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?
40 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.
Post a Comment