Topic: The Next Christian Response to Islam

[Jetavan]

Speaking of Orthodoxy and Islam:

The Annual North American Conference of OPF [Orthodox Peace Fellowship] will take place in Irvine, CA, October 1 through 3, 2010.  The unifying theme is “Interfaith Dialogue.”  Speakers will come from the Orthodox tradition, as well as Jewish, Muslim, and others.  The program will be a mix of talks and discussions, music, comedy, award-winning films and one-on-one conversation.  Though differences exist and need to be acknowledged, we can learn from one another and create a more peaceful world in the process. Non-members are welcome — this conference is not to be missed!

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

1. Have there been evil acts committed in the name of Christianity.  Yes/No

2. Were those acts justified  by the people who committed them with passages from the Bible  Yes/No

1- Yes
2- No (People only claim to have justified their atrocities with biblical passages, but what they claim is not a fact. They follow a conjecture)

Some Christians commit evil acts in the name of Christianity DESPITE what the Gospels teach.
Some Muslims commit evil acts in the name of Islam BECAUSE OF what the Qur'an teaches.

le
Fine.. But people have used the Bible to justify their acts. What is considered evil changes over time and within different cultures.

How about slavery? Evil by today's standards, not so earlier. Justified by the Bible.

 Anti-Antisemitism? Justified by the Bible, considered evil by some and not by others.

Waging any sort of War is evil in all circumstances by some ( Quakers for example) and their pacifism justified by the Bible. But waging War and killing your enemy is also justified within the Bible by others.

How about the Crusades? Now there's a sticky wicket for you.

Your evil is another mans righteous cause.

Marc--I do not think that any one would disagree but you are arguing apples to oranges. The point that Theophilus, myself and others have made is regarding the source documents and what they say rather than their use by adherents. If you look at the New Testament, for example, you could not find any instruction to do harm to others. If you look at the Muslim source books, you would see the opposite; either in the form of actual prescription for violence, or by the implied directive to emulate the practices of the Prophet. If you insist on including the Old Testament in this comparison, surely you are aware that Orthodox Christians are supposed to look at it through the lens of the Cross.

[Jetavan]

1. Have there been evil acts committed in the name of Christianity.  Yes/No

2. Were those acts justified  by the people who committed them with passages from the Bible  Yes/No

1- Yes
2- No (People only claim to have justified their atrocities with biblical passages, but what they claim is not a fact. They follow a conjecture)

Some Christians commit evil acts in the name of Christianity DESPITE what the Gospels teach.
Some Muslims commit evil acts in the name of Islam BECAUSE OF what the Qur'an teaches.

le
Fine.. But people have used the Bible to justify their acts. What is considered evil changes over time and within different cultures.

How about slavery? Evil by today's standards, not so earlier. Justified by the Bible.

 Anti-Antisemitism? Justified by the Bible, considered evil by some and not by others.

Waging any sort of War is evil in all circumstances by some ( Quakers for example) and their pacifism justified by the Bible. But waging War and killing your enemy is also justified within the Bible by others.

How about the Crusades? Now there's a sticky wicket for you.

Your evil is another mans righteous cause.

Marc--I do not think that any one would disagree but you are arguing apples to oranges. The point that Theophilus, myself and others have made is regarding the source documents and what they say rather than their use by adherents. If you look at the New Testament, for example, you could not find any instruction to do harm to others. If you look at the Muslim source books, you would see the opposite; either in the form of actual prescription for violence, or by the implied directive to emulate the practices of the Prophet. If you insist on including the Old Testament in this comparison, surely you are aware that Orthodox Christians are supposed to look at it through the lens of the Cross.

I think you guys are comparing apples to oranges. You can't compare the Gospels to the Qur'an, because the Qur'an, like the Torah, is a law-focused document. Or, rather, you can compare the Gospels to the Qur'an, but you would be missing the point.

If you want to compare the Gospels to a comparable, non-law-focused Muslim text, I would suggest comparing the Gospels to the Mathnawi of Rumi.

