Dave,
I don't think your Buddhist neighbor analogy is good. A more accurate analogy would if a local Buddhist temple burned down, would I help to rebuild it. My answer would be no. (I perhaps could see if it were a 1500 year old temple with historical significance, but that's a different issue.)
Assume the temple ran weekly "why be a Buddhist and not a Catholic" seminars directed at Catholics would you help rebuild it?
And as far a religious harmony goes, let's remember that Jesus said he came not to bring peace but a sword. I also recall that in Acts some people burned their idols after they heard Paul preach.
Sorry, but giving money to support the building of a mosque, or any non-Catholic place of worship, is a direct and clear means of giving support to religious error. It's a violation of the first commandment. Grubb's right on this one. It's one thing to foster dialogue and good relations with non-Christians. It's another thing entirely to help confirm them in their false relgion.
But it's not necessarily confirming false religion; that was the thrust of my entire argument. That has to be overcome through counter-reasoning, not mere assertion.
Confirming the false religion can only be done -- it seems to me -- by expressly stating agreement with heretical or immoral notions (e.g., Episcopalians ordaining practicing homosexuals and defending this as perfectly acceptable).
Helping to put up a building doesn't do that (though I agree that observers may falsely conclude that it does so).
The early Christians worshiped in institutions that rejected Jesus as Lord and the Holy Trinity. All they had to do was put a penny in the plate and according to you they would have violated the first commandment.
For heaven's sake: Jesus even told His disciples to pay Roman taxes ("Render unto Caesar . . . "). So they monetarily supported the Roman empire and all that that entailed, including much false religion. What were they supposed to do: not pay the tax?
This is an argument I haven't even yet used, so I thought I would throw it out and strengthen my case all the more.
You can't argue that it doesn't count because they were compelled by law to do so. If something is absolutely immoral a Christian must not do it whether it is legal or not.
The early Christians couldn't pay homage to a false god and commit idolatry, under penalty of death. Thousands died rather than do that.
But here Jesus is telling Christians to pay taxes to Caesar. He couldn't do that if it were a sin and never not a sin. Romans 13 upholds the legitimacy and authority of human governments, and we all know those aren't perfect or perfectly moral, with nothing but pure truth in them.
So anyone who pays a tax to a government that isn't perfectly Christian and moral is literally supporting it and what it stands for; making it possible to continue. That goes beyond chipping into a building fund, because all of the citizens together literally fund the government and enable it to exist.
So now what do you do: become a tax rebel? Pope John Paul II even kissed the Koran. Did he break the first commandment in so doing, too? I argued in favor of that in exactly the same way, saying that one could make a case that it may have been an imprudent act, but not an immoral one, or an embrace of religious error.
Arguments for imprudence proceed from entirely different premises than arguments for a particular act being outright sin and immorality.
I'm adding these exchanges to this thread, because I will include it when I post the paper in the indices:
-----------------
Would you give money to the local Masonic lodge? Would you give money to the JWs to help build a "kingdom hall"?
Jeb Protestant | 03.25.07 - 3:18 pm | #
I wouldn't personally. My reasoning would be that they are both corruptions of Christianity. But Islam is a different religion altogether and doesn't entail that sort of "false advertising."
I have argued that this is a matter of conscience. I wouldn't say it is absolutely wrong to contribute to these either, but I wouldn't do it myself. Grubb seems to be arguing that it is a matter of absolute right and wrong.
Dave Armstrong | Homepage | 03.25.07 - 4:35 pm
But in many ways Islam is "false advertising." It says that Jesus is a prophet and Muhammed an even greater one. I imagine that one of the reasons Moslems are successful in recruiting blacks is that they tell them that they aren't really giving up Christianity.
Jeb Protestant | 03.25.07 - 5:43 pm | #
One could argue that, yet it is at least a world religion, whereas Masons and JWs and Mormons and Christian Science and all the rest of these types of sects are "cults": i.e., corruptions of Christianity and therefore not species of Christianity themselves. They're fundamentally dishonest by their very self-definition and self-portrayal or self-image: pretending to be Christian when they are not, by any reasonable definition.
That's, of course, what anti-Catholics think of Catholics, too. I tried to get three anti-Catholics recently (James White, James Swan, and Matt Slick) to discuss this very question of "what is a Christian?" in a live chat double cross-examination format, but all refused: the first two with extreme personal insults.
Dave, Islam isn't quite another religion altogether, but is also a Christian heresy.
