Odds and Ends

   I think it would be useful for thoughtful folks–you know, folks who think before they open fire, burn, or go to war–to read what Benedict XVI actually said in his talk that has resulted in such outrageously inane and violent reactions from so many. Here is the talk. Here is the relevant portion:

   I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on– perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara– by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was probably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than the responses of the learned Persian.
   The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur’an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship of the three Laws: the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Qur’an. In this lecture I would like to discuss only one point– itself rather marginal to the dialogue itself– which, in the context of the issue of faith and reason, I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.
   In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: There is no compulsion in religion. It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat.
   But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the “Book” and the “infidels,” he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words:

Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.

The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul.

God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death….

   The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: “For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.” Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practice idolatry.

   Benedict XVI was accurately representing a historical encounter; he was accurately applying it to a truthful statement: that violence is fundamentally opposed to true religion. When that cannot be said, especially in an academic context, then truth has truly been silenced by brute force–the brute force of evil.
   Let’s be clear about this situation. The vast majority of hoodlams tossing firebombs at churches or burning things in the streets around the world haven’t a clue what the Pope said. Instead, corrupt religious leaders without the slightest concern for truth are using these ignorant crowds to increase their political capital, nothing less. Anything in the service of accomplishing their ultimate goal. I mean, if you will use road-side bombs, why not misrepresent the Pope? One cannot expect much in the way of fairness or rational thought from such folks.

What’s With Colorado Springs?
   About ten days ago or so I was informed that someone had taken offense to a very quick, very brief comment I made on the DL regarding exclusive psalmody. Now, I personally don’t have the slightest interest in another dispute about such things–the more I watch the world consumed in religious violence that few over here understand in the slightest the less I have any interest in such infighting–but I still don’t understand why Reformed folks have to be so unkind when they disagree about things? This writer immediately assumed I have read nothing on the topic (when he gets a webcast and handles out-of-the-blue questions without a moment’s preparation, well, we will be on level ground). Why assume such things without knowledge?
   So today another defender of the Comma Johanneum (both of these posts appeared on the PuritanBoard) had his say. And when someone pointed to the materials I posted on the issue a number of months back, he again had to respond with personal attack, “Using logical fallacies the way Dr. White does is a good lesson on what not to do as an apologist.” Now, I haven’t the slightest interest in once again going back over an issue I believe has been settled for anyone with the slightest bit of willingness to reason consistently. This writer doesn’t understand the topic he is so confidently addressing, but someone else will have to attempt to reason with him. But what caught my eye was both the initial post, and this one, though written by two different people, both had, as the church home of the writers, “Springs Reformed Presbyterian Chruch, Colorado Springs, CO, RPCNA.” Is there some “and when you disagree with James White, poke him in the eye in passing” rule in the SRPC of CO Springs or something? Seems to be endemic to the whole congregation. How odd.

   First, an “I told you so” that is not much of one. I have said many times that homosexual activists cannot allow freedom of speech or expression. Their ultimate goal is to silence anyone who would even whisper God’s standards. They do not want equal rights, they want super-rights, all based upon sexual behavior. And as long as they have deep pockets and politicians can “use” them and be used by them, they will continue racking up success in their campaign. So I have repeatedly said the days are coming, and indeed, are here, where open and honest discussion of what the Bible itself says about homosexuality will be limited and in fact will put one in danger of the authorities. Here is a story illustrating this very thing from the UK. Note that this special “police unit” exists not to protect British citizens from criminals, but instead is there to support homosexuals! And note especially the admission that the arrest was based simply upon the leaflets containing relevant biblical citations! You have to wonder where all the proponents of “free speech” are hiding these days. Hat tip to PC.
   Next, I have been informed by eyewitnesses that Jerry Falwell, in announcing the upcoming debate at the Thomas Road Baptist Church, referred to myself and Tom Ascol as “hyper Calvinists.” This is most disappointing. For one thing, I’m sure the real hypers are truly upset that we are taking over their turf and illegitimately at that! They sure know we are anything but hyper-Calvinists. But I had hoped for better from Dr. Falwell, who should know that there are historical definitions of these terms and that it is inaccurate to use the phrase of myself or Dr. Ascol. I will have to write and correct his misapprehension. We wouldn’t want too many flaming straw men in that fine new sanctuary! The fire marshal would not like it!