As the Torah is the Gospel, the Qur'an is to the Mathnawi:

If we see the Qur'an as the Book of Awe, then the Mathnawi is the Book of Joy. The language of the Qur'an is, more than anything, the language of fear and, when love is occasionally mentioned, it is not expanded on at great length. And the believers are those who, when they hear the names of the damned, their hearts tremble. And the Qur'an is a book that - had it been revealed to a mountain - the fear of God would have ripped the mountain asunder. Although this fear is a kind of 'lover's mortification', the mortification has the upper hand over the love, and the fear outpaces the affection. But the Mathnawi is the '(market stall?) of union' and this is a union that is born of love: "Bravo to love that so masterfully unites a hundred thousand droplets / just as the potter unites grains of dust to form a jug"

[Michael L]

As the Torah is the Gospel, the Qur'an is to the Mathnawi

As far as I know Rumi has no authority in Islam (not like that of the Prophet Mohammed). Sufism is a sect of Islam that often contradicts the beliefs of most Moslems.

[Jetavan]

As the Torah is the Gospel, the Qur'an is to the Mathnawi

As far as I know Rumi has no authority in Islam (not like that of the Prophet Mohammed). Sufism is a sect of Islam that often contradicts the beliefs of most Moslems.

Likewise, the Gospel has no authority in Judaism. Christianity began as a sect of Judaism that often contradicts (so say the Jews) the beliefs of most Jews.

[Michael L]

As the Torah is the Gospel, the Qur'an is to the Mathnawi

As far as I know Rumi has no authority in Islam (not like that of the Prophet Mohammed). Sufism is a sect of Islam that often contradicts the beliefs of most Moslems.

Likewise, the Gospel has no authority in Judaism. Christianity began as a sect of Judaism that often contradicts (so say the Jews) the beliefs of most Jews.

I'm confused....I thought this was about Christianity and Islam differences. The New Testament has authority for Christianity the writing of Rumi have no athority for Islam so we can't say that the Mathnawi is to Islam as the Gospels are to Christianity.

[Jetavan]

As the Torah is the Gospel, the Qur'an is to the Mathnawi

As far as I know Rumi has no authority in Islam (not like that of the Prophet Mohammed). Sufism is a sect of Islam that often contradicts the beliefs of most Moslems.

Likewise, the Gospel has no authority in Judaism. Christianity began as a sect of Judaism that often contradicts (so say the Jews) the beliefs of most Jews.

I'm confused....I thought this was about Christianity and Islam differences. The New Testament has authority for Christianity the writing of Rumi have no athority for Islam so we can't say that the Mathnawi is to Islam as the Gospels are to Christianity.

The Torah is to the Gospels, what the Qur'an is to the Mathnawi. That is, the Torah and the Qur'an are law-focused texts, describing wars, punishments, and a pretty legally oriented culture.

On the other hand, the Gospels and the Mathnawi take the corresponding law-focused text and re-interpret it in a way that emphasizes the love, compassion, and grace of God.

You need both sorts of texts. You can't have a lawless society, but neither can you a society that ignores that which is beyond law.

[Marc1152]

1. Have there been evil acts committed in the name of Christianity.  Yes/No

2. Were those acts justified  by the people who committed them with passages from the Bible  Yes/No

1- Yes
2- No (People only claim to have justified their atrocities with biblical passages, but what they claim is not a fact. They follow a conjecture)

Some Christians commit evil acts in the name of Christianity DESPITE what the Gospels teach.
Some Muslims commit evil acts in the name of Islam BECAUSE OF what the Qur'an teaches.

le
Fine.. But people have used the Bible to justify their acts. What is considered evil changes over time and within different cultures.

How about slavery? Evil by today's standards, not so earlier. Justified by the Bible.

 Anti-Antisemitism? Justified by the Bible, considered evil by some and not by others.

Waging any sort of War is evil in all circumstances by some ( Quakers for example) and their pacifism justified by the Bible. But waging War and killing your enemy is also justified within the Bible by others.

How about the Crusades? Now there's a sticky wicket for you.

Your evil is another mans righteous cause.

Marc--I do not think that any one would disagree but you are arguing apples to oranges. The point that Theophilus, myself and others have made is regarding the source documents and what they say rather than their use by adherents. If you look at the New Testament, for example, you could not find any instruction to do harm to others. If you look at the Muslim source books, you would see the opposite; either in the form of actual prescription for violence, or by the implied directive to emulate the practices of the Prophet. If you insist on including the Old Testament in this comparison, surely you are aware that Orthodox Christians are supposed to look at it through the lens of the Cross.