Anyway, in paying taxes to duly established authority, one is contributing to the public good. Yes, the taxes are often squandered on unworthy things, but civil government is instituted by God. False religions are not.
Again, giving money to help a Muslim neighbor rebuild his house is an act of charity, one of the corporal acts of mercy in fact. The prime purpose of his house is to provide him and his family shelter, you see. But giving money to help a Muslim build a place of worship is cooperating with him in enabling his false religion to exist and to propagate. The prime purpose of a mosque is to enable the practice and propagation of Islam. In a spiritual sense, it's like buying a gun for a professed "Mercy Killer" who has told you that he thinks you, or your neighbors, should be put out of your misery and killed. If someone wants to be a Muslim and to spread Islam, he has a legal right to do that, but we Catholics must not assist them in those endeavors.
Even Grubb conceded that he would work on the plumbing in a mosque or fix the roof, or put out a fire. How is that essentially different? If you say it is absolutely wrong to assist the building of a false religion in any way, then it seems to me that you couldn't do that.
Grubb made the distinction between work-for-hire and voluntary contributions. It's a valid distinction; however, again, if you say something is wrong, period, then this distinction would not overcome the duty to not do any wrong by assisting the false religion. Therefore, you would have to say you are obliged, if you disagree with the religion, to not do any of those things, as the structure itself, becomes, in effect, "evil" -- like a haunted house inhabited by demons or something.
You say Islam is a false religion. Well, ultimately, yes, but through and through? no. As Catholics, we would say that any other faith, including non-Catholic Christian belief-systems, contain heresy. It is only a matter of degree.
So now another reductio would apply: how much error can a belief-system have before it becomes a sin to help build a building for it? Can you give to a Lutheran or Methodist or Presbyterian building fund?
Maybe so? Okay; how about a Seventh-Day Adventist fund? They are anti-Catholic and deny the doctrine of hellfire and the practice of Sunday worship. They believe in soul sleep and annihilationism. Is that heretical enough to not participate in a building fund?
This position has a host of difficulties. Moreover, Nostra Aetate, the Vatican II document on other religions, does not approach them as merely "false religions." Quite the contrary:
-------------
2. . . . The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.
The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.
3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as Go
(cont.)
. . . God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their desserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.
Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/coun...ncils/
v2non.htm
Now, if there are all these true elements in Islam, along with the false tenets, and we are urged to "collaborate" with them insofar as possible, without compromising our beliefs, then it would seem pretty clear that chipping in a few bucks to a building fund for a place where all these good things are taught, is certainly not wrong or sinful. Imprudent, depending on the circumstances, possibly, but not wrong.
On the World Day of Prayer for Peace in Assisi, Pope John Paul II addressed 50,000 young Muslims in the stadium at Casablanca. . . . The Pope told his young listeners:
"Christians and Muslims generally we have understood each other badly. Sometimes in the past we have opposed each other and even exhausted ourselves in polemics and wars. I believe that God is calling us today to change our old habits. We have to respect each other and stimulate each other in good works upon the path indicated by God. In a world that desires unity and peace, but which experiences a thousand tensions and conflicts, believers should foster friendship and union among humanity and the people who comprise a single community on earth" (L’Osservatore Romano, August 1985).
http://www.daughtersofstpaul.com...pe/
jpislam.html
"In May [2001], he will create another piece of religious history by becoming the first leader of the Catholic Church to set foot inside a mosque.
"It is being seen as an attempt by the Pope to bring Christianity and Islam closer together.
The symbolic meeting of the two faiths will take place when the Pope enters the Umayyad Mosque in the Syrian capital of Damascus. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/1216852.stm
You can read his address in the mosque here:
http://www.catholic-forum.com/sa.../
pope0264qr.htm
This mosque contains the tomb of John the Baptist. If a thunderstorm damaged it, would you contribute to a building repair fund?
See also JPII's general audience of 5 May 1999:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPA...OC/
JP2MUSLM.HTM
Pope Benedict XVI met with Muslim leaders within a week of his election:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/
2...ain684865.shtml
George Weigel explains how neither
(cont.)
. . . JPII's nor BXVI's ecumenical overtures equate with indifferentism, and that they both believe the same things:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/
2...ain684865.shtml
Moved from Open Forum:
I've already agreed there's seemingly no way to prevent all my money from going to an immoral cause. Even if I grew and made everything I needed, I'd still have to give taxes to our gov't (Jesus said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's") which invests in immoral stuff. You spent a great deal of energy on something we agree.
