Strange Theological Bedfellows

The Islamic and the liberal views of Jesus and of the New Testament are formally the same.

According to liberalism, Jesus was just a man, not God, who never claimed to atone for men’s sins or determine their eternal destiny, who taught liberal doctrines, and who remained dead after he died on the Cross.

According to Islam, Jesus was just a man, not God, who never claimed to atone for men’s sins or determine their eternal destiny, who taught Islamic doctrines, and who remained dead after he died of natural causes.

[Correction: The majority Islamic view of Jesus’s end of days on Earth is that he was transported to Heaven.  But the Islamic view is still very close to the liberal view.]

According to liberalism, the New Testament contains many errors that have developed over the centuries, due partly to malice and partly to entropy, and we must look to scholarship to set the record straight.

According to Islam, the New Testament contains many errors that have developed over the centuries, due partly to malice and partly to entropy, and we must look to Islam to set the record straight. Moslem anti-Christian apologists according quote liberally from liberal scholars such as Bart Ehrman in attacking the New Testament.

Reason number 5,347 why liberalism is assaulting our culture.

 

49 thoughts on “Strange Theological Bedfellows

  1. Pingback: Strange Theological Bedfellows | Reaction Times

  2. The Islamic conception of Jesus is obviously deficient from the serious Christian’s perspective but I wouldn’t go quite so far to say that is formally the same as the liberal conception. As I understand it Muslims believe in the virgin birth (Muslims revere Mary, many Muslim women view her as their model). That Jesus performed numerous miracles and Jesus will return at the end of the world and lead a triumphal victory over the anti-Christ. That’s hardly the Jesus of Jefferson’s Bible. Furthermore, their conception of Jesus is much closer to the truth than that of Jews or Mormons, two groups that modern “conservative” Christians think are just swell.

    • Moslems and liberals both teach that Jesus is not God, which to my view essentially nullifies any other truths about Jesus that Islam teaches. Compared to the unbridgeable gulf between Jesus as man only and Jesus as God-man and Savior, the differences between the liberal and Moslem Jesuses are relatively minor.

      And the Mormons, who are not “swell” theologically, at least see Jesus as a God-like being.

      • I still find your position incoherent. You have expressed here and elsewhere admiration for Judaism and the hyper-modern state of Israel. Judaism whether it is “orthodox” or “liberal” or whatever, not only rejects Christ as God like Islam it goes well beyond that and ascribes terrible blasphemies to Christ and his Blessed Mother. So too does Mormonism. Yet in the former case, you said that stuff like: It’s probably even possible for sympathetic Orthodox Jews to come on board, for the Christian view of a just society is not much different (I think) from the Jewish one. The real, Old-Testament-based Jewish view, that is. So this issue is cannot about theology. It seems to me you are subordinating theology to a modern political movement.

      • ISE,

        My post was just an observation, not intended to be theologically precise. And it was not about Judaism. That’s a subject you raised, not me.

        But since you raised the subject, I obviously do not “admire” Judaism or Israel, not according to any reasonable definition of “admire.” My guess (and it’s just a guess) is that you think “don’t hate” = “admire.” In the quote of mine, I said cooperation is “possible.” That’s obviously not the same as “likely.”

        As for Israel, I see a state much like our America: ruled by the insane and wicked principles of the left, with Israel being different mainly in that they occasionally allow themselves to strike back at their enemies. But Israelis seem to me to be a lot like my people: generally white and European. So when I compare Israel with her enemies, who are not like my people at all, I naturally have more sympathy for Israel.

      • ISE, this is not the first time that you have brought up a topic that your interlocutor did not mention, and accuse him of taking a certain position on it. It is also not the first time you have falsely accused someone of racism.

        ISE, you argue like a liberal.

      • The LDS position is that Jesus is a separate person from His Father, but is still fully divine, not simply a “God-like being.” The title page of the Book of Mormon includes this phrase: “…Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations…” See also D&C 110:1-4.

