The New York Times did not feel it necessary to distinguish between Protestants and Catholics when presenting the Christian scholars, and neither do I. They present the views of different scholars on the matter of Christian missionaries in Malaysia, and you may decide to ignore some, for whatever reason, but it doesn't mean others will do so.
The distinction was made only after you stated that the people quoted in your source were Christians and missionaries. I pointed out that Dr. Reynolds was not a missionary but a Muslim theologist, at which point you accused me of calling Reynolds a Muslim, i clarified that i never said he was a Muslim by faith but that he was a Muslim theologist, i then questioned his claim because he gave no source and he himself is
not a missionary that can testify to tactics used in missionary work. I then clarified that he was a Catholic and not a Muslim, i further clarified that there is a difference between the generic umbrella 'Christian' which includes protestant denominations and Catholics.
You may not see that as important but you are the one that mentioned his religious affiliating by claiming he is not Muslim, i agreed that he wasn't Muslim, he was Catholic, and for an honest and accurate debate i felt it was worth noting his denomination as being Catholic, i also made a distinction between catholics and Christians. The beliefs of Catholics are very different from protestants, their interpretations of the bible is at odds with almost every other Christian denomination, and there are many, while most other denominations agree and practice on the same principles. Moreover, the Catholics have traditions that are not even traced to the bible. Catholics believe in Christ, Christianity is centered around Christ, so there is no problem with Catholics being called Christians, although Catholics also center their beliefs on the Virgin Marry and saints, this is where there is a divid, and where many Catholics make a strong distinction between being called a Catholic and not a Christian, while many protestants argue that Catholics are not Christian because their belief does not center only on Christ but on Marry and the saint.
I have made my position clear many times, so why is this still an issues?
Uh no.
You kept denying that missionaries were doing anything wrong. When I pointed out misconduct by missionaries, you kept saying, what does this have to do with Allah?
That is simply not true, i challenged you to prove your claim because you were openly being discriminatory against Christianity; and mind you, this is not the first time you have openly attacked Christianity. With this in mind i wanted you to prove these allegations, not because i did not believe missionaries use questionable tactics but because i felt you needed to back those claims which are obviously fueled by a bias towards Islam and against Christianity. My positions also still stands, and you still have not proven me otherwise, that these tactics are very rarely used, in fact your own source admits this. Likewise, you have been implying that it is a widespread epidemic but there is no
quantitive evidence to confirm this.
As I explained elsewhere, talking about Jesus the individual is legitimate for anyone.
Not according to you. Read you own quote careful, here it is:
b) the missionaries' use of 'Allah' is semantically and theologically incorrect, since the
Muslim concept of 'Allah' is fundamentally different from the Christian concept.
You can not forbid Christians from using the word allah because it is a fundamentally difference concept from that of Christianity, yet on the other hand allow Muslims to use Jesus (said Isa in Arabic) when talking about Jesus. The point here is that the
Muslim concept of Jesus and the Christian concept of Jesus are totally different.
Something here has to give, either Christians are allowed to use the terminology of their choice or Muslims have to follow the same rules.
The comparable example to abuse of the word Allah by Christian missionaries would be if Muslim missionaries started talking about the Holy Spirit or Trinity, since these concepts are not present in Islam and any use of them by Muslim missionaries would be deceitful.
And this is totally fine. It's free speech, if a Muslim missionary starts talking to a Christian about the trinity, i see no offense in that. If a Muslim missionary tries to claim the trinity as a part of Islam, again i have no problem with that. Why you may ask? Because it is not true, why should it be my business if someone miss represents their religion? Even if the Muslim convinces a Christian that the trinity exists in Islam so what? That enough will not cause anyone to convert, and if it does eventually that Christian will find out the truth.
The NYTimes article quotes three individuals: one defending the missionaries and two opposing their tactics.
This does not mater, the article could have been written in any way, if the author wanted they could have gotten ten people defending missionaries and one apposing them.
Readers can go back and see that you used his name to claim that even critics of missionaries accept the use of 'Allah'. That is simply not so. The only person in that article defending the usage is the missionary advocate.
You are grasping onto an argument based on a spelling mistake and not the content of the message. The readers can go back and see that i pointed out and even quoted myself saying, Dr. Garrison which is a missionary defended the use of the word allah.
I have said this many times and in
once instance i inadvertently spelled Dr. Reynolds in place of Dr. Garrison.
I'm not sure why you keep brining up an issue on a spelling technicality. My argument and quotes from Dr. Garrison should leave no question as to my position.
In an ideal world, everybody should be able to use whatever words.
Yes and in most secular/European countries you can say whatever you choose.
However, cashed up Western missionaries have abused this word to the point where innocent Malaysian Christians have become collateral damage.
Innocent Malaysian Christians have become collateral damage because of hysteria and insecurities.