We know the Jews worship the same God as Christians do
They do?
Did Moses worship the same God you and I do? How about Abraham? Of course they did. God is unchanging, and they worshipped Him. Current Jews worship the same God as Moses; they simply don't have the full revelation Christians do. He's the same God; they just don't realize His full nature.
You still haven't shown that they unnecessarily donated money. You presume they did, but you haven't shown it.
I don't have to have it in black and white.
It was my stipulation that you did have to have it in black & white and clearly so in order for me to concede Meurer was right. A temple tax (like our gov't tax) isn't the same as willfully donating to a building fund. One is mandatory the other voluntary. You don't have it in black & white...I'm not conceding yet.
Jesus & Paul did everything they could to turn people to the truth! They weren't content to let people go to hell, simply because the World Religion they were in had some truth in it. At the very crux of the problem here is we don't have as bad a view of hell as we should. If we did, we wouldn't give one penny we didn't have to to ANY cause that might lead people there. Maybe we would stop spending money on things that support abortion. Maybe we'd be more diligent to study up on who supports what and be willing to spend a little extra or do without to make sure our money goes (as best as we can) to organizations that support true Godliness. And I'm certain we wouldn't give money to false religions that lead souls to everlasting condemnation.
.
Grubb | 03.26.07 - 2:21 pm | #
Also moved (continuing from the one above):
Peace wouldn't be paramount. Honoring God and saving souls (at least doing our part) would be paramount. You say you wouldn't give money to an abortion clinic, because it's pure evil. But don't they do some good things there? Don't they show compassion? Don't they help young girls in a bind? Aren't they allowing people a fresh start? Aren't they being merciful to prevent crack babies? All these things, if not applied to abortions, would be considered good. Now abortion clinics are in the same category as Islam. There's some good that's done there, even though it all centers around a horrific act. Islam is the same. Some truths are taught there, but the end product is every bit as bad and even worse than abortion. I'd rather die at 3 months than be in hell forever. Wouldn't you? Now you have the dilemma of inconsistency. You absolutely wouldn't give money to an abortion clinic (even though I've pointed out some good things -- compassion, mercy, and forgiveness -- occur there); but you don't have a problem giving to Islam, because it's not "pure" evil.
Jesus said, "So in everything do to others as you would have them do to you." (Matt 7:12a) If I'm a Muslim before the judgment throne, I'll wish someone had told me the truth until I accepted it rather than giving money to my building fund in order to propagate peace. Wouldn't you?
What if Meurer's real goal is evangelism and winning Muslim souls to Christ? I'll acknowledge he's at least trying something he thinks might help to that end. And if that's his goal, I realize he can't necessarily come out and say that in public. It would do more damage than good. But if that's really his goal, he's put himself in a position to lie which is generally thought to be a sin.
.
Grubb | 03.26.07 - 2:22 pm | #
I've already agreed there's seemingly no way to prevent all my money from going to an immoral cause. Even if I grew and made everything I needed, I'd still have to give taxes to our gov't (Jesus said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's") which invests in immoral stuff. You spent a great deal of energy on something we agree.
Yes we do, on the thing itself, but you fail to grasp the point, which is that there is an underlying principle here that applies in both cases (thus, I contend that you are being inconsistent).
If it is immoral to contribute in any way, shape, or form, to something which isn't morally perfect and true in every jot and tittle, then you are also obliged to not pay taxes, just as much as to not vountarily chip into a Mosque fund. Legality is irrelevant: the Christian cannot do something intrinsically immoral, whether it is legal and legally binding or not.
Did Moses worship the same God you and I do? How about Abraham? Of course they did. God is unchanging, and they worshipped Him. Current Jews worship the same God as Moses; they simply don't have the full revelation Christians do. He's the same God; they just don't realize His full nature.
The question has many complexities. One could argue that the God Whom Jews worship is indeed the one we worship, and they are simply ignorant. That might be called an "argument from ontology" (what actually is). In this sense, one could say that Muslims worship the same God, too.
In terms of comparative theology, however, the notions of God are quite different. What is crucial to our doctrine of God (the divinity of Jesus and of the Holy Spirit) is rank idolatry or blasphemy in Muslim and Jewish eyes).
So they do and they don't. It depends on what sense one means. We are all monotheists. We do have that in common.
You still haven't shown that they unnecessarily donated money. You presume they did, but you haven't shown it.