        Latter-day Saints affirm the virgin birth (1 Ne. 11:13-20 and Alma 7:10), that Jesus performed numerous miracles, and that Jesus will return at the end of the world and lead a triumphal victory over the anti-Christ, and further that Christ will reign personally upon the earth in the Millennium. Jesus is described in the Book of Mormon as Creator, Savior, Redeemer, and Judge.

        LDS scriptures describe Mary as “most beautiful and fair above all other virgins” and a “precious and chosen vessel.” As the chosen mother of the Son of God, she can naturally be considered in the LDS view as blessed above all other women. Latter-day Saints do not, however, view Mary as the intercessor with her son in behalf of those who pray, do not pray to her, and do not accept the Catholic doctrines of the Immaculate Conception (as well as the related Catholic or Protestant view of Original Sin), Mary’s perpetual virginity, or her assumption.

      • The LDS position is that Jesus is a separate person from His Father, but is still fully divine, not simply a “God-like being.” The title page of the Book of Mormon includes this phrase: “…Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations…” See also D&C 110:1-4.

        Which puts you beyond even the Islamic conception of God, thus proving my point.

        LDS scriptures describe Mary as “most beautiful and fair above all other virgins” and a “precious and chosen vessel.”

        Mormon leaders such as Brigham Young have historically taught that Mary was physically impregnated by “Elohim.” This utter satanic nonsense, notwithstanding modern attempts to reverse and whitewash this teaching. But hey Leo you are ready to stand up for my “religious freedom” so its all good I guess.

    • That’s a subject you raised, not me.

      Yes I know you didn’t mention it, I merely raised it to try to understand whether you reject any other group because they reject Christ or by some other standard (for which i still do not know- is it because they are not white?). Judging from your most recent comment it seems to be the later.

      But since you raised the subject, I obviously do not “admire” Judaism or Israel, not according to any reasonable definition of “admire.” My guess (and it’s just a guess) is that you think “don’t hate” = “admire.” In the quote of mine, I said cooperation is “possible.” That’s obviously not the same as “likely.”

      As for Israel, I see a state much like our America: ruled by the insane and wicked principles of the left, with Israel being different mainly in that they occasionally allow themselves to strike back at their enemies. But Israelis seem to me to be a lot like my people: generally white and European. So when I compare Israel with her enemies, who are not like my people at all, I naturally have more sympathy for Israel.

      Okay perhaps “admire” was too strong a word, but as you now clarify it is safe to say that your sympathies lie more Judaism so much so that you would say common cause could* be made with them, whereas I take it common cause with Muslims is off the table. It seems given the purpose of this post certain groups like Jews and Mormons are exempt from charges of being akin to liberalism where Islam is not.

      • Smear you say? What is your issue Wm. Lewis? I get called a bigot by you for responding to a deranged Protestant attack, now you are saying I am “smearing” Mr. Roebuck? How so? He brought race first not me. He insinuated I was an anti-semite too. Those are pretty typical liberal debate tactics. I am merely trying to understand his thinking here. In the modern conservative movement, many conservatives (mostly Protestant but some Catholics) tend to be favorably disposed towards Israel and Judaism while tending to not be favorable towards Islam. I think this is wrong because this political alliance is ultimately based on some transient right-liberal ideology not traditional Christianity. Is such topic acceptable to your sensibilities?

        We all know that Protestants want to have place in the Orthosphere or a place in the broader traditionalist movement, yet this same problem always seems to emerge. Catholics have to water down their views so as to not offend the sensibilities of Protestants, to the point where the original forum loses any connection with traditional Catholicism and becomes rather an organ of Right-liberalism. National Review and First Things are perfect examples of this. The Orthosphere grew up largely to carve out a forum that avoided such problems.

        If survival of white Americans or restoring America 1.0 are you causes, then so be it. They’re not mine and I don’t think you speak for a majority of commenters here either. There are other forums for those causes too, this forum should not change for the sensibilities of a hostile anti-Catholic minority.

