitimate connection between it and actual Christian teaching beyond the most superficial aspects (but only those Dan's finds personally appealing).
1. Yet i literally linked to the video in question so that context was available. As if more blather somehow makes what he said better.
2. So im suppose to be a mind reader based off of all the crap you made up and added to what he actually said. Pure idiocy.
3. Because it’s not rocket science to determine the context of the few icky passages, and to understand that those were time/place/people specific.
4. I’m guessing that you googled this and couldn’t find an answer so you played the anonymous people game instead. You make so many claims about Islam, but when pressed for specifics you have nothing from the Quran.
5. It’s strange how the history of the spread of Islam is a tale of conquest, genocide, ethnic/religious cleansing, and fortunately being repulsed at Vienna. Nice non answer, that’s what ignorance gets you.
6. Except that he didn’t actually say that, you said it and claimed that he did. But hey, let’s see some examples of Muslims showing love for non Muslims.
7. Nice dodge. The question is about the incompatibility of Islam and Christianity and Talarico’s (and yours) ignorance regarding why they cannot be equal paths to the truth. Show me one Muslim who agrees with this idiocy.
I’ve been answering your questions all along. If there’s one I missed please point it out and I’ll do my best imitation of you.
Again your ignorance shows through. You don’t know enough to claim that I and the links I’ve provided are factually wrong, so you are left with this “as you define it” BS.
I understand that you need a way to avoid the reality that Christianity and Islam cannot be equally true,
If Muslims believe that Christianity and Islam are equally true, then why is converting to Christianity a capital offense?
Ignorance and arrogance is an interesting combination.
I’ll simply note that I’ve provided specific examples, links to more examples, and an AU summary, for you and you haven’t even attempted to demonstrate that any of it is wrong.
As happens so often, Dan had to change the subject.
Yeah, Dan is in full Clinton mode.
Really it’s just The Way Of Whatever Strikes Dan’s Fancy Or What He Thinks Helps His Argument.
Or
WAD. Way Of Dan.
"When you choose ONE speech or discussion with a very few words, ripped from the context of his greater collection of speeches/opinion pieces/writings/conversations..."
...one finds a very disturbing pattern of anti-Christian drivel presented as Scripture-supported truths...very much like we see with Dan's equally disturbing perversions.
"I can read Jesus' words, taken in context of the whole collection of his words, and reach a reasonable conclusion of what he's thinking/intending."
If you can, then why don't you ever?
"And the bible has passages "teaching" things like slavery, conquest, slaughter of children, forced marriages/rapes, etc."
You're confusing (or purposely perverting, which is just as, if not more, likely) "DEscription" (of events) as "PREscription" (a teaching of God's Will for the behavior of His children). The Bible in no way teaches behaviors you describe, but only records them. The teaching is God's response to them. The Quran teaches despicable behaviors as that which marks one as a "good" muslim. This has been confirmed by ex-muslims, those who study the ideology of islam and of course their victims.
"I'm no expert in Quran"
You're not much of an expert of anything except lying and perverting the Will of God.
"What I DO know is that many Muslims speak of the loving nature of Allah and how we are to love one another."
Like you, what they say their "holy" book teaches and what it actually teaches isn't necessarily the same thing, especially as they might relate it to useful idiots like you.
" Are you familiar with the delightfully wise writings of Rumi?"
Does he write of Christ crucified?
"I trust Rumi more than you to speak for Islam. Fair enough?"
No. Not fair at all. I trust no muslim regardless of sect, to teach Truth. I'll bet you can't tell us how he separates himself from the words of Muhammed.
"But then, not all Muslims advocate that, do they?"
Doesn't matter. You reject a great deal of Scripture and still falsely posture as a Christian. What matters is what their "holy" book says and teaches...not what a percentage of them "advocate" publicly. It's not fearmongering to state facts and truth. Are ex-muslims "fearmongering" when they say the same things we do? Is that your angle?
"Again, what he's literally saying is that ALL "religions of love" are preaching the path to the Truth of Love."
What he "literally" said is what he's recorded as having said, not your eisegesis of what he said. Now, when I say "Dan's an asshole", if Craig says, "Well, Art didn't mean that Dan is an actual, literal anus", Craig is clarifying based on the colloquial use of the term "asshole" to describe your low character. Thus, it's clear to everyone familiar with the term "asshole" exactly what I meant. But when I say, "Dan is a heretic and thus not an actual Christian", Craig would explain that I believe you are perverting the Words and teachings of God/Jesus/Scripture and by doing so you belie your claim of being Christian. Craig would have affirmed my comment as a literal description of you rather than the pejorative description of you being an asshole.
In the same way, Talarico's words are quite clearly making a false parallel between God and other gods and thus Christianity and other religions and calling them equal. YOU try to pretend he's referring to some superficial similarity which is somehow a fundamental truth. You could not be more absurd in your falsehood.
Thus, we fully understand what he's saying and what he's saying is horribly wrong and indicates he either has no true expertise in the Christian faith, or he's a heretic like you.
Craig,
I wouldn't say no examples of a muslim or muslims extending grace to a non-muslim cannot be found, and one which sprang immediately to mind is the case of Marcus Luttrell (see his book or the film "Lone Survivor"). That was a case of muslims abiding a custom which goes back before there were muslims, but common in the Middle East. The custom just happened to benefit an American soldier (thank God), and I've never been clear as to whether or not the motivation was to be faithful to the custom or to show "love" to Luttrell.
Zhudi Jasser (SP?) might be an example, given his service to the the USA. But again, how aligned with Quranic teaching is he. From what I know of the guy, he rejects the more barbaric aspects of his "religion".
So what we need is a "Good Samaritan" muslim. Is there some? I think the Law of Probability would suggest there are.
Just sayin'.
"And yet, you literally haven't demonstrated that."
You're just being an obstinate little bitch of a soy boy. To do this, you speak of "a range of beliefs". There is only one belief regarding Christianity, which you reject. We don't. islam conflicts with Christianity by virtue of its teachings. It's not a "version". It's factual. You're just doing your routine Black Knight impression.
Dan worships data, until he doesn’t. Then he pivots to things for which no data exists.
Art, while I’m sure individual exceptions exist, Islam is not based on extending love/grace to non Muslims unlike Christianity.
Unless 250k rapes can be cast as grace or love.
I could be wrong, but I’m not seeing any Scripture that commands the enslavement of all non Jews/Christians.
Indeed. I was only providing the standard caveat which is not unlikely to show up in use against us. But of course, these few exceptions do not at all or in any way mitigate the rule.
Given the whole “It’s perfectly okay to lie to protect or advance Islam.”, it’s reasonable to question the motives of any Muslim who does anything outside of the commands of the Quran.
It seems bizarre that billions of Muslims are pretty consistent on how they apply the Quran, yet Dan insists that we accept some theoretical tiny minority as those by who we assess Islam.