I understand. Really. Just keep in mind that the Bible, including the NT can and has been used to rationalize evil deeds and not just deeds of individuals who miss understood something, but on a Grand Scale.. I get it that this is not exactly the same as a direct command, but I would counsel caution when pointing fingers.

[Theophilos78]

The Torah is to the Gospels, what the Qur'an is to the Mathnawi. That is, the Torah and the Qur'an are law-focused texts, describing wars, punishments, and a pretty legally oriented culture.

On the other hand, the Gospels and the Mathnawi take the corresponding law-focused text and re-interpret it in a way that emphasizes the love, compassion, and grace of God.

You need both sorts of texts. You can't have a lawless society, but neither can you a society that ignores that which is beyond law.

The Torah is the scripture of Judaism.
The New Testament is the scripture of Christianity.
The Qur'an is the scripture of Islam.
The Mathnawi is the scripture of

No Muslim considers the Mathnawi the scripture of Islam. This is why your parallelism is wrong.

[Gorazd]

Islam denies Christ's atoning death.

Holy Orthodoxy also does not teach atonement theology. After all, that was developped by Anselm of Canterbury after the Great Schism...

[Theophilos78]

Holy Orthodoxy also does not teach atonement theology. After all, that was developped by Anselm of Canterbury after the Great Schism...

I may have used a wrong terminology, but what I mean is that Islam denies Christ died for our sins/gave up Himself to save us.

[Samn!]

It's a serious (though increasingly common) misunderstanding to think of Sufism as some kind of coherent sect, pacifistic and to place Rumi as its central figure. Sufism is in fact a very, very nebulous concept that is used to describe basically any kind of experiential religious practice in Islam. Rumi is important in popular Islam in Iran and Turkey, and similar figures like the poet Ibn al-Farid or the theosophist Ibn Arabi are popular in other sections of the Islamic world, but the writings of Rumi aren't more than just poetic writings very popular among Persian-speakers- they don't have doctrinal value for anyone as such and in their original context are not read in the new agey way that they're sometimes sold as being here. If one looks at Sufism historically, it is true that there hve been and in some places still are antinomian practices associated with popular Sufism, but varieties of Sufism have been a component of much, much more conservative and even violent movements--- during the early Turkish conquests in Asia Minor, the ghazis religious practice was quite heavily influenced by Persian-style Sufism, and basically the Byzantine-Turkish border regions were Islamified by sufis preaching jihad-- violent jihad being seen as a normal part of the private spiritual discipline of a sufi. We can see that in the modern period as well, where the Libyan war for independance from the Italians was led by a Sufi order preaching jihad, as were Sudanese uprisings against the British...another example is that Ayatollah Khomeini's intellectual formation was heavily influenced by the philosophical Sufism of the Illuminationist school---  Mullah Sadra is basically the official classical philosopher of the current regime in Iran....


If you want to look for a pacifist reform movement within Islam, you have to look at the realy marginalized pacificst groups like the Baha'i or the Ahmadiyya... in Jetavan's understanding fo religion, the writings of Baha'ullah might be to the Quran what the Gospel is to the Torah, band so Baha'ism might be to Islam what Christianity is to Judaism, but that does little to help one understand Islam, because these kinds of pacificst reforms are very, very marginal......

[orthonorm]

Holy Orthodoxy also does not teach atonement theology. After all, that was developped by Anselm of Canterbury after the Great Schism...

I may have used a wrong terminology, but what I mean is that Islam denies Christ died for our sins/gave up Himself to save us.

They deny he died on the cross at a minimum or even at all.

[Jonathan Gress]

Ugh more cant about how the Orthodox do not believe that Christ atoned for our sins on the Cross. Let me just submit two quotations from the Fathers:

“Since the Lord offered Himself up for us in
sacrifice to the Father, having propitiated Him by His death as High Priest
and then, after the destruction of sin and cessation of enmity, sent unto us the
Spirit, He says: ‘I will beseech the Father and will give you a Comforter, that
is, I will propitiate the Father for you and reconcile Him with you, who were
at enmity with Him because of sin, and He, having been propitiated by My
death for you and been reconciled with you, will send you the Spirit.”