It is far more plausible to hold that if early Christians attended and fully participated in synagogue and Temple worship services, they would also contribute as the hat was passed, than to conclude that they did not.
We can't prove it if what you require is "Peter and John put two coins in the pot as it was passed around in the synagogue" (Acts 29:65). But it makes all the sense in the world to conclude this.
But in any event, that doesn't matter, because participating in such a service is giving it more credence and respect and adherence than simply supporting a rabbi or funding closet tiles and a couple curtains in a mosque with a dinky little contribution of about $1200.
You asked for biblical indications and I provided them. All you can do now is nitpick as to whether they actually put money in the pot, which is a secondary consideration at best. You have already been refuted in terms of disproof of your prior assumed notion that no one in the Bible would ever participate at all in any religion other than pure Christianity.
Jesus & Paul did everything they could to turn people to the truth! They weren't content to let people go to hell, simply because the World Religion they were in had some truth in it.
That's right. The same thing applies to JPII and myself. The late pope taught that catholicism was the one true Church (as do I). At the same time, he was ecumenical and a bridge-builder. The two do not conflict. When I am dead and gone, I hope to be known at least as much -- if not more so -- as a bridge-builder and ecumenist, than as an apologist.
At the very crux of the problem here is we don't have as bad a view of hell as we should. If we did, we wouldn't give one penny we didn't have to to ANY cause that might lead people there. Maybe we would stop spending money on things that support abortion.
That's right. That gets into the complex causal factors I discussed earlier: we pay taxes that are used for immoral; things; we buy goods from China; we support companies that fund abortion and other immoral causes, all the time. We're all involved in this. It is very difficult to escape it without being ultra-radical in our day-to-day life: what we buy and don't buy, etc.
You say you wouldn't give money to an abortion clinic, because it's pure evil.
Absolutely. That would be blood money and complicity in horrendously evil acts.
But don't they do some good things there?
None that I can see, unless they counsel a woman not to have an abortion. But if they did that very often, they wouldn't be in business long, would they? It's exceedingly rare, from all we know. They exist to murder preborn babies.
Don't they show compassion?
No; not if they counsel a wicked act that also has demonstrable deleterious long term effects on the woman. They may feel all compassionate and caring, in the usual deluded liberal fashion, but that doesn't make the objective nature of what they do "compassionate" at all.
Don't they help young girls in a bind?
No; not by urging them to kill their own offspring.
Aren't they allowing people a fresh start?
What's "fresh" about being an accomplice to murder, of your own child?
Aren't they being merciful to prevent crack babies?
No. The Christian cannot possibly argue in such a fashion. You are obviously trying to look through their eyes, but again, that is irrelevant as to the objective criteria of what is right and wrong. Nothing about the very purpose and essence and function of an abortuary can be morally justified.
Now abortion clinics are in the same category as Islam. There's some good that's done there, even though it all centers around a horrific act. Islam is the same. Some truths are taught there, but the end product is every bit as bad and even worse than abortion.
This is nonsense. Certainly it is unacceptable for a Catholic, because official Catholic sources and popes say many good things about Islam, but none about abortion. I dare say that most Protestants would reject a direct analogy of such a sort, too, unless they are so insistent on equating all Muslims with the terrorists who are rejected by most of the world's Muslims, with Islam itself. There is a great deal of prejudice in that way.
Jesus said, "So in everything do to others as you would have them do to you." (Matt 7:12a) If I'm a Muslim before the judgment throne, I'll wish someone had told me the truth until I accepted it rather than giving money to my building fund in order to propagate peace. Wouldn't you?
It's a false dichotomy. I don't have to not tell Muslims Christian truth in order to possibly contribute to a fund. I have a debate on my blog with a Muslim apologist, Shabir Ally. I link to apologetics sites that refute Islam (including many James White papers). I happen to not do much contra-Muslim apologetics because I can't do everything (and I cover many many categories already), but I have no objection to it at all, and have done it on occasion.
When's the last time you have written a paper refuting Islam? If you do it less than I do, why are you lecturing me about it? I've al
(cont.)
. . . already done that.
This discussion is obviously near the end. You're not really dealing with my objections in the way I think they must be dealt with in order for your position to stand. And no doubt you think the same of me.
Overall, though, I think it has been an excellent, constructive discussion. As always, I encourage readers to consider both sides, use their critical faculties, and make up their own minds.