Sigh. The REAL WORLD objective data is that there are many Muslims who don't believe in oppression of any sort, who believe in a God of Love and a Way of Love, specifically for the poor and marginalized.
If you're not aware of them, that doesn't mean they don't exist. Google it. For instance, the quick AI response:
Progressive Muslims believe in interpreting Islamic teachings through the lens of modern human rights, gender equality, and social justice. They emphasize independent reasoning (ijtihad) over literalism, arguing that ethical principles like compassion and fairness should continually evolve rather than remaining frozen in pre-modern cultural contexts.
You know, much like progressive Christians or progressive pagans. THIS is clearly what Talarico is speaking of.
Now, when small-minded arrogant men object and say, "but... but THAT isn't what Islam teaches..." the sad fact is that such small-minded men DON'T get to tell Muslims what they do and don't believe... they don't "own" the definition of Islam, anymore than they "own" the definition of Christianity.
The reality of Christians who disagree with the legalist Christians and Muslims who disagree with the legalist Muslims IS objective evidence that Christianity and Islam are not a monolith with one pope and one authority on who's in and who's out.
That's just all observable, objective reality.
So, for those traditions and religions of a Religion and God and Way of LOVE, we ARE all united in a common belief and an ultimately common Goal, even if smaller differences show up in specific tenets.
Again, objective data-drive reality.
That you don't like or agree with the data and with reality simply doesn't matter.
Educate yourself. You might begin with Rumi - he's quite engaging and compelling and wise.
“Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing
and rightdoing there is a field.
I'll meet you there.
When the soul lies down in that grass
the world is too full to talk about.”
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/875661.Jalal_ad_Din_Muhammad_ar_Rumi
But continue on to modern writings/thinking from Muslims, like this:
https://meccainstitute.org/progressive-islam/
or...
To begin with, and certainly for most Progressive Muslims I know, Progressive Islam is not about reforming or altering the Quran itself, but rather reforming our interpretations of it, and getting rid of the extra baggage of organized religion. Progressive Muslims believe that the current Muslim community, by and large, has adopted bad theology due to a lack of self-study and introspection, replacing it with blindly following the opinions of scholars and the cultural norms prevalent in “Islamic societies” by automatically equating them with Islam. We find much substantiation for this from the Quran, which constantly urges Muslims to think independently, and reminds them that the truth is only sought by, and possessed by a minority (Quran, 6:116). Thus, the argument that the views of mainstream Muslims must all be correct since they represent the majority holds no water for us.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/quranalyzeit/2014/11/15/who-are-progressive-muslims-and-what-do-they-believe/
etc.
...or just do your own work. Self-learning and enlightenment is a responsibility and joy of adult living. Grow in grace and wisdom, men.
Marshal:
There is only one belief regarding Christianity, which you reject.
And what is this magical "authoritatively-defined" "one belief" Christianity you imagine? Where is the authoritative proof that YOUR "one belief" Christianity is what Jesus wants us to think? The pope? The Bible? Ahh, but I'm looking at the Bible too and disagreeing with your opinion.
Is your "one belief Christianity" something like:
"1. Humans are totally corrupt, incapable of good in any way at all.
2. God really hates totally corrupt humans and WILL burn such humans in hell for an eternity for that "corruption."
3. The only way for SOME humans (not most) to be saved from that punishment from that "loving god" is to have Jesus get killed, then use his blood to "pay" for our "sin debt" so that THEN (and only then), God can forgive us and save us..."
Is that a close summary of what you believe in your head defines Christianity?
If so, where is the authoritative proof of that, given the reality that humans read the bible and reach entirely different conclusions than your particular human tradition? AND, if you're correct in your human theory and YOU are totally corrupt/depraved, then how do we know your own opinion/interpretation of this theory not, itself, corrupt?
Isn't your theory, in and of itself, self-defeating? (not to mention immoral and irrational)?
Also,
4. Must one AFFIRM a belief in your theory as outlined above in order to be saved? That is, if Jesus' "paid" for our "sin" so that "god" could be "empowered" to finally forgive us of our "sin" and "sin nature," then is asking for forgiveness required? Is taking a next step and affirming the points that Marshal has suggested are his opinion of how to define Christianity? OR, can one belief in a perfect loving God AND confess our sins and want to follow God's ways... is that sufficient without having to affirm your theory/theories?
Thank you for making my point so very well
That we are to ignore the 57 Muslim countries and how they operate, ignore what Muslim immigrants have blessed Europe with, ignore the significant percentage of Muslims engaged in massive fraud, ignore the attempts to conquer Europe, genocide/ethnic cleansing, and believe a few cherry picked people that Dan likes.
All the while ignoring the fact that Islam gives them license to lie in order to advance Islam.
Oh, and ignore the plethora of Muslim clerics and leaders who are very clear about their goals.
Because we should just ignore the billion plus Muslims who don’t align with Dan. When we see “progressive Muslims” actively and vocally speaking out publicly, I’ll take them seriously.
I don’t pretend to own the definition of either. I do understand that both have all sorts of ways to evaluate their beliefs (it’s called comparative religion) and to be able to compare and contrast. Not to mention that we can simply watch what Muslims do and say in the real world.
That you mention “objective data” and “objective reality” without providing any of either doesn’t really help you at all.
"Progressive Muslims believe in interpreting Islamic teachings through the lens of modern human rights, gender equality, and social justice. They emphasize independent reasoning (ijtihad) over literalism, arguing that ethical principles like compassion and fairness should continually evolve rather than remaining frozen in pre-modern cultural contexts."
In other words, they are, like Dan isn't really a Christian, not really muslim at all, but only those who retain of tissue thin superficial similarity, mostly, as does Dan with his claim of being Christian, by simply asserting they are nonetheless muslim. Alas, it's no more convincing of the claim as Dan is in claiming to be Christian. "Sure...I'm muslim/Christian! I just don't believe anything the Quran/Bible teaches! But I'm still muslim/Christian! No! REALLY!"
"Now, when small-minded arrogant men object and say, "but... but THAT isn't what Islam teaches..." the sad fact is that such small-minded men DON'T get to tell Muslims what they do and don't believe... they don't "own" the definition of Islam, anymore than they "own" the definition of Christianity."
Problems with the above:
1. When Dan begins a sentence in the manner he did with the above, it throws me off. He says, "small-minded arrogant men", and it's Dan who first comes to mind. But then I realize he's not talking about himself, but rather projecting his sinful traits onto those like us.
2. It's not a matter of those like us telling muslims "what they do and don't believe". We're simply referring to what their "religious" leaders, their activists and adherents as well as former muslims and muslim victims tell us is what islam teaches. Like Dan in relation to Christianity, what one believes isn't what makes one a muslim, and what any given individual muslim believes isn't the point or relevant. It's whether or not what one believes is aligned with the teachings of islam. Dan goes way out of his way to point to a scant tiny percentage who rejects at least as much of the Quran as the amount of Scripture Dan rejects and pretends they're mainstream or reflective of actual islamic teaching.