This is from Blessed Theophylact, who lived at the same time as the alleged inventor of "atonement theory", Anselm of Canterbury (Explanation of the Gospel of John, 14:16).

And from the great opponent of scholasticism, St Gregory Palamas:

“Man was led into his captivity when he
experienced God’s wrath, this wrath being the good God’s just abandonment
of man. God had to be reconciled with the human race, for otherwise
mankind could not be set free from the servitude. A sacrifice was needed to
reconcile the Father on high with us and to sanctify us, since we had been
soiled by fellowship with the evil one. There had to be a sacrifice which both
cleansed and was clean, and a purified, sinless priest…. God overturned the
devil through suffering and His Flesh which He offered as a sacrifice to God
the Father, as a pure and altogether holy victim – how great is His gift! – and
reconciled God to the human race…” (Homily 16:21, 24, 31)

[CRCulver]

Holy Orthodoxy also does not teach atonement theology. After all, that was developped by Anselm of Canterbury after the Great Schism...

Swinburne believes atonement to be compatible with Orthodoxy, and there are elements of the liturgy that would be hard to interpret any way but through a doctrine of atonement. What Orthodoxy rejects is only a strict legalistic understanding. The death on the cross includes atonement but transcends it.

[Jetavan]

The Torah is to the Gospels, what the Qur'an is to the Mathnawi. That is, the Torah and the Qur'an are law-focused texts, describing wars, punishments, and a pretty legally oriented culture.

On the other hand, the Gospels and the Mathnawi take the corresponding law-focused text and re-interpret it in a way that emphasizes the love, compassion, and grace of God.

You need both sorts of texts. You can't have a lawless society, but neither can you a society that ignores that which is beyond law.

The Torah is the scripture of Judaism.
The New Testament is the scripture of Christianity.
The Qur'an is the scripture of Islam.
The Mathnawi is the scripture of

No Muslim considers the Mathnawi the scripture of Islam. This is why your parallelism is wrong.

That depends upon how you define "scripture". For Orthodox Jews, the Torah is Scripture, but you can't understand the Torah with the commentary. So, in effect, the commentary serves an irreplaceable function for Orthodox Jews.

Likewise, for those Sufis who consider Rumi part of their lineage, the Mathnawi explicates what is hidden in the Qur'an.

It's not necessary for all Muslims, or all Sufis, to hold the Mathnawi valuable. Neither was it necessary for all Jews to hold the Gospel valuable. The fact remains that there are Muslims for whom the Mathnawi explains what the Qur'an may not so explicitly state.

[Jonathan Gress]

Neither was it necessary for all Jews to hold the Gospel valuable.

[Jetavan]

Neither was it necessary for all Jews to hold the Gospel valuable.

That is, some Jews rejected Jesus; other Jesus accepted Jesus (and, a bit later, the Gospels).

It's not the case that one religion totally replaces its predecessor. We can still have reptiles even after birds evolve from reptiles. (By the way, I'm not comparing any religion to either reptiles or birds. )

[Jonathan Gress]

Neither was it necessary for all Jews to hold the Gospel valuable.

That is, some Jews rejected Jesus; other Jesus accepted Jesus (and, a bit later, the Gospels).

It's not the case that one religion totally replaces its predecessor. We can still have reptiles even after birds evolve from reptiles. (By the way, I'm not comparing any religion to either reptiles or birds. )

Well, there has only ever been and only ever will be one TRUE religion. The Jews who accepted Jesus Christ were following the true religion; the Jews who rejected Him, the false.

[theistgal]

Really?  What does James 1:27 say is the true religion?