      • …a deranged Protestant attack…

        No, a nonexistent protestant attack.

        …this forum should not change for the sensibilities of a hostile anti-Catholic minority.

        Non-Catholic is not anti-Catholic. Not unless your skin is unusually thin.

      • No, a nonexistent protestant attack.

        Nonexistent?-

        Now, here is the point – how would all you Catholics, both those who explicitly said the same sort of thing here and those who thought it but didn’t write it react? Many, if not most, of you would be shrieking like hypocritical …[ED: Watch your mouth, ISE]

        http://orthosphere.org/2014/04/13/queen-of-heaven-a-working-hypothesis/

        But *I* get called a bigot in response? Laughable.

        Non-Catholic is not anti-Catholic. Not unless your skin is unusually thin.

        I’d say Catholics put up with a lot here perhaps too much so.

      • My issue is that you find it impossible to extol your religion without denigrating mine. Read Kristor, Mr. Kalb, and the other Orthosphere contributors, and learn from them.

        While we differ on important issues, I would rather fight and die to save you than be enslaved by our leftist would-be masters. You, however, eschew ecumenicism. So be it.

      • Apart from your rather personal discussion I find these question interesting. Where does your allegiance belong to?

        For example would Mr. Lewis support Protestant immigration to Catholic countries? Apparently, it would serve the Protestant cause. If the answer is yes which sounds quite logical to me then ISE’s support to Catholic immigrants is something one can understand.

        On the other hand, it sounds weird to me when ISE says he is more comfortable with his Vietnamese coworker rather than with his white American neighbor. I also work with Vietnamese and I must say I prefer my Czech atheist coworkers. Nevertheless, I guess the Vietnamese are mostly atheists rather than Christians and whites are majority all around here so the surrounding culture is also white which makes the case easier for me. Maybe ISE lives in a place where ethnic groups are so mixed up and prevalent culture so cosmopolitan that only religious loyalty makes sense.

        Now the question is to what extent should one prefer his religious loyalty to his ethnic or family loyalties?

      • Now the question is to what extent should one prefer his religious loyalty to his ethnic or family loyalties?

        Religious loyalty should come first. Nationalism or racialism is just another modern error. All this talk of the “white race” is already indicative of deracination. When I spoke of the Vietnamese or Hispanics it was because they were Catholic. I have little solidarity with a Vietnamese atheist or Pentecostal Hispanic ect.

      • Religious loyalty should come first.

        Surely, but there are other considerations. For example those Catholic immigrants might be illegals in which case they are breaking the law. Or, to bring an example of my homeland, our government (with consent of superpowers) decided about deportation of 3 mil. of Germans (many of them Catholics I believe) out of the country, a step that was and even today is supported by majority of people, including many Catholics.

        Do you support religious freedom or *cuius regio, eius religio*? I think it’s a relevant question because Mr. Lewis could attack immigrants on the grounds of religion, too.

      • At The Thinking Housewife, Laura Wood wrote, Catholics are obligated to respect national sovereignty and love their own country.

        ISE does neither. Who is following Roman teaching better? I cannot say. However, the story of the Tower of Babel tells us that God wants us to exist as distinct nations. Furthermore, Revelation 21 tells us there will be nations—plural—in New Jerusalem. The failure of multiethnic empires, and the friction we see now in multi-culti postmodern America, show that multiethnic “nations” are dysfunctional, perhaps fatally so.

        Also, ISE, the Orthosphere was not founded as a Roman site, but as a traditionalist one. If the site is insufficiently Roman for you, perhaps you would be happier reading and commenting elsewhere.

        RT, while I do not support wide-scale immigration of any type,* I do support Protestant missionary work everywhere. I do not view immigration as any sort of “right.” It is, however, the sovereign right of every nation to decide for itself whether to allow immigrants at all, and if so, what type and how many.