3. "Ownership" is just a stupid thing to say.
"The reality of Christians who disagree with the legalist Christians and Muslims who disagree with the legalist Muslims IS objective evidence that Christianity and Islam are not a monolith with one pope and one authority on who's in and who's out."
No. It's objective evidence of fakes who label devoted followers of a faith as "legalists" in order to denigrate and disparage. But when the faithful describe the superficiality of those like Dan, we're not doing it to disparage (their rejection of Scripture is self-disparaging, so we don't need to disparage them at all), but are merely stating fact. THAT is what truly observable, objective reality looks like. Dan just says whatever bullshit makes him feel good and labels it "reality".
"Educate yourself. You might begin with Rumi..."
Does he teach Christ crucified?
"Is that a close summary of what you believe in your head defines Christianity?"
Everything I believe about Christianity is not only true, but supported by the very Scripture upon which you so routinely crap. But that's not the issue here and if you actually did "read for understanding", you'd not have missed the point so badly. In the context of what we've been discussing, the on belief you reject is that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life...the first two you pretend is just marketing and has no value when comparing Christianity to other religions, preferring like the heretic fake Christian you are to defend your soy boy bird of a feather, Talarico, to dare suggest any is as good as the other to result in true salvation. THAT'S an example of "immoral and irrational" and it seems perfectly clear you're totally down with the immoral and irrational.
4. This doesn't resemble my factual beliefs about the faith, so I won't respond to such a question. It does, however, nicely affirm my position that you're no Christian nor are as "seriously studied" as you pretend to be. It's all performance for you.
Dan’s bustin’ out the greatest hits of his magical incantations.
Craig...
Does he teach Christ crucified?
Rumi...
"I searched for God among the Christians and on the Cross and therein I found Him not.
I went into the ancient temples of idolatry; no trace of Him was there.
I entered the mountain cave of Hira and then went as far as Qandhar but God I found not.
With set purpose I fared to the summit of Mount Caucasus and found there only 'anqa's habitation.
Then I directed my search to the Kaaba, the resort of old and young; God was not there even.
Turning to philosophy I inquired about him from ibn Sina but found Him not within his range.
I fared then to the scene of the Prophet's experience of a great divine manifestation only a "two bow-lengths' distance from him" but God was not there even in that exalted court.
Finally, I looked into my own heart and there I saw Him; He was nowhere else"
Seems to me he teaches Christ, risen, and Christ, here with us, like Jesus did.
Why? Do you only read people who literally say something specific about Christ crucified? If so, does that mean you don't read the Old Testament?
But I'm taking that to mean, no, you're not familiar with the writings and poems and wisdom of Rumi. Fair enough. It was just a question.
The point of the question being, though, how much have you read actual writings from actual Muslims without seeking the worst-behaved Muslims' teachings?
Dan
Dan:
"Is that a close summary of what you believe in your head defines Christianity?"
Marshal:
Everything I believe about Christianity is not only true, but supported by the very Scripture upon which you so routinely crap.
What is it with you fellas and simply directly answering questions? Why WOULDN'T you answer those questions directly? Are you trying to hide something? Are you embarrassed by your answers? I mean, those are certainly the answers I would have given once upon a time when I believed like you fellas do.
Why not just answer the questions?
I'm guessing for 4, you ARE trying to answer. I THINK you're saying that, NO, you do not believe that one must affirm a belief in your religious tenets (1-3) to be saved. Is that correct?
And IS asking forgiveness required to be "saved" or to be "a Christian" (of the sort that you affirm)? It would seem to be a simple yes or no question, but maybe it's more complicated than that. But by all means, explain why.
Conversation doesn't have to be this difficult, gentlemen.
1. The OT clearly teaches Christ Crucified.
2. This seems to contradict Jesus own words about not finding Him in a specific physical location.
3. Given that the version of Christ in the Quran is not compatible with the Biblical Christ, we have no idea which Christ he claims to be looking for.
4. Are you seriously referring to the Quran as the worst behaved Muslim teachings?
5. Are you simply assuming that a couple of outliers define Islam?
This is another one of those log in the eye situations. Dan regularly either doesn’t answer questions, doesn’t answer them directly, launches into a random comment unrelated to the question, or makes excuses for not answering questions, but decides to bitch about the behavior he engages in.
The reality is likely that these are questions or variations of questions that have been asked and answered multiple times, which likely doesn’t matter to someone who has trouble remembering.
Finally, this pretending that some “tenets” that Dan cooked up are magically “our tenets”, would be annoying if it wasn’t such an old tactic.
I’d argue that, according to Scripture, the only thing that is required for salvation is to have been chosen by YHWH. That salvation is solely and totally through the work of Christ and that we bring nothing to the table.
Are there things that make Christianity distinct from other religions, absolutely. Do those things require human assent to be True or valid, no.
This is just more of Dan straying away from the point of the post and trying to assert control of the conversation.
“The ultimate Truth” is YHWH (in all three persons). Love (and the rest) are attributes of YHWH. You seem to be confusing the created (love) with the Creator (YHWH).
1. If you mean “All have sinned..,”, “No one is good…” and the rest of the scriptural witness to human sinfulness, then sure I agree with Scripture.
2. No. YHWH loved humanity so much that He provided The Way for us to be reconciled to Him for eternity. Would be a more NT way to put this.
3. I can only go by what I see in Scripture, and from Exodus through Revelation this is an incredibly consistent theme.
4. What is outlined above is not “our theory”. At best it’s your caricature of what we’ve said about what Scripture reveals, but the above is yours and no one else’s.
I can only point to people like the thief on the cross, and those in the OT who were saved. That leads me to conclude that salvation has nothing to do with what we do or say, that it does not hinge on us at all.
Is salvation the exact same thing as being a Christian? Does salvation, the new birth/creation/death to life/infilling with the Holy Spirit lead us to certain beliefs of to some apprehension of The Truth? Scripture seems to indicate that.
Like so many, the above seems to suggest that what we believe or affirm precedes salvation, instead of salvation being the first step to The Truth.
But I also don’t think that we are saved, or become Christians, based on how we treat people.
Craig...
"1. The OT clearly teaches Christ Crucified."
This is a good example of your (collective) reading deficits.
I know that many evangelicals truly think this in their head, but consider this...
No. The OT objectively does NOT teach Christ crucified.
Boom! Just like that, your mind and argument are blown.
What DOES happen is that there are a few OT verse that modern conservative religionists have READ INTO the words a hint of foreshadowing of Jesus, IF you squint just right. But it certainly does not in any reasonable sense "clearly teach" it.
Go ahead. Look at the whole OT. You'll see.
Or not.
