Christian doctrine is offensive to Muslims

[Tigermike 3,063]

I don't think this is the first time this guy has spouted off somethingthing similar to this.

Archbishop of Canterbury: 'Christian doctrine is offensive to Muslims'

By Steve Doughty

Last updated at 10:09 PM on 15th July 2008

Christian doctrine is offensive to Muslims, the Archbishop of Canterbury said yesterday.

Dr Rowan Williams also criticised Christianity's history for its violence, its use of harsh punishments and its betrayal of its peaceful principles.

His comments came in a highly conciliatory letter to Islamic leaders calling for an alliance between the two faiths for 'the common good'.

The Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams has admitted that Christian doctrine is offensive to muslims

But it risked fresh controversy for the Archbishop in the wake of his pronouncement earlier this year that a place should be found for Islamic sharia law in the British legal system.

Dr Williams is also facing immense pressures from inside his own Church of England and Anglican Communion.

A gathering of Anglican bishops from around the world, which begins today, is on the brink of a devastating split over whether homosexuality and gay clergy should win their approval.

The Archbishop's letter is a reply to feelers to Christians put out by Islamic leaders from 43 countries last autumn.

In it, Dr Williams said violence is incompatible with the beliefs of either faith and that, once that principle is accepted, both can work together against poverty and prejudice and to help the environment.

He also said the Christian belief in the Trinity - that God is Father, Son and Holy Ghost at the same time - 'is difficult, sometimes offensive, to Muslims'.

Trinitarian doctrine conflicts with the Islamic view that there is just one all-powerful God.

Dr Williams added: 'It is all the more important for the sake of open and careful dialogue that we try to clarify what we do and do not mean by it, and so I trust that what follows will be read in this spirit.'

He told Muslim leaders that faith has no connection with political power or force, and that Christians have in the past betrayed this idea.

'Christianity has been promoted at the point of the sword and legally supported by extreme sanctions,' Dr Williams said.

Islam, he continued, has been supported in the same way and 'there is no religious tradition whose history is exempt from such temptation and such failure.'

The Archbishop appeared to rebuke his colleague, Bishop of Rochester Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, who criticised his sharia lecture and who maintains that Christianity is central to British law, politics and society.

'Religious identity has often been confused with cultural or national integrity, with structures of social control, with class and regional identities, with empire: and it has been imposed in the interest of all these and other forms of power,' he said.

The Archbishop said that faiths which reject the use of violence should learn to defend each other in their mutual interest.

'If we are in the habit of defending each other, we ought to be able to learn to defend other groups and communities as well,' he said.

'We can together speak for those who have no voice or leverage in society - for the poorest, the most despised, the least powerful, for women and children, for migrants and minorities; and even to speak together for the great encompassing reality that has no voice of its own, our injured and abused material environment.'

The Archbishop did not mention sharia at all in his closely-argued 18-page letter. Dr Williams was heavily criticised by MPs and Downing Street after he suggested sharia law could have an established place in British life.

But his letter in reply to last year's Islamic approach, A Common Word for the Common Good, chimes with his view expressed in February that people of faith should be able to work together against secularism despite their differences.

Lambeth Palace hinted that Christians as well as Muslims should listen to Dr Williams' message.

Officials pointed to the Archbishop's call for 'religious plurality' to turn to serving the common good and added: 'This is true even where truth claims may seem irreconcilable'.

A number of conservative and evangelical Anglican bishops are poised to break away from the 400-year-old network of Anglican churches around the world because they believe homosexual behaviour is incompatible with Christian principles.

Among those expected to boycott the Lambeth Conference in Canterbury is Dr Nazir-Ali, whose seat in Rochester is just 20 miles away.

Link

[BamaGrad03 0]

It saddens me to see the Anglican Church (at least the version in England) is becoming less and less a reflection of the Bible...and more and more an affiliation by convienence. They are in appeasement mode. They have basically taken the stance "well, the Bible is a good book and all, but we don't really believe everything in it...except the stuff about Jesus being a good guy"

Appeasement of Muslims, appeasement of the Gay lifestyle...I just don't get it.

Where have people's convictions gone?

[DKW 86 7,450]

It saddens me to see the Anglican Church (at least the version in England) is becoming less and less a reflection of the Bible...and more and more an affiliation by convienence. They are in appeasement mode. They have basically taken the stance "well, the Bible is a good book and all, but we don't really believe everything in it...except the stuff about Jesus being a good guy"

Appeasement of Muslims, appeasement of the Gay lifestyle...I just don't get it.

Where have people's convictions gone?

Preach it Brother....

[arnaldoabru 11]

I guess Jesus isn't the Prince of Peace

[BamaGrad03 0]

I guess Jesus isn't the Prince of Peace

I don't understand what you are trying to say...please expound.

[CCTAU 3,350]

I guess Jesus isn't the Prince of Peace

I don't understand what you are trying to say...please expound.

It doesn't matter. Under their definition of Christianity, we can all be tortured and killed, just so long as we are tolerant of the religion of our persecutors while we are dying.

And remember, his candidate comes from a muslim family.

[Tigermike 3,063]

I guess Jesus isn't the Prince of Peace

I don't understand what you are trying to say

He didn't either.

[otterinbham 0]

Hold the phone. Christian doctrine IS offensive to Muslims. Why are you slapping this guy around for stating the obvious? And given that Christianity does have a history of butchery of its own and others from the Arian heresy to the Crusades to the Thirty Years' War, I really don't have an issue with that, either. That being said, he points out that Muslims have the same issues as well.