Remember, I wouldn't necessarily even contribute to such a fund myself. It would very much depend on the particular circumstance and prudential factors. I've only argued that it is not intrinsically immoral to do this (nor that it implies religious consent) and that virtually everyone, including apostles in the Bible, have done very similar if not essentially identical things.
I already stated (when asked) that I would not personally give to a building fund for JWs or Masons. I then explained how I thought those instances were a bit different than Islam.
I probably shouldn’t join in here as I am scrambling to get an entry visa to Indonesia to get married so please forgive me if I post once and don’t engage again. I’ll be running up to London to visit embassies!
I don’t see a devout Muslim as worshipping a God 100% removed from our own. I am not a Universalist, I do not believe “We all worship the same God really, yadda, yadda, yadda” but I do believe that there is a sliding scale, not a binary distinction. Muslims believe in an all powerful God who has the grace of forgiveness. OK, that God is arbitrary and certainly isn’t Christian, but it’s as close a God as you can get to the Christian God without being Christian. So a Muslim is, theologically speaking, much closer to Christianity than almost any other religion. I can’t think of another one except Judaism and some dispensationalists from the US seem to think they are already saved by being Jews! (I’m not going there!)
Anyway, I don’t see evangelism as a binary “Yer saved or yer damned” thing. People take time and move incrementally towards God (or away for that matter!) So an individual is to be encouraged in each step along the way. An atheist who becomes a deist is taking a step towards God. A deist who becomes a Muslim takes a closer step. A Muslim who becomes a Christian hits the jackpot! So helping building a Mosque but a (small) donation I think HELPS evangelism because it re-enforces the point that belief in God is better than atheism. (You might laugh at that – try living in the UK for six months where religion is seen as the bringer of all evil!) It also shows that the Church will help people where they are and not demand 100% theological accuracy all at once. The donation says “We disagree with you but we believe you are walking towards God so we help you build up where you are so you will know we accept you as you are and won’t fear coming to us.”
Besides, I’ve been to the far east – and in Indonesia which (contrary to western, secularised ‘must find the evil in religion’ reporting suggest) is highly tolerant of other religions. The country survives through respect of other religions and the Priests and Imams are forever helping one another out. If one refused it would be seen culturally as a massive insult and a crime against mutual hospitality! In Indonesia, if the local Church was, say, burnt to the ground, there is a high probability (depending on where you live – Somalia is nasty) the Muslims would hold a collection to build the Church again! This reciprocal respect, even care for other religions, does not prevent conversions. On the contrary, it eases the way by removing social barriers. Both of my fiancés parents were converts to Christianity from Islam. The family, who are predominantly Muslim, accepted that. My fiancé was brought up happily in Java by her Muslim grandmother who was very kind to her. I think supporting paganism in anyway or atheism is right out, but that’s because of the slidin
I think supporting paganism in anyway or atheism is right out, but that’s because of the sliding scale – and because neither produce in themselves anything meaningful to the community I reckon, being bereft of a moral concept to speak of. Islam has such a belief and a moral code very close to our own. It’s not the same but it’s not the rank hedonism of the UK! This, in my mind, changes things. Making a token gesture towards building the local mosque supports the view that the moral code Muslims has surpasses the pagans and atheists (which it does!) Now, given the radical secularism of Europe that wishes to impose a non-theistic ‘morality’ this is a powerful sign!
Now, bear in mind that in some Muslim countries you convert and you die,. Consider the price, therefore, of polarisation. Donating to building a mosque does not say “You worship the same God with the same understanding as us.” No-one thought that when Christina’s parents converted. But it does say “We are part of the same community and we care for each other like a family regardless.” (Trust me, that’s how Easterner’s think! It’s something the rationalist, over-individualist west has lost and why I would move out to the Philippines tomorrow if I could!) It says “The community needs a place to worship and so we help the community by building the CENTRAL point of contact in the community.” This buys the Church huge credits in trust and respect and is also one in the eye of the super-secularist (who run the show in the UK) who would say “Religion equals conflict” and the Muslims say “Not us Mate. The Catholics helped build our mosque!” That’s critical in Europe right now and helps us fight together on the wedge issues of homosexual marriage being used to enforce secular relativism on the masses. Doubt me – just read what the sexual orientation regulations in the UK mean for our primary school! It also brings a little eastern family thinking here which is also desperately needed.
Sure it’s complex but the good from mutual respect and provision at the level of community makes perfect sense to me. Now, if Catholics and Muslims worshipped in the same Mosque and held the same services, that would be different! But that’s not happening here.