Dan
https://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-and-the-messianic-prophecies-did-the-old-testament-point-to-jesus/
No first century Jewish scholars took your excerpted verses as messianic prophecies. That would be an example of expectation fulfillment... where, if you wish something is true, you can find it, whether it's there or not.
Dan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Dan
1. Well, if you say so.
.2. Eherman is hardly an unbiased source.
3. Presumptuous of you to speak for every 1st century Jewish scholar.
4. Perhaps you missed parts of The Gospels where the fulfilled prophecies were pointed out by Jesus and the Jewish scholars wanted to kill Him for blasphemy.
It’s absolutely hilarious when you do this idiotic crap and make these kinds of pronouncements and arrogantly speak for other people.
"worst-behaved Muslims'"??
Dan goes out of his way to find the tiny percentage who appear to him to be "well-behaved" and by their words, dismisses those of the vast majority of muslims. How convenient. But this is the exact opposite of what we find in Christianity, and affirmed by Christ Himself when He says unambiguously, "But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." (Matt 7:14 NIV). The "few" of the muslim world are those about whom Dan wants us to believe are the best interpreters of islamic teachings and "holy books". And still, as Craig has suggested, it's not especially likely that any reference to Jesus by them is any less inaccurate as those of Dan's.
I don't care about this Rumi dude, as he's no source of truth and thus not a good source of what Dan wants to regard as "wisdom" (another of the many words with which Dan's unfamiliar"). And obviously, despite Dan's attempt to pretend to the contrary, this dude does NOT preach Christ crucified, or Dan would have provided those "words of wisdom" for us.
Your questions are pathetically, though quite obviously, leading and dishonest. Both Craig and I have made our positions crystal clear and supplied definitive Scriptural evidence which is no less than those specific positions. It's not "belief" as you imply it here, as if only "opinion". Yet again, even if that word is appropriate, it is still fully and exhaustively supported by Scripture in ways most none of your opinions (and in truth, yours don't even rise to the level of "opinion") can be. In other words, you ask questions about our positions that you well know are not in the least bit accurate representations nor honest mistakes.
And your routine huge lie, that you once believed as we do, never gets truer by your constant repetition of it.
Your question 4 is moot given your questions 1-3 are perversions and as stated, not representative of our positions...certainly not close to how we'd present them...which we've already done many, many, many times quite clearly and without equivocation or ambiguity and still you bastardize them and expect us to respond, after arrogantly and condescendingly pretending it is us failing to be adult in discourse or to "be better". It's YOU who make conversation difficult and you do so on purpose.
But in your defense, you've long ago clearly established yourself as a liar and we can't expect any better from you. Yet we demonstrate the "grace" you pretend to embrace by allowing your ongoing opportunity to behave more honestly and maturely. You choose lies, falsehoods, misrepresentation and the promotion of perversion.
Some of these are a stretch, but only some. Other lists are more selective, but there are many lists describing the foretelling of Christ in the OT. Dan would have us believe that Jesus studied the Scriptures of His time to plan how to make His life and ministry reflect those prophesies in order to proclaim He fulfilled them...which makes Jesus a liar like Dan. But once again, we see that Dan is all about rejecting all in Scripture he finds personally distasteful and inconvenient so that he can pretend it's all about being "nice guys". Talk about stupid human traditions! A God of Dan's own making.
https://www.newtestamentchristians.com/bible-study-resources/351-old-testament-prophecies-fulfilled-in-jesus-christ/
Like so many things, Dan has a bizarre belief that things like confirmation bias only go one way, and that he or anyone who agrees with him are immune.
I haven’t had time to look at the list, but you could argue that the references start in Genesis with the death of an animal to cover Adam and Eve, but the foreshadowing and outright parallels are well established in Exodus with the deliverance of Israel and the Passover.
Even to the extent of the language used to describe things being directly paralleled in language about Jesus. To remove Jesus from the OT is simply absurd.
Listen Jesus, Peter and Paul and how they ground the salvic work of Jesus firmly within the OT and Jewish history.
It’s True that we’ve answered these questions and made our position clear over the years, but Dan has used his poor memory as an excuse elsewhere, maybe he just forgot.
According to Dan, Jesus's death on the cross was an inconsequential side story.
Anon, please identify yourself.
What Jesus said (and didn't) about "fulfilling the Prophets" (and it literally WASN'T about "Christ crucified..."):
1. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5)
Jesus does not say the "law and the prophets" taught "christ crucified."
Jesus is doing what he's always doing in his teachings:
Making clear that The Way is one of Love. The law is summed up with Love God, Love people. THAT, in contrast with the Pharisees, who were quite good at "fulfilling the law," being legalists, but not so good about grace and love.
2. Jesus went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” (Luke 4)
Here, again, Jesus is NOT saying that the OT taught "christ crucified." Rather, he's noting that the good news is good news to the poor and marginalized, a good news of love and welcome.
"TODAY," Jesus says, "This is being fulfilled.." That day was NOT a day that Christ was crucified. It was a day of good news that Jesus had begun preaching to the poor and marginalized.
More...
Just to be clear, the last response and this one are regarding your unsupported claim:
Perhaps you missed parts of The Gospels where the fulfilled prophecies were pointed out by Jesus
And I remind you that what I pushed back against was YOUR claim that the OT prophets taught "Christ crucified," a claim you made with no support and which, from what I see, is NOT something that Jewish scholars would have thought back then. Indeed, they perceived a Messiah as a conquering hero, not a Christ, crucified. Literally doesn't happen in the OT.
I guess you can agree that you can't support THAT claim?
3. Carrying on, then, with places where Jesus DOES cite OT words (not necessarily prophecies, in context)... We find in Luke 24, Jesus speaking to the disciples after his death...
He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”
Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them,
“This is what is written:
The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,
and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name
to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
What's interesting here is that where it says "This is what is written..." NONE of those things are written in the OT. Now, I'm not saying Jesus is lying (just to preempt that accusation), just noting that the OT texts do NOT mention a crucifixion or a third day resurrection. Clearly, then, Jesus must be speaking more symbolically or something (unless you want to call him a liar... but I'm not).
4. In John 13, we have Jesus saying:
“I am not referring to all of you; I know those I have chosen. But this is to fulfill this passage of Scripture: ‘He who shared my bread has turned against me.’
Which, itself, references Psalm 41, which is a description of the Psalmist dealing with his enemies. Nowhere in the text itself does it suggest that the Psalmist is speaking prophetically. Again, not calling Jesus a liar, just noting what the text does and doesn't say. Again, perhaps this is a teaching style or a figurative attempt to cite the OT... I don't know. I'm just noting what the text does and doesn't say.
But it IS an observable given that Jesus regularly used metaphors and other figurative language to make points. Why wouldn't that be a more likely explanation here rather than reading into texts that literally do NOT claim to be prophecies and literally do not speak of "Christ crucified..."?
There may be a few more places where Jesus does something like this, but none of them are Jesus saying that the OT is teaching "christ, crucified."