[Jonathan Gress]

Really?  What does James 1:27 say is the true religion? ;)

Well, caring for widows and orphans, i.e. our neighbors, whoever they may be, is Christian. If we're talking about Rabbinical Judaism, they teach that mercy should only be shown to other Jews:

N. You Shall not Avenge or Bear a Grudge -- And You Shall Love Your Neighbor as Yourself

 

It is written in the Torah (Leviticus 19:18): "You shall not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord" -- here also the verse yells out "the children of your people." In Torat Cohanim on the portion of Kedoshim, chapter 4, halacha 12: "You shall not avenge nor bear a grudge against the children of your people -- but you can avenge and bear a grudge against others" (that is, against Gentiles -- explanation of the Ra'avad). In the words of Maimonides in The Laws of Mental States, chapter 7, halacha 10 (in the printed edition, halacha 7): "One who avenges against his fellow transgresses a negative commandment, as it says: 'You shall not avenge'." And there in halacha 11 (in the printed edition, the continuation of halacha 7): "What is considered vengeance? If one's fellow said to him 'lend me your ax' and he answered 'I will not lend it to you.' The next day he needed to borrow an ax from his friend. He said to him 'lend me your ax' and the other answered, 'I will not lend it to you, as you did not lend it to me when I requested.' This is vengeance." And there, halacha 12 (in the printed edition, halacha 8): "Also, anyone who bears a grudge against a Jew transgresses a negative commandment, as it says: 'You shall not bear a grudge against the children of your people.' How is this? Reuven said to Shimon 'rent me this house' or 'lend me this ox' and Shimon refused. Later, Shimon needed to borrow or to rent and Reuven said: 'See? I will lend it to you, for I am not like you and I will not pay you back for your actions.' One who does so transgresses the commandment 'You shall not bear a grudge'…"

 

With regards to the second half of the verse, Maimonides wrote in Sefer HaMitzvot positive commandment 206 (according to Rav Kapach's edition): "We were commanded to love one another…and my compassion and love to my brother in faith and religion shall be as my love and compassion to myself…" In chapter 6 of The Laws of Mental States, halacha 4 (in the printed edition, halacha 3): "It is a commandment for every person to love each and every Jew as he loves himself, as it says: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself'."

- Rabbi David Bar Chaim, full article available at http://www.daatemet.org/articles/article.cfm?article_id=119&lang=en

In any case, you must also be baptized and believe in the Resurrection and other dogmas of the Christian faith (Mark 16:16). True religion is not something you can cherry-pick at your own desire. You must accept the whole truth as it is given.

[theistgal]

That's just wrong.  The OT speaks many times about caring for widows and orphans, and "not  oppressing the stranger among you". 

[Jonathan Gress]

That's just wrong.  The OT speaks many times about caring for widows and orphans, and "not  oppressing the stranger among you". 

Yes, and which religion is the true successor to the faith of the Old Testament? Orthodoxy, not Rabbinical Judaism.

[theistgal]

That doesn't mean Judaism is false, just incomplete.

[Jonathan Gress]

That doesn't mean Judaism is false, just incomplete.

Given that only the complete Truth is saving, then anything that is "incomplete" is also false. In any case, as I demonstrated Rabbinical Judaism does not just leave some things out, but it directly contradicts both OT and NT teaching.

[bogdan]

That doesn't mean Judaism is false, just incomplete.

Judaism of the Second Temple was incomplete. Modern Judaism is false.

[Jonathan Gress]

That doesn't mean Judaism is false, just incomplete.

Judaism of the Second Temple was incomplete. Modern Judaism is false.

Well put. I was wrong to equate "incomplete" with "false". However, even the OT faith, although true as far as it went, was not saving. Only the truth of Christianity is saving.

[theistgal]

OK, if this is going to be yet another anti-Jewish thread, I'M OUT.

[Jonathan Gress]

Unless you're a syncretist who believes there is no one true faith, it is not possible to escape from the conclusion that, if Orthodox Christianity is true, religions that deny one or more of Orthodoxy's dogmas are false. If you honestly think that is "racist" then I don't know what to tell you. Some people insist on seeing racism everywhere, even where race is not even mentioned.

[CRCulver]

Some people insist on seeing racism everywhere, even where race is not even mentioned.

And some people insist on mentioning the evils of Judaism everywhere, even where the thread isn't about Judaism.

[Luke]

Really?  What does James 1:27 say is the true religion?

I had to look up that verse, and since I like the letter of James:  "Pure and undefiled in the sight of God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world."

[theistgal]

I did not say "racist" - I said "anti-Jewish".  Judaism is a religion - not everyone who follows it is of the same race.

[Jonathan Gress]

Some people insist on seeing racism everywhere, even where race is not even mentioned.

And some people insist on mentioning the evils of Judaism everywhere, even where the thread isn't about Judaism.

