@waxeagle hm.

@waxeagle sweeeet.

@ThomasShields that was cribbed from a tag burnination request earlier. It's kind of a spectacular print of all things MSO

@waxeagle hm.

Random thought I've been meaning to voice: one of the biggest struggles with this site is providing subjective answers on very objective questions.

In other words, the very nature of Christianity is one of absolute truth - as opposed to the "in-context" or relativistic answers we're forced to give to stay in the vein of the definition of a "Christian" per the site.

Another random thought, I've always liked how chat rooms show cumulative rep. I look way cooler with 9k than 3k.

@waxeagle - re: The item that just got "status planned". Thank you! That is encouraging, and something I've wished for more than once. it's pretty similar to my question on flags: meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1556/…

@caseyr547 Doesn't your statement here exactly prove the point of my answer? Even your tradition isn't making a concrete statement about who Allah is other than that he is not the true God properly worshiped. You say he could be just a figment of a deluded mans imagination or he could be a demon, but your certain it's evil and part of false teaching we are warned against. That's exactly what my answer is trying to say.

@Caleb there is do doubt in my mind nor of any in our group that the muslims worship something which is opposite of Christianity even antichrist. Since you believe there is even the remotest possibly otherwise I will never agree with your answer. Since you deny our groups convictions as valid in your answer I don't know exactly what you expect of me.

"The correct answer to this question is clearly … maybe not?"

if you were to change your response there to certainly no

@caseyr547 No, I don't deny that. I affirm that there is not even the remotest possibility that Muslim's worship is nothing short of blasphemy.

then why do you say maybe

with a question mark

The whole point is that according to Christian understandings of the nature of God and worship, the charge of blasphemy and utter rejection of other religions worship can be made PRIOR TO and without resolving any discussion either worldly or spiritual, either philosophical or metaphysical about the nature of some being other than our God.

yes i understand at the end you call many things blasphemy but before that you say it may not be

@caseyr547 No, I don't. I'm saying that although various Christian groups are inconsistent on how they answer the exact question (however emphatic your tradition is unfortunately there are many that are not) it really doesn't matter because the answer doesn't change anything, either way according to much more broadly accepted doctrines, it's still blasphemy. Even if somebody tries to (in my opinion foolishly) argue for a yes answer to that exact question they accomplish nothing.

ok then answer in the definite rather than the suppositive

The correct answer to this question is clearly … maybe not?

either your uncertain and you say maybe

Your own tradition bears this out. The thing you are emphatic on is that it isn't worshiping the right God the right way and therefore one way or another constitutes of devilry, whether delusion of a crazy man or the devil himself taking another shape -- which it is you don't have an official statement on but you agree that it's wrong.

yes

if you can remove the maybe from your first sentence then i could agree with it

in principle at least

@caseyr547 I think you're connecting my rhetorical use of "maybe" with entirely the wrong issue, but if that device is confusing I'm happy to try to communicate more clearly. Try this on for size:

Note that not just the first line but bits all through the answer have been updated to try to be more clear on the things we've discussed.

ok i still disagree with parts but it is alot better

this paragraph is really good

> This is the clear answer given by Christianity. Regardless of the nature of the "other" religion—whether they have the wrong God or whether they have the right God but worship him wrong—the end result is the same. Blasphemy.

:)

@caseyr547 I just tweaked it again, this time for formatting to get short attention span readers through to hit the main points and not get lost in the first section and walk away with the wrong answer.

kool :)

@ThomasShields yes.

@peterturner Is this Vatacan II statement the first of it's kind?

Most of the Catholic commentary I'm reading is trying to downplay the weight of the language used but it reads pretty strong to my eyes.

@Caleb link?

@waxeagle Here, see point #3.

@Caleb did they...put the Muslims in with the rest of Christianity? I'm really not sure how to read that

ah no, ok this is declaration specific to non-chrisitan religions.

got it

the bigger part is an overt statement that they believe the Muslim Allah to be the same God they worship

@waxeagle At least the way Peter is taking it (and my first reading) they are specifically affirming that they worship the same God. It seems to even farther in other sections too.

@waxeagle Yes, which completely invalidates my recent answer on the subject. I knew a few misc denominations which had statements on the issue but I thought Catholicism just had a few generalities about them being common humanity and being included in the call to salvation through the God of Abraham.

@Caleb yeah, I wasn't aware of any groups addressing it directly. I tend to believe personally that they worship the same God we do (as do the Jews). However as you said earlier, even if they do worship him it's either incomplete (Jews) or blasphemous (Muslims)

@Caleb I'm really not sure. Vatican II was a continuation of the constant teaching of the Church. But the language was so new that it made lots of people doubt whether or not that was the case. And the language is still new and still very striking and still very very misunderstood.

@PeterTurner in the context of catholic doctrine it's still quite young correct?

1960s?

@waxeagle yeah, historically it has taken 50 years just to get started understanding an Ecumenical Council.

Hmm. Looks like the Orthodox Church are being disgusting jerks again.

PZ Myers steps into Hemant Mehta’s territory.

@TRiG "I count 15 churches within walking distance of my house; there are no synagogues or mosques, probably because the believers they would prey upon are too thinly populated here to be profitable." I don't see any prejudice here. No sir!

But sounds like an interesting experiment.