Do you have ANY passages that, to you, seem to suggest that? That say it specifically and literally? OR can you admit there are zero passages that literally speak of a "christ crucified..."?
Dan’s pedantic, wooden literalism comes out with a vengeance. His argument seems to be that the lack of the phrase “Christ Crucified” trumps every OT prophecy and every NT mention of Jesus’ fulfillment of prophecy. That whole fulfillment of The Law, Passover lamb, stuff isn’t phrased the way Dan demands of Scripture and Art using a shorthand phrase to refer to Christ’s death and resurrection simply invalidates everything else in Scripture.
As always Craig, of course I'm not saying it has to be the exact words. There are NO words that have the meaning clearly presented in the Old Testament that say there's going to be a Messiah and he's going to be crucified and he's going to rise again on the third day.
ANY words to suggest ANYTHING like that simply are not clearly present in the Old Testament (as you claim it is).
Now I think what's happened is that certain Christians long ago started trying to find justification for this human theory in the Old Testament. They really, really twisted and stretched to find several hundred passages that THEY say are instances of references to a Christ crucified sort of plan. Y'all have been told this over and over so many times that it seems quite clear to you but set aside your traditions, indoctrination and your culture. Just look at the text for what it says. What you are saying is simply not in the text in any words.
If you think you can present "Christ crucified" "clearly" found in the Old Testament, present it... but don't insist it's a reality and don't even try to support it.
Be better.
Also it probably would help you if you would just TRY to answer the actual questions I'm asking because when you try to answer them and you can't, that will sort of show you, "Oh maybe there is a problem here.... Maybe my indoctrination is blinding me."
Just try to answer the questions.
Dan
Once again, it is I, forgetting once again to sign my name!
---Art
I had asked ...
Must one AFFIRM a belief in your theory as outlined above in order to be saved? That is, if Jesus' "paid" for our "sin" so that "god" could be "empowered" to finally forgive us of our "sin" and "sin nature," then is asking for forgiveness required?
Marshal dodged and said in response...
Your question 4 is moot given your questions 1-3 are perversions and as stated, not representative of our positions...certainly not close to how we'd present them.
Which sounds very much like he's saying no. A pilgrim does not need to affirm those beliefs in order to be saved or to be a Christian.
And so, I do not affirm those beliefs. I do not think they are Christian or biblical or rational or moral. Nonetheless even though I don't believe those theories of yours, I can be saved without believing those things. Right?
Truly, conversation does not need to be this difficult.
Dan
That, I think, is part of your problem,. You make the affirmation the key. Truth is Truth whether you affirm it or not. Salvation comes through the finished work of Jesus rather than through affirmation of anything.
Which is simply you changing the words you want to see.
Given the fact that your comment where you bitch that I don’t answer any of your questions, doesn’t contain any questions to answer.
At this point, why would I bother answering your questions when you don’t acknowledge the fact that your previous questions have been answered. Obviously if a question has been answered elsewhere, the question has been answered already. Not answering it again doesn’t mean that it hasn’t already been answered.
I was asking you all what you all believe. That doesn't mean that I believe it.
Indeed I believe in salvation by God's grace not by affirmation or perfect understanding or semi-perfect understanding on some list of vague points. I'm just trying to understand if you all think some kind of perfect/semi-perfect understanding is needed. According to you then someone like me who does not agree with your human theories, I could still be saved then even if I believe in salvation by grace and not by magic blood? Even if I think that your theories of blood atonement to satisfy God's anger against utterly corrupt, depraved humans are awful and unbiblical and ungodly, I can still be saved.?
Dan
Yes, you've asked various versions of this question for years, and we've answered it in multiple ways trying to satisfy your demands. Unfortunately, after so many answers in so many different ways which you apparently ignore or forget, I see no value in continuing to indulge you in this.
It's not my job to spoon feed you everything you demand, and do so in precisely the formula that makes you the happiest.
I've given you the answer to "... think some kind of perfect/semi-perfect understanding is needed.", several times in this thread alone. Apparently I needed to provide you the answer in ALL CAPS, BOLD TYPE, with bog warning signs to point you too it.
I see no reason to play your BS games any more.
It's stupider than that. Once again Dan asks a question which doesn't reflect anything we've said or perverts how we say it (the case here) and then demands we answer. When the only possible answer is, "I never said that", he then presumes he can assert what that answer "really means". No. The question is shit, just like the shit asking it.
Furthermore, some OT passages are very descriptive of crucifixion (stated before crucifixion was even invented) and Dan pretends nothing in the OT speaks of Christ's sacrificial death on the cross for forgiveness of sins.
THEN, the putz pretends we've ever suggested that God can't forgive without Christ substituting His Life for our atonement. The Father can do what He wants, and thus it's not a matter of "can't", but of how He chose to do things. Dan doesn't like how He chose to do things, so he pretends and lies about what Scripture does or doesn't say. Then he dares condescend that WE are making conversation difficult.
I provided a long list of verses which provided the evidence he sought and no doubt he didn't read a bit of it. And this after I conceded some offerings within it could be "a stretch". Once again, we're to assume that Jesus went through great pains to act in a manner so that He could pretend to fulfill Scriptural prophesy.
Dan is absolutely incapable of rebutting a thing we say, he cannot show how what we say is wrong or "unBiblical". He can only indulge in his petulant "Nyuh uh" response.
Dan arrogantly and disrespectfully regards our responses as "milquetoast", yet that word describes his understanding salvation. Simply saying "God's grace" is wholly insufficient a description of the faith, particularly when rejecting the most loving manifestation of it: Christ's substitutionary atoning death on the cross. "Kumbaya" doesn't get it done.
Dan has his little incantations and catchphrases that don't really mean anything (or mean whatever they need to at the time) that he throws out when he has nothing to offer.
In this case, "God's grace" has no real meaning or mechanism for being manifested, while he also boils salvation down to being based on what people do. It's confusing, incoherent, and conveniently vague.
I've raised this point as well. Dan, as here, asks a question which is grounded in his distortion and mischaracterization of what we've said. When we point out the problem with the presumptions underlying his question, he jumps to accusing us of not answering. Instead of dealing with the flaws on his end.
As I've noted elsewhere, the concept of death as the only atonement for sin, the entire system designed to provide this atonement, and the fulfillment of that system by Christ are exhibit A. The problem is that it is impossible to distill that whole narrative arc down to something that Dan can understand it. Because he lives with out of context proof texts, he demands that we do as he does and give him some short easy answers. I'd be willing to try if he'd actually show a desire to engage beyond simply repeating himself and throwng out incantations.
I did an quick search and found plenty of resources including this AI summary.