        I oppose Mexican immigration for many reasons (in no particular order): for their ethnic dissimilarity; for their revanchism; for their low IQs; for the harm they inflict both economically and criminally to native-born Americans; and yes, for their religion, which ISE leads us to believe is incompatible with our country, as it was or how it might be.

        * The large-scale immigration to America in the 19th and early 20th centuries is instructional, and from it we can derive guidelines: first, establish what you want immigration to do, and what kind of (and how many) immigrants you want; second, deny entry to those who do not meet your requirements; third, do not support multiculturalism but require assimilation while allowing for transition; fourth, be ready to stop immigration when it no longer benefits you, the recipient country. There were also mistakes in that policy, not the least of which were admission of the Irish (many of whom have implacable grievances against the English, including their descendants, e.g., most Americans when that immigration started) and admission of Roman Catholics (yes, the Know Nothings were right, as can be seen by ISE’s preference for his faith over our country, which should not be a binary choice in the first place).

        As I have long said, small communities of people who differ from the majority can co-exist peacefully with the majority, but once they reach a certain mass, their presence is destabilizing and a net negative for the country. It makes no sense to destroy your country by policy—unless, of course, that is your goal, as it is for the leftists who have imposed the non-stop immigration insanity we have suffered from since 1965. See The Path to National Suicide.

      • Surely, but there are other considerations. For example those Catholic immigrants might be illegals in which case they are breaking the law.

        I propose we put the blame on the system (neo-liberalism) not on the victims. I don’t like mass immigration, I think it is bad for the hosts and perhaps even more so for the migrants. What makes our cultures unique is the fact that develop in relative isolation but with globalism that is no longer possible..

      • Wm, . I don’t take anything Laura Wood says seriously. She’s another “Catholic” who’s too infatuated with protestant culture. So it makes sense you would like her I guess.

        Wm. Lewis supports Americanism (which really means he supports Enlightenment liberalism). He will not admit or cannot see how his very ideology American imperialism has played an essential role in the current mess. That is what the Orthosphere stands against- liberalism. You, however, support it- whether you admit it or not. If the site is insufficiently Americanist for you, perhaps you would be happier reading and commenting elsewhere perhaps the hundreds of other right-liberal echo-chambers out there.

      • I don’t take anything Laura Wood says seriously. She’s another “Catholic” who’s too infatuated with protestant culture.

        Nonsense. And I say that as a Protestant who is on record as opposing the distinctively Catholic doctrines that Laura supports. Not being a Catholic, I can’t evaluate her Catholicity, but the Thinking Housewife is a valuable ally against liberalism and a generally sound thinker. You would do well to withdraw your rash and foolish opinion of her.

      • My judgment is not “rash and foolish” as you yourself admit, you cannot speak to her Catholicity so you’re in no real position to demand I take her seriously as I reject her on those grounds.

        I’ll give her this though, when she attacks America 1.0 she’s right.

      • Again, for ISE, only being Catholic counts.

        But even if Laura were a heterodox Catholic (which I doubt; my comment being rhetorically modest; I actually know a fair bit about Catholicism), her judgments on other things, which are rather important, are usually right on.

      • Yes well, I know a lot about Protestantism but I’m not about to lecture you into accepting a given Protestant’s viewpoint. My original critique of Laura Wood is that she is still too enthralled with Protestant culture. Nothing you’ve said has refuted that, as I said above, the fact that you like her affirms my point.

      • many of whom have implacable grievances against the English, including their descendants,

        Yeah well genocide will do that to a people. By the way Lewis, I hate to break this to you, but I trace my ancestors back to 18 century New England.I like Catholic converts such as Orestes Brownson, G.K Chesterton and Brent Bozell, have found the promises of Protestant America wanting. If anything the immigrants wanted to nothing better but to be “good Americans” instead of being good Catholics- precisely what you demand.

      • ISE does neither. [neither being love his country or respect its sovereignty]

        Is this true? To love your country is to will its good. Signing on to its official ideology is not required. It better not be because multiculturalist insanity has been incorporated into its official ideology.