The point is a simple and unassailable one, if naively put. He's not suggesting a change in Christian doctrine.

[TitanTiger 20,522]

It saddens me to see the Anglican Church (at least the version in England) is becoming less and less a reflection of the Bible...and more and more an affiliation by convienence. They are in appeasement mode. They have basically taken the stance "well, the Bible is a good book and all, but we don't really believe everything in it...except the stuff about Jesus being a good guy"

Appeasement of Muslims, appeasement of the Gay lifestyle...I just don't get it.

Where have people's convictions gone?

This is true, though there are faithful, orthodox Anglicans who are combating this nonsense to the best of their abilities. I've grown to appreciate the historical richness the Anglican tradition has to offer, but the liberal end of this once great denomination is essentially trashing 2000 years of Christian doctrinal and biblical teaching to push a social agenda. I can't get on board with that.

[TitanTiger 20,522]

Hold the phone. Christian doctrine IS offensive to Muslims. Why are you slapping this guy around for stating the obvious?

I thought the same thing. And in fact, Christianity SHOULD be offensive to non-Christians in certain ways. Scripture describes Christ Himself as a "rock of offense" or a "stumbling stone." He made exclusive claims ("no one comes to the Father except by Me"). He claimed that He and the Father were one. If you're not a Christian (particularly if you're part of Judaism or Islam) and you're not offended by things like that on some level, you're not paying attention.

And given that Christianity does have a history of butchery of its own and others from the Arian heresy to the Crusades to the Thirty Years' War, I really don't have an issue with that, either. That being said, he points out that Muslims have the same issues as well.

The point is a simple and unassailable one, if naively put. He's not suggesting a change in Christian doctrine.

I have a lot of gripes with Canterbury. All in all, this speech isn't one of them though.

[otterinbham 0]

Hold the phone. Christian doctrine IS offensive to Muslims. Why are you slapping this guy around for stating the obvious?

I thought the same thing. And in fact, Christianity SHOULD be offensive to non-Christians in certain ways. Scripture describes Christ Himself as a "rock of offense" or a "stumbling stone." He made exclusive claims ("no one comes to the Father except by Me"). He claimed that He and the Father were one. If you're not a Christian (particularly if you're part of Judaism or Islam) and you're not offended by things like that on some level, you're not paying attention.

And given that Christianity does have a history of butchery of its own and others from the Arian heresy to the Crusades to the Thirty Years' War, I really don't have an issue with that, either. That being said, he points out that Muslims have the same issues as well.

The point is a simple and unassailable one, if naively put. He's not suggesting a change in Christian doctrine.

I have a lot of gripes with Canterbury. All in all, this speech isn't one of them though.

EXACTLY. I think the Archbishop is something of a fool, and I hope the Lambeth Conference shortens his leash. But this statement is so self-evident, I'm not sure what there is to argue with. The original post comes off as impotent sniping, rather than a true critique.

[Magnum Opus 0]

First off, Rowan Williams is a tool.

Second, so the very essence of Christianity is offensive to Muslims… Tough crackers, I say. Christianity was here first and just because Mohamed fits the description of an anti-Christ written approximately 650 years before his arrival, well too bad then. Mohamed fits the description for a reason.

I figure if Muslims want to be offended by Christianity, they might as well be offended properly.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Hold the phone. Christian doctrine IS offensive to Muslims. Why are you slapping this guy around for stating the obvious? And given that Christianity does have a history of butchery of its own and others from the Arian heresy to the Crusades to the Thirty Years' War, I really don't have an issue with that, either. That being said, he points out that Muslims have the same issues as well.

The point is a simple and unassailable one, if naively put. He's not suggesting a change in Christian doctrine.

I felt it was apologizing for the fact that it was offensive to muslims.

[DKW 86 7,450]

Hold the phone. Christian doctrine IS offensive to Muslims. Why are you slapping this guy around for stating the obvious? And given that Christianity does have a history of butchery of its own and others from the Arian heresy to the Crusades to the Thirty Years' War, I really don't have an issue with that, either. That being said, he points out that Muslims have the same issues as well.

The point is a simple and unassailable one, if naively put. He's not suggesting a change in Christian doctrine.

I felt it was apologizing for the fact that it was offensive to muslims.

Ditto!

[TitanTiger 20,522]

I didn't take it that way because he said this shortly thereafter:

"It is all the more important for the sake of open and careful dialogue that we try to clarify what we do and do not mean by it, and so I trust that what follows will be read in this spirit."

I don't see him apologizing, just explaining to a Christian audience why there are difficulties in Christian-Muslim dialogue sometimes on this point. We need to be clear as to what the doctrine of the Trinity is so that they don't mistakenly believe that we're pushing polytheism. You could similarly be an imam and telll a Muslim audience that "it is difficult and offensive to Christians to assert that any human (such as Mohammed) is equal to or greater than Jesus, so we need to be clear as to how we regard Jesus and Mohammed and what we mean when we say such things."

It's not a giving in of the point, just a call for people to explain themselves clearly so that dialogue doesn't proceed in a bad fashion based on misunderstanding. We can still disagree, but let's be clear on what it is precisely that we disagree about rather than ranting on caricatures of each other's beliefs.

[AUman43 5]

Sorry if this is posted twice. Apparently the British didn't heed the warning of Winston Churchill during the 1930's. Their intolerance for other religions and the fanatical approach is what's dangerous.

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL

http://www.truthandgrace.com/ISLAM.htm