I say, see the Mosque as an essential public resource like a fire station or a police station (which it is out east!) and you see why all the locals will support it! It goes almost without thinking – in the East, I know this is in Germany but I think Easterners get this right. (I am distinguishing being Far easterners and Middle easterners here.) Then see Islam as wrong, even possibly dangerous in some respects, but much nearer the truth than paganism or atheism. There is wisdom in supporting people where they are.
Of course, Grubb, you seem to take the view that Islam = not Christianity and therefore = Satan period. (This is, for me, one of the problems with Protestantism, it’s binary ‘or’ thinking – Faith or works, symbol or real, body or spirit) but I see Islam as a step away from atheism. I don’t have to argue with a Muslim about the evidence for God from creation or the Moral law, or explain why there is an absolute morality – which I have to all the time in the UK because relativism rules here – I can get right down to discussing the nature of God! That’s two-thirds the way there! If the Church does not engage in the community, does not support Muslims at a core level in a culture that breathes community at that level, then the Church will be shunned – the rule of hospitality broken.
Alas, it’s impossible to describe the Eastern way to Westerners. Send two weeks in the Philippines with a family. Meet their friends, go places with them. Then you see. Hey, just spend time around a Filipino community (I know there are loads in the US) and you’ll see it. You may see Muslims as the enemies of Christ. But easterners will see them as misguided family. Oh, I try and explain the unexplainable. I thank God I’m marrying an Easterner!
BTW, Muslim members of Christian’s family will be helping host our reception! Yes, they'll be at the Christian weddiing!
Right, that's an hour gone I couldn't afford. I've kicked the hornets nest for you!! 
^^^ Not Somalia, Sumartra! I'm really name dyslexic!
Great comments, Laurence (as always).
By the way, per your private letter, I'd be happy to dialogue with the friend you mentioned. I do have to, in the immediate future, get nine more books of mine into paperback.
I'm not sure how long the process will take with Lulu.com, but that needs to be top priority, right after I counter-reply to James Swan, because I have to develop more income. After things settle down a bit, I can get back to being fully devoted to my usual apologetic efforts.
I am very careful, however, to not cover old ground that I have already discussed and written about at length. It depends somewhat what sub-topics this person is interested in. If it is something I think will be a good addition to my apologetic corpus, then I would be more than happy to dialogue.
I have to be very aware of time spent on specific subjects, given the many topics that I deal with.
Dave,
Thanks for making this it's own topic. I hope others will join in and not think this is just between the two of us. Jeb & Slowboy did. Keep it up guys.
You ignored possibly my best point and the place where I believe your argument collapses.
You say you wouldn't give money to an abortion clinic, because it's pure evil. But don't they do some good things there? Don't they show compassion? Don't they help young girls in a bind? Aren't they allowing people a fresh start? Aren't they being merciful to prevent crack babies? All these things, if not applied to abortions, would be considered good. Now abortion clinics are in the same category as Islam. There's some good that's done there, even though it all centers around a horrific act. Islam is the same. Some truths are taught there, but the end product is every bit as bad and even worse than abortion. I'd rather die at 3 months than be in hell forever. Wouldn't you? Now you have the dilemma of inconsistency. You absolutely wouldn't give money to an abortion clinic (even though I've pointed out some good things -- compassion, mercy, and forgiveness -- occur there); but you don't have a problem giving to Islam, because it's not "pure" evil.
So will you now acknowledge that it's ok to give money to an abortion clinic (since some good is done there) or join me in saying we shouldn't voluntarily give money to organizations we don't support?
.
You ignored possibly my best point and the place where I believe your argument collapses.
I didn't ignore it at all. I answered it point-by-point, above:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...0293598/
#134396
If that is "possibly [your] best point" then it simply shows both how weak and fallacious your argument is, since it itself was a purely inept and inapplicable comparison.
It is NOT good to support abortion clinics. I would argue that it is a sin. But since Islam contains some significant amounts of truth, it is not a sin to support a building in which it is taught. at worst, it can only be argued that it is imprudent in specific circumstances.
Dave,
In response to what someone said about same sex marriages in Europe, I would point out that Moslems tend to support leftist parties because they believe that multiculturalism (in the short run at least) is in their best interest. An increase in Moslems hasn't done much to make Europe more conservative. And I would point out that once Moslems arrive, they tend to adopt the values of the host country.