"Hundreds of years before Jesus' birth, the Hebrew Scriptures explicitly foretold his crucifixion and resurrection. Key passages include Psalm 22, which details the mockery and physical anguish of the cross, Isaiah 53, which describes a suffering servant dying for humanity's sins and living again, and Psalm 16, which guarantees the Messiah will not undergo decay.Prophecies of Jesus' DeathPsalm 22:1, 14–18: Foretells the agonizing physical details of crucifixion, including pierced hands and feet, disjointed bones, and garments being divided by casting lots.Isaiah 53:5–9: Describes a "Suffering Servant" who would be wounded for our transgressions, silent before his accusers, and buried with the rich, despite being executed alongside criminals.Zechariah 12:10: Prophesies that the people of Israel will "look on me, the one they have pierced."Prophecies of Jesus' ResurrectionPsalm 16:10: Declares, "You will not abandon my soul to Sheol, nor will you let your faithful one see decay," famously applied to the resurrection by the Apostle Peter in Acts 2.Isaiah 53:10–11: Prophesies that after the Servant is "cut off out of the land of the living", God will prolong his days, and he will "see the light" after the anguish of his soul.Hosea 6:2: Hints at restoration and rising "on the third day".Jonah 1:17: Jesus himself likened the three days Jonah spent in the belly of a fish to the time he would spend in the tomb before resurrecting (Matthew 12:40).These scriptures form the foundation of the New Testament claim that Christ's life, death, and victory over the grave happened exactly "according to the Scriptures". You can explore the full texts and context of these verses on Bible Gateway.8 sitesOld Testament Prophecies of Jesus' Resurrection - Biola UniversitySo in Psalm 16. 9-10 David says, Therefore my heart is glad, and my soul rejoices; my body also rests secure. For you do not give ...Biola UniversityWhere do the Hebrew Scriptures prophesy the death and ...Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, the promise of a Messiah is clearly given. These messianic prophecies were made hundreds, someti...GotQuestions.org"
My search term was "Old testament references to Jesus death and resurrection"
Lots of links to articles and videos.
I'll reach out to an OT professor friend of mine and ask him for a couple of recommendations as well.
Make sure to tell him we can't use "human traditions". I'm sure he'll wonder what the hell you're talking about.
Also an excellent point. Except he always uses his own personal human BS.
Craig...
In this case, "God's grace" has no real meaning or mechanism for being manifested, while he also boils salvation down to being based on what people do.
Why do y'all make things so complicated? Why must you add rules and mechanisms and blood sacrifices to something as simple as grace and love and welcome? Is not grace simply God's grace, God's kindness?
Do you know who else tried to add rules to God's simple love and grace? The Pharisees. Do you remember how that worked out for them?
Do you remember who else was an accuser of God's family and God's beloved?
Why is grace, simple kindness and love, insufficient in your minds?
If your beloved friend or family member comes to you and says, "I really messed up. Can you forgive me?" If I respond, "Sure, as soon as there's a blood sacrifice made, that sin payment that you owe me and God in the world, as soon as that's paid then I can forgive you. Oh also it depends on whether I actually ever called you to be my beloved in the first place because I'm not calling everyone. If you are one of the lucky ones who I happen to have called in a way unknown to you... THEN once that blood sacrifice is made I can forgive you and I will do so."
... If that's what happens when a loved one comes to you confessing sin, in what sense is any of that nonsense, grace or love or reasonable?
Dear, dear men,
Love is love. Grace is grace. It is God's kindness. It is a gift. It's not something that's bought with blood. If it was, then it's no longer a gift. In that case it would no longer be kindness and simple grace. It's some kind of bloody business arrangement. And when it's only offered to a few, well, it's not love at all.
Do you recognize how Machiavellian and unlovely and ungracious your notion of grace is on the face of it? I don't think you do.
Ugh.
Dan
And AI's response to your AI citation of Psalm 22 ...
"Hebrew scholars generally do not view Psalm 22 as a messianic prophecy. Instead, mainstream Jewish tradition interprets the psalm as a lament of King David expressing his own suffering, or as an allegorical representation of the historical and future suffering of the Jewish people."
And why do Hebrew scholars and others not consider this a Messianic Prophecy? Because there's nothing in the text that says, "Hey this is not just King David speaking of himself, it's also secretly a Messianic Prophecy." !
Let text interpret text.
That would be a reading into the text, something that the text simply literally does not say. Do you understand that this text, nowhere ever at all in any spot in all the verses of chapter 22 or the verses in chapter 21 before it... nowhere does it identify it as a messianic prophecy? Do you recognize that?
Do you know how AI operates? When it finds a question that appears to be coming from an evangelical point of view, it gives an evangelical answer. In other words the saying, "many modern Christians and maybe many Christians throughout the years, have themselves identified this text as likely suggesting it's a messianic prophecy." But that's different than the text itself saying that, which it quite literally does not.
Dan
As usual that problem here is not that we’re adding anything. We are asking you how your magical Grace fairy dust works and how it doesn’t work everyone equally. But that’s just an example of asking reasonable questions and explaining some level of detail. “God’s grace” with no explanation is just one more of your incantations.
Modern science is a thing (somewhat simplistically) because some reasonably smart people were convinced that it was possible to discover things in YHWH’s creation. But you somehow expect that we shouldn’t be looking for something beyond you just repeating “God’s grace” makes everything better.
Platitudes, incantations, repeated are worthless. Especially coming from you.
Hebrew scholars, none of whom you quote, are predisposed against finding ANY Messianic prophecies fulfilled in Jesus. They’ve literally dismissed the possibility out of hand.
The problem you’ve interposed here is that you’ve moved the goal posts. I’m responding to your question/claims/comments, not to some hypothetical “Jewish scholar”. Of course your appeal to “Jewish scholar”, also sets you up to dismiss any non Jewish scholars regardless of their expertise.
I admire your chutzpah in being willing to speak so authoritatively for so many people. I also admire your ability to spectacularly miss the point.
Well done on both counts.
Yes, I know how AI operates, which is why I specifically pointed out that the AI response was merely the first of many resources, and why I put my exact search term in so that you could do your own research.
The problem with Dan hiding behind “Jewish scholarship”, is that there is such an incredibly wide range of opinions contained in the various commentaries on the Hebrew Scriptures (which are not scriptures, nor authoritative) is that it boils down to “Ranbi X said…” and “Ranbi Y responded.”. It’s fascinating and useful, but it’s not scholarship in a more modern sense. Not to mention that there is some weird stiff stuff in some of the commentaries.
What is probably more helpful and interesting is more modern scholars with excellent understanding of the various languages and texts, who focus on what the text says, not what a rabbi said hundreds of years later.
I’m not diminishing the value of the commentaries or denying that they are worth studying, I’m pointing out that understanding what they are or are not is probably important.
Craig...
"We are asking you how your magical Grace fairy dust works and how it doesn’t work everyone equally. But that’s just an example of asking reasonable questions and explaining some level of detail. “God’s grace” with no explanation is just one more of your incantations."
