Cringing Christians


#1

Is it possible to still be Christian and to formulate a reasoned response to Islam?

Some seem to think that this is impossible - that any constructive criticism is of itself against Christ - for Christ asked us to love our enemies.

I believe he also asked us to love our enemies by teaching the truth.


#2

it is hard when they say they are at war with you, but you are not at war with them.

Maybe its better just to go about the Lords work and live by example and not try to debate. Kind of the pearls thing, if the other person simply doesnt want to hear, forcing them isnt going to help.

Thinking of that if any converts are by forcing then they are not true converts because it was not of free will. Their faith would be weak.


#3

There are many kinds of war. Post-modernists talk of ‘culture wars’, and this seems to me a fairly accurate way of putting it.

For instance, in Victoria a born-again Christian group had a discussion about the ‘dangers of Islam’. Some Moslems snuck into the meeting and then took the group to court claiming they’d be racially vilified. They lost the court case as the Moslems had the backing of several state government agencies. Fortunately they won the appeal.

The stifling of free discussion here in the west is amazing. You can’t discuss these things at all in Islamic nations without being accused of insulting Islam, and facing death.

Did St. Paul do that? Or, did he go and confront pagans with the truth?

As far as Islam is concerned, if you’re forced to convert, you’ve converted. If you subsequently escape (some journalists were taken hostage and forced to convert) then you’re said to be an apostate and face death.

Even on a forum such as this where no one’s calling for Moslems to be killed, when someone raises the issue of Aisha’s age, immediately the apologists set to work with false argument/comparisons.e.g

a) Mary was the same age - she wasn’t. The only one unreliable source says she was 14, not 9
b) Aisha’s age was okay for it’s time/place. That’s not true either because Moslems still hold that age to be true.
c) Aisha ‘consented’. How a nine year old can consent in any meaningful way is yet to be proven.
d) She’d begun puberty. No evidence shows this and even if she did no one can state the correlation between the onset of puberty and her instantly achieving mental/emotional maturity at the same time.

Satan is the father of lies. For me the case of Aisha is such a clear-cut abuse that I almost cry when I see Christians come to the forum to defend it. Some say they don’t but they offer relativist apologies for child-abuse.


#4

I think it is possible, but a big problem is radical Islamic extremism, which regards (especially in Wahabist form) that all non-Muslims (as well as many tolerant Muslims) are ‘kufur’ or unbelievers who must convert to Islam or die. Radical Islamic extremism is not Islam, but its considerable popularity in many powerful Muslim countries (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) will make rational dialogue very difficult.


#5

Even the so-called ‘moderate’ Moslems and ex-Moselms are unable to discuss Islam.

A few years ago a secularist director (Theo van Gogh) was killed when he had made a film based on a former Moslem woman’s experiences of Islam


#6

Why would you say it is not Islam? Their actions are supported by both their scripture and their clergy, as well as others. I think it is a mistake to imply they are acting outside the teachings of Islam.


#7

I agree with you (for a change :wink: )


#8

Islam thrives in the west because it’s made immune from challenges.

Relativists (whether they’re Christian, or not), especially from the left view Islam as the ‘oppressed’ (as if Israel’s the sole cause of Islamic terror).

Leftish newspapers suppress dialogue, preferring to offer Islamic apology

Most shamefully a Moslem who referred to women as ‘meat’ gets a massive make-over

And Christians allow this to happen.

Some are unsure about the truth of their own faith. Some think that confrontation through vigorous dialogue to be somehow un-Christian.


#9

How’s this:

As long as Muslims do nothing and say nothing to condemn the violence within thier faith, non-muslims will have no reason but to assume that Muslims agree with the violence. (or, at least are too biased or scared to condemn it.)


#10

Not patiently and charitably repudiating soul-endangering errors when possible would be cruel, not loving.


#11

In another thread I quoted Acts 13:6-12 to show how the Apostle Paul dealt with someone who opposed the gospel with lies - he boldly rebuked that person. Therefore in some circumstances we should do this too. On the other hand, we do need to remember many Muslims do not see the error of their faith and believe they are genuinely following God - they are victims of Islam really.


#12

Is it possible to still be Christian and to formulate a reasoned response to Islam?

I think that the key word is reason.

It is certainly within the Christian tradition, as well as the Islamic tradition to have a vigorous debate so long as the discussion uses reason and logic to draw conclusions.

Using generalities about Islam, leftists, suppression of dialogue, and Israel are not really within the realm of reason and logic, but are simply a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter and an informal fallacy.


#13

In this thread I got accused of helping the radical Islamists in implementing their Caliphate because I posted an article from FFI questioning whether there was such a person as a “moderate” Muslim! :eek: Maybe I’m just plain stupid, but I still can’t understand the point that Contarini was making in his accusation. I’d like to see what others make of it. I know it’s a long article, but I think well worth reading.