I certainly think that JP II and Benedict believe that interreligious events don't explicitly teach pluralism (although Ratzigner expressed his doubts) but to the mass of people no doubt get the impression that the RCC is on the side of pluralism when they see these things.
Incidentally, do you have any examples of JP II telling non-Christians of their explicit need to convert? I am not aware of any.
As a final point, the Apostles went to the synagogue. I don't see that they participted in their liturgy. And as far as the Temple goes, I don't think that a Muhammaden temple is equivalent to the Jerusalem temple.
Dave,
If Benedict held an Assisi-style event and invited JWs, Mormons and Masons, would you oppose it.
On the other hand, if he didn't invite these groups but invited John Spong, Gene Robinson, and pro-abortion Jewish groups (ADL, etc.) you would support it because these groups/people aren't engaged in "false advertising"?
Am I misunderstanding you?
Liberals in Christianity and Judaism are engaged in exactly the same sort of false advertising. There is no difference between the two camps you cite.
Spong and Robinson are no more Anglicans as traditionally defined, than the man-in-the-moon, just as someone who denies all five points of TULIP cannot honestly call himself a Calvinist.
Dave,
So if Benedict held an Assisi-type event like JP II and invited a liberal Anglical or Episopalian, you would oppose it?
"Even Grubb conceded that he would work on the plumbing in a mosque or fix the roof, or put out a fire. How is that essentially different?"
It's one thing to help Muslims build a new mosque. It's another thing altogether to help them fix a mosque that already exists, or to help fight a fire that could endanger the lives and property of people in and near the mosque.
"If you say it is absolutely wrong to assist the building of a false religion in any way, then it seems to me that you couldn't do that."
Helping to further or to establish a false religion is not the same thing as being a good neighbor to members ofa false religion that is already well established. Participating in the construction of a new mosque is giving active assistance to the furtherance of a religion that only has a few things in common with Catholicism -- i.e., only has some truth, mixed in with a lot of error.
Would it be acceptable for Christians to help pagans build temples? After all, St. Paul understood that even the pagan Greeks had some kind of understanding of God, even though it was mixed with a lot of error. Al religions have some degree of truth.
Would it be acceptable for Christians to donate money to help print and publish Muslim propaganda?
"You say Islam is a false religion. Well, ultimately, yes, but through and through? no. As Catholics, we would say that any other faith, including non-Catholic Christian belief-systems, contain heresy. It is only a matter of degree."
Of course. All non-Catholic relgions have at least some error, or else they would be Catholicism.
However, we must distinguish between Christian heresy and other forms of false religion. Islam is not just a false religion, but is also to some degree a Christian heresy, which is one reason why it has more truth than other false religions.
"Can you give to a Lutheran or Methodist or Presbyterian building fund?"
No, a Catholic could not do that, for the same reasons it would be wrong to help Muslims build a mosque.
"Is that heretical enough to not participate in a building fund?"
Yes.
I think we're at the point where we'll have to respect each others' opinions and agree to disagree. There is nowhere else we can go with this, and I need to do some work getting nine of my books into paperback, that I have been putting off.
As always, I appreciate hearing other opinions and the cordiality of our friend Grubb. I'm delighted that we have engaged in this thought-provoking discussion. I think it is great food for thought for readers.
Dave,
But you didn't answer my question: if Benedict held an Assisi-type event like JP II and invited a liberal Anglical or Episopalian, a JW, a Mormon, or a Mason (groups you contend are engaged in "false advertising") you would oppose it?
"I think we're at the point where we'll have to respect each others' opinions and agree to disagree. There is nowhere else we can go with this, and I need to do some work getting nine of my books into paperback, that I have been putting off."
Okay. Frankly I don't have the time to invest in this discussion adequately either.
Laurence,
Good luck with the visas...and the marriage
Anyway, I don’t see evangelism as a binary “Yer saved or yer damned” thing. People take time and move incrementally towards God (or away for that matter!) So an individual is to be encouraged in each step along the way. An atheist who becomes a deist is taking a step towards God. A deist who becomes a Muslim takes a closer step. A Muslim who becomes a Christian hits the jackpot!
Either you're in the kingdom, or you're not. It's true, one may be closer at one time than another; but if you're just a step away from Jesus when you die, you go to the same place as someone who's a million miles away. Salvation IS binary in that one can't be half saved.
I'd argue that to be in Islam is far worse than being an atheist as far as becoming a Christian is concerned. Muslims believe they have the right path, and the more they learn, the more they'll be convinced of that; but as atheists' eyes are opened to the fallacy of their ways, they'd be much more receptive to the truth.