        Similarly with illegal immigration. Does that really violate US sovereignty? It seems to me that illegal immigration is really “illegal” immigration. The people who matter basically say that it is not illegal. They could enforce black-letter immigration law any time they wanted to and get rid of them. So, “illegal” immigration looks de facto legal to me.

      • That is what the Orthosphere stands against- liberalism. You, however, support it- whether you admit it or not. If the site is insufficiently Americanist for you, perhaps you would be happier reading and commenting elsewhere perhaps the hundreds of other right-liberal echo-chambers out there.

        I hope Wm Lewis continues to comment here.

        I think ISE brings up an interesting phenomenon among right-liberals, though. Whether they realize it or not, they have been going from victory to victory in the US. The outcome of those victories has been poisonous, and they realize this. Well, they don’t realize that the victories are poisonous, but they taste the poison and know it is coming from somewhere. The way they react, though, is odd. They look around for some movement to associate with, some new label and take it on. What they don’t do is let loose of the disastrous ideology.

        I found this video fascinating. The guy is at a Tea Party gathering. The whole point of the Tea Party is to forget about all that God stuff and just focus on the tax cuts. But there he is. And there the other fools are, applauding him. It’s depressing.

        I’m not saying Wm Lewis is making this mistake—that’s not my point. My point is that this phenomenon is weirdly pervasive among the kind of people who read National Review.

      • It’s like the Yorkists and the Lancastrians. If you had told the men of either party in those wars that there ought not to be a king in the first place, they’d have looked at you as if you were mad. So with the left and right liberals. To monarchist Yorkists and Lancastrians, and to liberal leftists and rightists, the basic terms of the political discourse under which they define themselves as contra their adversaries seem to them to have been ordained by God (or, for those on the left, by Evolution), and therefore implicit in the natural order, and unquestionable.

        We of the Orthosphere are telling the liberals of both ilks, in effect, “No, there should after all really be a king, or something very like.”

        Maybe it’s only happening in the small circle of people I know, but I have noticed more and more people saying something to the effect that “democracy is an experiment that has failed” or “universal suffrage was a catastrophic mistake.” I myself only began to harbor such doubts about democracy in 2007. And it was a painful thing even to admit them to my conscious awareness! Waking up from a weltanschauung is hard; sluffing it off is even harder.

      • Thank you for the vote of confidence, Dr. Bill. I would like to think that I am a traditionalist, even an Austerian traditionalist, rather than a right liberal, but, as Kristor has pointed out many times, we are all recovering liberals, to one degree or another.

        ISE, like Mr. Roebuck, I can love my country and its people without loving the ruling class, its ideology, and what they together have transmogrified the country into. I am not a “my country, right or wrong” rah-rah pseudo-patriot, nor am I a reader of National Review. I do not deny the legitimacy of the Irish grievance against the English; I say that America should not have let them in because of the grievance.

        Your putting religion first, while commendable, is misguided. We face a common foe who wants our destruction, and is strengthened by our internecine strife. I’m more than happy to delay the next round of the Thirty Years’ War until after our common enemy has been defeated; I do not understand why you are not.

        Kristor, this discussion at View From the Right convinced me of the need to limit the franchise; I had already become a small-r republican by then. It seems to me that self-rule and self-determination are still feasible for some populations, but that such a system requires numerous protections against democracy, protections that we have lost. Having said that, I can’t say that I fully occupy that mental ground. Every day is a struggle against liberalism.

      • We face a common foe who wants our destruction, and is strengthened by our internecine strife

        I do not see it that way at all. Protestantism, liberalism, modernism are all just heresies, all of which have now swept into my Church. I view your religion as a decisive precursor of liberalism- I know you vehemently disagree, but that’s my unshakable position. I tend to see Catholicism’s failure in informing the culture to being in part a result of seeing Protestants as “allies”and instead of something to be struggled against (along with liberalism). We’ve been “allied together” for decades and its has done absolutely nothing to stop the moral rot- a new way is needed.