This is part of the problem of conservative ideology...it really twists your brain into making something as simple as love and grace into something incomprehensible to you. How do YOU show grace to your kids, to your loved ones? That is what I'm talking about. Nada, nothing else.
When an adult child comes home, I greet them at the door, hug them, welcome them, and tell them to come on in. I ask if they want something to eat or drink. I help them feel comfortable and welcome. Should they do something wrong, I forgive them. Period.
"Oh Dad, I'm so sorry. Can you please forgive me??".
"Yes of course dear one. You are forgiven. I love you. Let's get something to eat."
You know, grace, forgiveness, welcome, acceptance, love. That is what I mean by love and by grace. What does it mean to you? !! Do you call my example, fairy dust?
I'm very glad I'm not from your family. Blessings upon them.
Deeply weird.
Dan
So you don’t have the ability to show how your magical grace fairy dust works, so you resort to pablum and platitudes.
I get that your magical fairy dust version of grace can’t explain the incredibly inconsistent application of this magical fairy dust nonsense. Some people randomly get full blown grace/forgiveness for no apparent reason while others don’t.
You can’t explain your magical buzzwords and how it relates to good works, so you’ll just keep blathering.
HOW DO YOU FORGIVE YOUR LOVED ONES? DO YOU JUST DO IT AS AN ACT OF GRACE OR DO YOU FORCE THEM THROUGH SOME BLOOD RITUAL?
Dan
Craig...
"You can’t explain your magical buzzwords and how it relates to good work..."
I've explained multiple times. Here we go one more time. It's really quite easy to understand. Just follow closely.
1. My child does something to hurt me.
2. My child realizes I was wrong and apologizes.
3. I forgive them. I tell them I love them.
Just like that. It's really quite amazingly simple and obvious. Why? How do you do grace?
Dan
Because repeating the same thing over and over is always helpful.
Your repetition assumes that both YHWH and parents always forgive and extend grace equally to all and under all circumstances. Maybe the legal system should work this way.
Because repeating yourself, and imposing your feelings on YHWH is always helpful.
Craig, instead of simply answering obvious, simple questions, said:
Your repetition assumes that both YHWH and parents always forgive and extend grace equally to all and under all circumstances.
No, it literally doesn't. I'm asking you the VERY simple and reasonable question of HOW DO YOU FORGIVE YOUR LOVED ONES when they've messed up?
And let's make it easier for you: Let's assume their mistake was NOT that they murdered, raped, sexually assaulted, abused someone or engaged in immoral business practices that let them profit to the tune of billions of dollars on the backs of the poor and moderate. You know, they just messed up. They yelled at you in an ungracious way. They took your car when you told them you needed it. They drove drunk.
HOW DO YOU FORGIVE THEM? What "mechanisms" do you need in place to extend grace to them?
Are there TEN things they must do to receive grace from you? Zero? One hundred? Is it possible that they could NEVER be forgiven for such misdeeds unless there is some kind of literal (or figurative??) "payment" of "blood" for their "sin crime..."?
Repeating a reasonable question with obvious answers is not unreasonable. UNLESS you think the topic of grace and forgiveness and love are NOT simple matters but arcane, vague and unknown/unknowable matters. IF that's the case, then just say so.
I've imposed ZERO "feelings" on God. I'm asking YOU about how YOU forgive. And dear man, you are not God.
Craig:
We are asking you how your
magical Grace fairy dust works
and how it doesn’t work everyone equally. But that’s just an example of asking reasonable questions and explaining some level of detail. “God’s grace” with no explanation is just one more of your incantations....
So you don’t have the ability to show how your
magical grace fairy dust works, so you
resort to pablum and platitudes.
I get that your
magical fairy dust version of grace
can’t explain the incredibly inconsistent application of this
magical fairy dust nonsense.
Some people randomly get full blown grace/forgiveness for no apparent reason while others don’t.*
You can’t explain your
magical buzzwords
and how it relates to good works [??],
so you’ll just keep blathering...
...Dan seems to be making an entirely different argument based on some undefined “Way of Grace”...
Platitudes, incantations, repeated are worthless.
[Dan:] "Those who follow in the way of grace!"
Marshal:
What a sham!
What a false religion!
What an anti-Christ pretentious preference of embracing crap
Dan calls "grace"!
etc.
It occurs to me... is it possible you all simply don't understand - at all - the meaning and notion of Grace?
Grace (charis) in the bible (as well as just in Modern English understanding):
Kindness, undeserved mercy, favor, good will, gift
JUST THAT. Not a blood-for-forgiveness scheme. Not a Machiavellian "get out of hell" theory. Just kindness, a gift. That's it.
Have they just gotten so "wise" that they don't understand basic word meanings?
This conversation reads like two guys coming upon a term they've never heard before and can't wrap their minds around it. Like the first greedy man who learned the word, "Free..."
"Well, but how much does it cost? I don't understand, how can I get it if I don't pay for it? Then you mean, I can't have it??? But HOW DO I GET IT?!"
Deeply weird.
Strangely enough, it’s an apples/oranges premise. If you’re going to make the two things equivalent, then you should probably be consistent.
But this makes my point about your inability to explain your magical fairy dust grace sprinkles and how it works.
If, as you note, there is a arbitrary standard for forgiveness that doesn’t apply equally to all children, then your magical fairy dust grace thing is also just as capricious (possibly) based on people’s works.
We’re having a discussion about a perfect God choosing to forgive sinful humanity, and you’re obsessed with how I (as a sinful human) treat my children.
But whatever, you’ve managed to drive those so far off topic as to be absurd.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, same old BS hunches and repetition.
So Dan's child comes to the house and upon entering kicks Dan in his lady parts as hard as he can. Dan, embracing grace, forgives the child and in return, the child says, "F**k your forgiveness, and kicks Dan again." This happens over and over again until at some point, Dan can't take another hard shot to his lady parts again and insists the child leave until the child chooses to behave better and abide Dan's rules of Dan's house. The child kicks Dan yet again saying, "F**k your rules! I do things MY way!" If Dan wants to pretend that he wouldn't have the kid forcibly removed, he'll be lying again.
This is not God's Way, it's a human perversion of it, which is Dan's way.
Dan, that "serious and prayerful" student of Scripture again forgets or rejects that which he finds less than personally appealing. Deuteronomy 13 speaks of casting out the evil from among the people. Who told them to do that? I'm pretty sure it was God Himself. Paul refers to it in 1 Corinthians 5, where he goes further in chastising those who, like Dan, pervert the notion of grace to allow for abomination to infect the true beloved community by NOT casting out the unrepentant sinners. Paul, as an Apostle, was guided by God the Holy Spirit, just as all the other Apostles were, which means God told Paul to instruct the people to cast out those from among the community who do evil. So you are he whom Paul warned against in Galatians 1:8.