.
Dave,
I too have work to do and appreciate your thoughtful conversation. This is an excellent topic to think through and establish an opinion on. In Romans 14:5 it says, "One man considers one day more sacred than another. Another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind." This doesn't necessarily apply to giving to a Muslim mosque, but it shows us that regarding issues not specifically addressed in the Bible there's room for latitude. Everyone doesn't have to believe the exact same thing.
When I said, "You ignored my best point..." I was referring to my best point of that comment, not of my entire conversation.
I meant to bring it up earlier, and Jordan's comment reminded me of it. Giving money to a mosque building fund could just as well be giving it to printing Korans, because the money one gives to the building fund frees up resources for publications and other Muslim evangelism materials. Surely you see that cause and effect. Assume the monthly payments for the loan to build the mosque are 500 Euros. Thanks to Meurer, the Muslims will pay off the loan a month earlier and be able to use the money for Muslim evangelizing.
If you asked me to give you $5 and said it was for a Playboy magazine, I'd say no. Suppose you turned right around and said, "I mean, I need it for lunch." If I gave you the money for lunch, that would free up the $5 you already have for the Playboy. I realize I'm not responsible for every penny you spend after I give you $5, otherwise we couldn't give food to homeless people, because the money they might have spent on food could be freed up for drugs. But there's a difference between giving to one you're not sure will spend the freed up money badly (a homeless person) and one that you're sure will (a mosque).
You dismissed my "Couldn't he find a better way to spend 500 Euros?" question as subjective babble (not your exact words), but it's a valid question. Why wouldn't he sponsor the 1st social? Why wouldn't he send them a nice basket of fruits and chocolates when they first opened? Why not offer to plant a few trees on their land after the mosque is finished? Do something they weren't going to do anyway in order to show good will. Every CHRISTmas we hear the best gift to get someone is something they want that they'd never get for themselves. In this case it would be true too, because it would show good will, give them something they'd like but wouldn't have gotten otherwise, and not free up money they were going to spend anyway.
.
But you didn't answer my question: if Benedict held an Assisi-type event like JP II and invited a liberal Anglical or Episopalian, a JW, a Mormon, or a Mason (groups you contend are engaged in "false advertising") you would oppose it?
I would oppose those groups as attendees.
Hi Grubb,
You can work on the mosque toilet and roof and I'll decide in most cases not to give to the building fund (usu. all my money goes to the "four hungry growing kids" fund anyway). Practically speaking, we aren't far apart at all.
I'm not real sure they want me working on their toilets, but I could do some roofing.
Practically speaking, I agree. Assuming the lion's share of your charity goes to your local church and smaller amounts go to causes you think worthy, we're probably very similar in practice.
.
Dear Dave,
I am a catholic in an islamic country. We non-muslims (together with other non-islam religions) must survive one way or the other against implicit or explicit oppression by islamic law or groups politically, socially or economically. Islamists have put very good propaganda, double standard and even trickery (taqiya) to disguise its horrible original nature of islam. Naive peoples will buy their talks. But we who have been in the center of islamic country wonder why that can happen. You cannot argue or even speak of a little critic that would scratch islam in public or even private. You non-muslims can go to jail or even be headed right away. You may argue or talk about it in your country now because islam has not ruled yet. But if the population of islam becomes great, they will demand the islamic law and you the non-muslims will lost all the freedom and equivalence in humanity ever had before. If you want to know what islam really is (not only from me), you may visit "www.faithfreedom.org" which promotes to eradicate islam once and for all from the mother earth for the sake of humanity. We do not hate the muslims who are also the victims of this false religion. But we against the doctrine of islam brought by false phrophet muhammad. The bad impact of islam on humanity is much worse than other believes on earth. You may experience it if you live in islamic country. If you want to live happy in muslim country, you had better convert to islam.
I wonder why the pope let the saudi built a very big mosque in the vatican. Instead, there will never been build a single church (or even other religion's temple) in saudi arabia. Forget Mekkah or Madinah alone. You non-muslim cannot enter Mekkah. Some sects of islam even do not allow non-muslim enters a mosque. So, islam is hopeless. I feel pity to muslims who becomes the victims of false cruel warlord phrophet as muhammad. Please visit www.faithfreedom.org and I want to know your response about it. Sorry for this hard expression of mine.
Commenting by HaloScan