      • “Protestantism, liberalism, modernism are all just heresies, all of which have now swept into my Church. I view your religion as a decisive precursor of liberalism- I know you vehemently disagree, but that’s my unshakable position.”

        Well, since you already have dozens of false beliefs, I suppose it’s only natural that some of them be about Protestantism.

        As the Bedouins put it, “I against my brother, my brothers and I against my cousins, then my cousins and I against strangers.” My attitude is that we should not fight each other, brother, until after we have defeated the liberal strangers and our Moslem (distant) cousins. But you go ahead and be pure. (Here’s a good place to insert the Benjamin Franklin quote about hanging together, except I’m sure that Franklin, as a Founding Father and American hero, is no one you respect or admire.)

        “a new way is needed.”

        Please, do share your “new way.”

      • Lewis, your cognitive dissonance is showing again. You stomp your feet saying “I’m not a liberal” and then you go on to quote perhaps the most liberal of the American Founders and try and shame me because I despise everything he stood for. It is just so very hard to take anything you say seriously (not that I ever really did).
        What would my way look like? I think it would be in opposition to almost everything you propound here. Fortunately, you’re in the minority (with even other Protestants on here taking issue with your racialist comments). Thankfully your tired, unimaginative views don’t set policy here.

      • Right in a thread where I defended Islam, I think anything “non-Catholic” counts as liberalism.

      • It seems given the purpose of this post certain groups like Jews and Mormons are exempt from charges of being akin to liberalism where Islam is not.

        I was not making an overall evaluation of Islam, for Islam is in most respects unlike liberalism. And I certainly was not saying that Mormons and Jews are “exempt from the charge” of being like liberals. I was just making an observation.

  3. “Moslem anti-Christian apologists according quote liberally from liberal scholars such as Bart Ehrman in attacking the New Testament.”

    Consider how many thousands (millions?) of times that Western “conservatives” have criticized the Mohammedans for their lack of appreciation of Enlightenment (sic) values.

    “Everything but the kitchen sink” is the S.O.P. of most human beings.

  4. Reblogged this on Patriactionary and commented:
    This is no doubt why progs find it easy to accept Islam, either in terms of immigration to the West, or even in some cases personal conversion to Islam; they share with it a hatred of Christianity’s tenets.

    That said, of the two, liberalism is still the bigger enemy, because it is mostly internal, whereas Islam is mostly external except insofar as liberal immigration policies have allowed hostile Muslims to enter our countries, which again shows that the fault lies with liberalism for such situations that we find ourselves in today. And external Muslims would not be a threat if we left them alone, and didn’t interfere in their part of the world, as both liberal and neo-con ideologues, esp. Zionist, Israel’s ‘Amen Corner’ types, want us to do.

    Ending both immigration of Muslims and interference over in their lands, would be the solution, which of course our elites will not entertain, since they hate Christianity and the West…

    And so liberals will use Muslims to attack the West internally; while Muslims will allow progs to use them for now, as a means towards later winning jihad against us, the dar-al-Islam conquering the dar-al-Harb, as they are compelled to strive for according to their dictates of their faith.

      • Without knowing that specific term for it (I stopped reading VFR regularly after Jim Kalb left it), I am aware of the way of thinking, and I more or less agree, in principle. Sadly, I’m not sure we can get there from here, without kicking out the Muslims already in our midst, something I’m not prepared to do – I do not think that would be just. I’d rather therefore simply contain the threat, by cutting out all immigration of further ones, and hoping that living in the West will moderate the remaining small proportion, over generations, as they (unfortunately in some ways, but fortunately in others) secularize in the later generations. (I’m not in the least bit a fan of secularism in any way of course, but if it breaks down an enemy alien threat, it isn’t a completely bad thing; just 99.99% bad or so. 😉 )

  5. Pingback: Strange Theological Bedfellows | Will S.' Culture War Blog

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s