tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post3271023718080408698..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Donning the hijabRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-33945033604410698102015-12-19T19:38:02.535-05:002015-12-19T19:38:02.535-05:00I saw this on National Catholic Register (where pe...I saw this on National Catholic Register (where people like Mark Shea hang out) - it's an interview with Germain Grisez:<br /><br />___________________<br /><br />What was the result of not developing that more fully?<br /><br />Since Vatican II, the kingdom of God is hardly mentioned, and no one is talking about what you need to do to get into the Kingdom.<br /><br />What do we have instead? A kind of almost-universalism: Everyone gets into heaven. If everyone gets into the Kingdom, you don’t have to think about it anymore. The general assumption is no one’s going to hell. When do you remember any pope or bishop talking about hell as a real thing?<br /><br />So there’s a problem: Vatican II left hell out. Since then, hell has been omitted from preaching and teaching, even by John Paul II. John XXIII wanted to present the faith in an attractive way, and that was understood to mean that we don’t want to talk about these bad or discouraging things.<br /><br />After Vatican II, you get people like [Hans Urs] von Balthasar saying, “We have to hope that everyone is saved.” Well, we have to hope that each individual is saved, but you don’t have to hope that everybody — collectively — is going to be saved, because you don’t deal with people collectively. You don’t love them collectively. When Jesus says many people will want to enter the Kingdom but won’t be able to, we have to believe he was telling the truth.<br /><br />Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/vatican-ii-the-media-and-the-councils-aftermath/#ixzz3uofxWqQu<br />___________________SJAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17224280484542390176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-85979649158005191572015-12-19T18:56:49.450-05:002015-12-19T18:56:49.450-05:00"Because, according to the classical theist, ..."Because, according to the classical theist, there can only in principle be one God, Christians, Jews, and Muslims who embrace classical theism must be worshipping the same God. It simply cannot be otherwise."<br /><br />(Beckwith)<br /><br />I think this is a little facile. Say a Jehovah's Witness says he is a classical thiest, or a SDA (I've met some who claim that orthodox Monotheism has been perveted by Greek philosophy) or Masons (they believe in the "Grand Architect of the Universe") claim they worship the God of the Bible.<br /><br />It seems to me that there is a contiunum here. Some non-christians may worship the God of Christians but some might not.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17224280484542390176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-86832001111532907972015-12-19T18:19:50.439-05:002015-12-19T18:19:50.439-05:00Take mistaken identity. If I see a picture of Marl...<i>Take mistaken identity. If I see a picture of Marlene Dietrich and say that's Rita Hayworth, does it refer to Hayworth? Even if Hayworth is the intended referent, that's not a picture of Hayworth. Even if Muhammad intends for Allah to map onto Yahweh, that doesn't make it so.</i><br /><br />Not to hijack the thread, but I think this is correct, and maps onto the golden calf Aaron fashioned for the Israleites while Moses was on Sinai, and likewise maps onto representations (images, statuary, et al) of Christ.CRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03231394164372721485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-68902832600214715922015-12-19T17:27:54.021-05:002015-12-19T17:27:54.021-05:00"
However, that's the case because both d..."<br />However, that's the case because both designations are based on the same object (Venus), and both are accurate descriptions of the same object, seen at different times under different viewing conditions. Both descriptors correspond to the intended referent. Both are truly about that object."<br /><br />I agree. And that would be true even if the person had some other false belief about the morning star or the evening star. For example, suppose that the person believes that the morning star _isn't_ the evening star. Still, his use of the term is occasioned by experiences that are, in fact, caused by the same entity that causes other people to talk about the evening star.<br /><br />In contrast, we should not say that Mohammad's experiences that caused him to develop Islam and its concept of Allah were caused by the same entity that caused the origins of Christianity! Very much to the contrary.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.com