Is there some reason that, out of all the posts that could be easily considered off-topic on a given thread, you always single out mine? I can't think what that reason might be…

[theistgal]

Again - I said NOTHING about racism!   I very specifically said "anti-Jewish", *not* "anti-Semitic".

[Jonathan Gress]

I did not say "racist" - I said "anti-Jewish".  Judaism is a religion - not everyone who follows it is of the same race.

Well, if we're only talking about the religion Judaism, you can definitely count me as anti-Judaist, as well as anti-Islamic, anti-Hinduist and so forth. And it surprises me that anyone would consider it wrong to oppose false religions. In fact, I would have thought it is one of a Christian's duties to oppose false religions. Isn't that more or less what this thread is about? Islam is evil first and foremost because it is false, and those who believe in Islam are drawn away from the truth and from salvation. It is the same with Judaism and other false faiths.

[theistgal]

Oy vey.

[Jonathan Gress]

Oy vey.

You don't believe it is a Christian's duty to oppose false faiths? So if you know someone who has false beliefs you don't try to persuade him or her of the truth? How will you answer before God if that person dies and goes to hades because you didn't do anything to save him? I'm not just aiming at you, personally, but I'm addressing others reading this. I think one reason that ecumenism and syncretism have become so popular is people don't take seriously what our Lord said in the Gospel:

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mark 16:16)

If you die outside the Church, you WILL go to hades. It is possible that God will not throw you into Gehenna at the Last Day, if He determines that you were not willingly ignorant of the truth, but do you really want to take that chance, either for yourself or for others?

[theistgal]

Mazel tov.

[biro]

John 10:16

 16And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.


John 4:22 (King James Version)

 22Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.


 

[spartan]

I agree with Jonathan. There is only ONE true religion. Christianity, Orthodox Christianity.  And before Christianity there was Judaism. After the death of Jesus, the Old Testament was fulfilled and the New Testament began. As we see in Matthew 27:52-53, we are told that the saints of the old testament were raised and went into the holy city (the heavenly Jerusalem). From that point in time until the time of Jesus's return we will all be judged according to the New Testament.
 There is one way to the father, and that is through the Son Jesus Christ.

[Jonathan Gress]

John 10:16

 16And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.


John 4:22 (King James Version)

 22Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.


 

If you think the "other sheep" in the first passage refer to the Jews, you are mistaken. Blessed Theophylact explains that they refer to the Gentiles, who were still not yet called and were outside the Covenant. Christ is looking forward prophetically to the incalling of the Gentiles to the Church.

Similarly, when our Lord says "salvation is of the Jews", He is speaking still as a Jew. First He went to His own people, since it was fitting that as they were the first to be called to God through Abraham and then Moses, so now they should be the first to hear the Gospel. Only later, after most of the Jews had rejected the Gospel, was it fitting for Christ to send His Apostles to baptize all nations. This passage does NOT mean the Jews who reject Christ will be saved. Again, Mark 16:16 makes it clear that faith in Christ is absolutely necessary for salvation.

[stashko]

I did not say "racist" - I said "anti-Jewish".  Judaism is a religion - not everyone who follows it is of the same race.

Well, if we're only talking about the religion Judaism, you can definitely count me as anti-Judaist, as well as anti-Islamic, anti-Hinduist and so forth. And it surprises me that anyone would consider it wrong to oppose false religions. In fact, I would have thought it is one of a Christian's duties to oppose false religions. Isn't that more or less what this thread is about? Islam is evil first and foremost because it is false, and those who believe in Islam are drawn away from the truth and from salvation. It is the same with Judaism and other false faiths.

I agree Here I oppose All that you Mentioned ,Plus Im Including Roman Catholics and Eastern Catholic To Boot...All False False.............

[theistgal]

Am I the only one who sees a difference between "false" and "mistaken"?

And stashko, you forgot Quakers.

[Jonathan Gress]

Am I the only one who sees a difference between "false" and "mistaken"?

And stashko, you forgot Quakers.

The non-Orthodox Christian religions are false, the people who follow them are mistaken. That's the difference I think you're getting at.

[stashko]

Am I the only one who sees a difference between "false" and "mistaken"?

And stashko, you forgot Quakers.

I really don't have anything against any form of protestantisim,they don't know any better.......