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=149250

Vickie


#14

oh come on, it’s perfectly reasonable to use generalisations in the correct context, Vaclav, as the logical fallacy of accidents implies


#15

oh come on, it’s perfectly reasonable to use generalisations in the correct context, Vaclav

Such as?


#16

well you certainly can’t generalise about the use of generalisations Vaclav;)

come on, generalisations are used every day and are useful- you surely accept that
and the fallacy you describe acknowledges that


#17

well you certainly can’t generalise about the use of generalisations Vaclav

come on, generalisations are used every day and are useful- you surely accept that and the fallacy you describe acknowledges that

To a degree, certainly. It is a convenience for discussion.

Yet, it stops being logical when we uses it to claim that:

  • Muslims are radical Islamists hellbent on terrorism.
  • Catholics worship Mary and a bunch of statues.
  • Jews are Zionist radicals attempting to restore ancient Jewish territory.
  • Leftists hate God and want to help the Muslim terrorists.
  • Conservatives hate women and are racists.

See how useless generalisations can become?


#18

I think you’re getting generalisations and untruths mixed up to be honest - big difference :rolleyes:
the fallacy you referred to is about the incorect use of true generalisations, not the use of untrue generalisations
the way to correct thse is to encourage debate, not suppress it


#19

hola Montalban,

i think i understand what you mean… i do not think being Christian has anything to do with Islam. but the way we treat people does have something to do with being Christian.

Jesus did not tell us to avoid difficult issues or to look away when people commit sins or do something wrong… he was always the first person to say when something was wrong. think about the rich man who told Jesus he kept all the commandments and wanted to know how to get to heaven. Jesus told him that he had to give away all his posessions and follow Jesus… the rich man went away dejected.

Jesus did not sugar coat his answer or tell the man pleasing things, he presented the clear truth. he also did not revel in causing the man anguish and he did not use the mans’ sin and weakness as a launching point for insults… when the man heard the truth and did not like it, Jesus said nothing more than words to his disciples about why it was Jesus told the man he had to give up his wealth.

also consider our beloved Apostle St. Paul when he spoke in Athens. he spoke truly and sternly, again he sugar coated nothing, even while the polytheists insulted him. when he was done saying what he had to say he did not exchange insults with them, he answered the serious questions and ignored the polemical ones… it says that only a few became Christians and came away with him, those that did not heard the truth but rejected it and the beloved Apostle did not harass them or provoke them, he let them be.

i think based on these examples we should remind ourselves that when dealing with them, it is our Catholic responsibility to tell muslims the truth, we cannot tell them the parts of the truth they want to hear, or the parts of the truth they will be most jarred by, but the whole truth. we should remain true to the task of telling them the truth and not change our reasons to a desire to insult them or respond to their polemical arguments. and we must realize that they may not accept the truth, when this happens we should be sad for them but not angry at them.

that is why i am so concerned when i see attack threads… attack threads are not about telling the truth. even if they have an element of truth to them they do not exist for the purpose of truth. they exist for the purpose of revenge, anger or insult. we are supposed to serve Christ and His Church, not our weakest emotions.

i am definitely one of the people who is vocal about the way Catholics talk to muslims here, but my only concern is that Catholics are supposed to be better than this, and when I see Catholics speaking about God or the Church but serving their anger or their desire to insult it is very depressing.

when we speak to muslims we should remember that the truth comes first… congratulate them for following those aspects of islam which are in line with Catholicism. they pray, they believe in the One God, they recognize Jesus three offices, they revere the prophets. these are things that we should encourage!

but we must also tell them that mohamed was never a prophet, that Jesus is divine and God exists as a triune being. we must warn them that islam can only carry them so far before it encourages the sins of violence, because of jihad, damnation because it tells muslims to reject the Salvation of Jesus, and other sinful and bad things.

the good and the bad must be presented together… it is just as dishonest to talk only about our similarities without saying anything about their heresies, as it is to revel in their heresies and say not one encouraging word for the things they do correctly.

our Catechism says everything we need to know about the muslims. it says the good things islam teaches them, but also says that the picture is incomplete and we must fill in the blanks for them.

Dominus Vobiscum


#20

think you’re getting generalisations and untruths mixed up to be honest - big difference
the fallacy you referred to is about the incorect use of true generalisations, not the use of untrue generalisations
the way to correct thse is to encourage debate, not suppress it

Not really. I’m sure there is a kernal of truth that applies to a tiny minority in a few of those situations.

I’m willing to be a part of a good debate on Islam (or any of those topics), but I have not read any thus far here. Many of the debates seem to apply a few radical notions to all of Islam, which is the essence of the fallacy I mentioned.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.