And of course, God does not extend His Grace to the unrepentant. It's available to them if they repent, but not if they don't. That wouldn't be justice or love for the rest.
https://newbiblereflections.blogspot.com/2020/01/does-grace-cover-unrepentant-sinners-by.html
Dan's made up god is amazing, but he's not God.
From the last post, where I quoted Craig...
"I get that your
magical fairy dust version of grace
can’t
explain the incredibly inconsistent application of this
magical fairy dust nonsense.
Some people randomly get full blown grace/forgiveness for no apparent reason while others don’t."
I'll have to be honest and acknowledge I don't know what in the world you're talking about here. What people randomly get full-blown grace for no apparent reason while others don't? I mean that does sound like what you all theorize with God inconsistently and randomly selecting some to save and some to send to hell to be tortured for an eternity but that's not my view. Feel free to elaborate if you wish.
Dan
Which is my point. We know that not everyone receives grace/forgiveness/salvation. Some end up in unpleasant circumstances. If nothing else, your pet proof text Matt 25 tells us this.
According to your magical, fairly dust hunch about Grace being given out with no basis and your unwillingness to explain the disconnect between what Scripture tells us and your magical hunch. You’ve put yourself in this position by not explaining and by insisting that asking for an explanation is the problem.
You can’t have it both ways. Either YHWH passes out the magical fairy dust grace equally to all, or you need explain how it works.
Marshal (and Craig) who continue to dodge simply answering reasonable questions, said:
This is not God's Way, it's a human perversion of it, which is Dan's way.
So, GRACE - as it is literally defined!! - is a perversion of God's way... in Marshal's head.
I've found the problem. You all truly don't understand the simple, objective definition of Grace. Wow.
Marshal, fantasizing about violence as he is wont to do:
If Dan wants to pretend that he wouldn't have the kid forcibly removed, he'll be lying again.
1. That simply does not generally happen in the real world 99% of the time. That level of irrational violence is generally limited to the mentally ill.
2. And yes, I would stand ready to forgive that child by a simple act of grace. Not ONE SINGLE "blood" sacrifice would be needed to "pay" for that child's "sin." Not for me. What about you?
How about answering a reasonable question, sir... WOULD you require a blood sacrifice before you'd forgive your OWN CHILD? And if so, where is the grace in that? The gift? The kindness? The unmerited favor?
3. Forgiveness does not mean I wouldn't try to get that child help or stop them from doing harm to anyone. That sort of behavior is most often limited to mental illness crisis and I don't condemn the mentally ill for bad "behavior" any more than I condemn the cancer patient for getting cancer. Why would I?
Y'all truly don't understand the literal meaning of grace. How utterly sad.
Craig:
You can’t have it both ways. Either YHWH passes out the magical fairy dust grace equally to all, or you need explain how it works.,
I'm not having it both ways. God extends grace, welcome, forgiveness, kindness, love TO ALL OF HUMANITY.
Do you disagree?
AND, God does not force that grace and love and forgiveness to everyone.
Do you disagree?
But to all who willingly accept that grace, that love, that welcome, God stands ready to extend it. And to those who DON'T, God STILL stands ready to extend it whenever they want.
Do you disagree?
it's one single Way - the Way of Grace, love, welcome... To ALL who would receive it, as Jesus taught.
This is what happens when you conflate your hunches for YHWH’s word and decide to speak for Him.
1. Apples and oranges.
2. The point seems to be that despite you lack of detail, that there are limits to your forgiveness and grace.
But you’re just pulling shit out of your ass at this point and running this thread completely away from anything close to the original topic .
So, it’s not YHWH extending the grace that is determinative, it’s the human act/work/deed of “accepting” the grace where the power lies.
Gotcha, it’s all about what humans do. YHWH just stands by powerlessly.
You could have offered this explanation earlier when I brought it up, but instead you bitched about my asking for details of your hunch.
Craig...
"Gotcha, it’s all about what humans do. YHWH just stands by powerlessly."
The difference between you and me is that you imagine that graciously forgiving is a sign of powerless-ness.
Lord, have mercy.
Are you powerless when you simply forgive your loved ones? Or do you refuse to let yourself be exposed to that sort of "weakness..."?
Lord, have mercy.
Dan
The difference between you and me is that you imagine that the most important thing is human acceptance. That the final authority lies with humans not with YHWH.
Again apples and oranges. If forgiveness isn’t “complete” until someone else accepts it, then my forgiveness is not complete until they “accept” it.
How God's Grace manifests/manifested is ignored...if not outright rejected...by you. Don't pretend your self-serving description of it is not a perversion. This is the problem of your theology. It's inaccurate and you're dishonest in defense of it.
No, Dan. I do not fantasize about kicking you repeatedly in your lady bits. The intention of using that scenario was to provide an example of some form of bad behavior you would clearly disallow in your home. My analogy doesn't speak of mental illness in your child, just violent and unrepentant disregard for your will. It doesn't have to happen at all, much less 99% of the time, because it's an analogy...a concept with which you've always struggled and with which you clearly still do. That is, unless the real problem is that it points to the truth with which you have no way to contend, so instead you choose...because you embrace grace...to attack me instead of address the point.
2. God does not ignore ongoing rebellion/unrepentant sin by allowing those like you who continue in your rebellion into His Presence. He casts them out, as we're instructed to cast out the unrepentant sinners from our midst.
A blood sacrifice HAS been paid, so no further blood sacrifices are required. That blood sacrifice is how we've been saved...it's what made Jesus our Savior...it is the expression of God's grace that He gave Himself up for us. You just think it was an unfortunate political act against Jesus and nothing more.
3. Even if I let you add "mental illness" into the analogy I created, it still leaves you with the choice to allow the continued destruction of your lady bits or casting out the nut case who acts contrary to your will. And yes, you would be "condemning" the nut case by removing him from your presence in lieu of his cessation of violent behavior. So who's doing the "condemnation"? You or the child perpetrating the behavior which clearly would offend you?
I remind you that Jesus said the gate/path is narrow and few will find it or walk it. God could "graciously forgive" everyone, but doesn't. He gave us the choice to abide His Will or our own. You choose your own. You prove it constantly. Thus, that God desires that none should perish in no way means no one will.
We're not required to be perfect, but we are required to demonstrate our devotion by abiding His Will. Unrepentant sinners, like you, need to understand "grace" isn't a free pass to sin with abandon.
That's one of those teachings of Jesus that Dan doesn't really engage with. Much like "the I Am statements, Way/Truth/Life) or anything Jesus teaches about eternal punishment or Jesus' atoning death/resurrection.
Dan is functionally a theoretical universalist, who puts the ultimate power to effect salvation in the hands of fallen/sinful/imperfect humans.
Art,
The problem with your analogy is that the hypothetical child is merely imperfect. They simply miss the mark (while also hitting the bullseye) and are just making a mistake.
For someone who makes salvation/grace conditional on behavior ("accepting" or doing good works for certain people), the notion that repentance could possibly be required seems strange.
Post a Comment