A few questions on certain concepts that I never got answered

[Murcury]

Islam acknowledges it began with the Qur’an and Muhammad…

Islam preaches that it began before Muhammad. Adam, in Islam, was a Muslim. To be a Muslim simply means to submit to God. Islam’s initial spread was peaceful until Muhammad was forced out of the city. Of course the Qur’an would give guidelines for dividing booty, it’s quite a big deal. Honestly, I haven’t read the verses you referenced and I’m in a rush now, but be sure to remind me! Muhammad put a fighting code in place for his soldiers which banned them from killing women, children, holy men, etc.

In the 19th century, Atheist scholars started trying to undermine Christianity…

Well, to back up my scripture book, my Bible at home (The Catholic Living Bible) places Matthew around 60 AD.

…The knew they had to pick one and they chose one version which was claimed to be received from one of Muhammad’s wives.

By the way I did consider Islam in my spiritual journey.

It wasn’t any wife of his probably, it was Aisha, who is very much honored in Sunni Islam (hated in Shia Islam). Also, if you don’t mind, sharing the whole story of you and Islam, would you share it with me?

Anyway I suppose I can break it down to four things why the Church is special:

1. Morality of the Jews

Examples? I know that Jesus certainly preached Spirit of the Law over Letter of the Law, but, are there better examples?

1. Charity

Atheist Humanists are charitable give without any divine mandate (Jesus said what you do to the least of your brothers, you do to him). There are quotes in the New Testament which promotes charity, Atheist have none of those quotes.

1. Built Western Civ.

Some of the scientists and thinkers were persecuted by the Church. I will give credit to the Church for saving some of the Latin and Greek texts but, the Muslims had a far more complete library which the Catholics took from (Cordoba was filled with important texts). It wasn’t until the rise of humanism in the Renaissance that Europe picked up, but the Church, besides preserving old texts and driving the Reconquista/Crusades which got new texts, didn’t do much from what I’ve learned. Also, the Islamic Golden Age was filled with many amazing inventions as well.

Virtues working together.

Among Christians that is certainly true, but Islam emphasizes good works and faith. The Shahada (creed) and Salah (daily prayer) are essential, but, there are many Hadith which speak about the penalties of treating others poorly and Zakat is absolutely mandated.

Historians barely mentioned Jesus. Anyway, there is no dogmatic teaching about this, maybe it was just symbolic, maybe it did happen. It would not affect me either way.

Symbolic? So a symbolic savior which never came? Explain please.

Murcury,

Your question regarding AbuLahab prophet Muhhamed’s uncle refusing to convert to Islam being mentioned in the Koran proves the Koran is true in what way?
Is this part of the deep philisophy you told me about? Or a logicall fallacy upon examination?

Well, if Abu Lahab simply converted to Islam, the Qur’an would be proven wrong. But, Abu Lahab never converted,not philosophy, just a surrounding event.

…So there is clearly something more than just the Good Book.

While there is no obvious contradiction in the Bible itself, the Resurrection story, for example, does differ in details based off which Gospel you read. Shouldn’t the triumphant climax be perfectly clear? I understand the perspective argument and I’m fine with that for most of the Bible, but shouldn’t have people gotten the triumphant moment of Christianity correct? Also, there is an inconsistency between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New. Simply compare the genocide of Jericho to Jesus’s teachings, they’re incongruent.

Either, its corrupted or its not, you can’t have it both ways.

Well, both of what they said are in Muslim teachings. They say it’s corrupted, but there is some truth in it. Almost like a hard drive before you defragment it. Parts of it are corrupted but there are uncorrupted parts. Also to clear up what the Muhammad reference: he’s probably referring to when Jesus talked about the Holy Spirit (sending a comforter). I will admit, they are wrong in claiming Jesus is mentioning Muhammad. Also, according to Islam, they mention a Prophet in John 1:20 and say the unnamed Prophet is Muhammad. I find it to be more credible and possible. Footnotes usually say ‘the Prophet’ is Moses, but why would the Jews expect Moses if Moses is long dead?

So, when Jesus continued the sacrifice by giving us his living body and blood the for our salvation many jews became christian and just as many left.

Why must an innocent man suffer though? Why would God make the children of Adam and Eve suffer for their parents’ sin?

… Because the Thanksgiving sacrifice is the one sacrifice that God still wants us to do.

The (almost) sacrifice by Abraham was meant as a test. Obviously Isaac/Ishmail (Ishmail in Islam, Isaac in Judaism/Christianity) didn’t get killed, Abraham passed. But, Islam sees original sin as something petty. Why would God continue to be angry over the actions of my ancestors? I can try to find the verse if you want, but in one of the Old Testament books it says that the son doesn’t need to suffer for the sins of the father. Why must I suffer for Adam’s sin?

 

[Murcury]

… I believe in time they will be exposed for frauds.

Still, that doesn’t help someone who doesn’t have faith in Christianity. My Bible at home dates Matthew in the 60s AD. Also, Mark 16 has different versions based off of which old text you use. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

…Have any ideas?

I apologize, I lost internet and went to my friend’s beach house for the weekend, I’m home now, without internet, but I’m using someone else’s wi-fi. I answered you in the previous post. Feel free to tear it apart, I have my own Devil Advocate’s theory on it.

…This is how the Trinity was defined, for instance.

If the Trinity was so apparent, why was there early heresy with it to begin with? Better yet, if you don’t mind me asking (since this is a lingering question), how can anyone be 100% man and 100% divine? If you have a pie, it can only be 100% apple or 100% cherry, not both. If we call Jesus 50% divine 50% man, then that means he only has half the powers of God.

You should trust and put your faith behind the Church, which is the Body of Christ. The Bible came from the Church, not the Church from the Bible.

What is there to compel me to trust the Church? I don’t believe in the Bible and the Church has no smoking gun to set it apart from any other hierarchical religious organization.

‘Extra ecclesiam nulla salus’

Well, if Catholicism is the correct way and I don’t return before I die, all I ask is, please, God, forgive me. I don’t choose religion based off of ease but rather off of what can convince and prove itself best.

So, that means no matter how good of a life I live, I am damned as long as I don’t return?

Passover was a ritual, for instance. They are not ‘ceremonies’, but religious rituals.

Fair enough, the debate goes onward

In regard to the Gates of Hell, it is an actual physical place. It was one of the sources of the Jordan River and is located in the current town of Banias, Israel. The name is an Arabization of the older Greek name Panias. In Roman times, this town was called Caesaria Phillipi. The cave where the spring emerged from the mountain was called the Gates of Hell. If you read the account in Matthew 16:13-18, you see that Jesus and the disciples were there. The cave and the stream had been known for a long time as a place of human sacrifice by Canaanites. Jesus’ answer therefore has both literal and allegorical meaning.

Keep reading, there’s even more good stuff to come!

Salaam.

Wa’alaikum Salaam,

Interesting, though, last year, in Catholicism class (a class to basically teach on the basic doctrines of the Church), the teacher has us watch a documentary. I asked those who actively believed in Catholicism if the video hurt their faith, it did. It basically tore apart all of Jesus’s philosophies with historical meanings and context. For example, to turn the other cheek was a move to prevent further slapping. If you were slapped with the inside of the hand it was a slap from an equal, the outer part of the hand meant it was a slap from a superior person. They’d also only use one hand, so if you turned your cheek to them, it meant they would have to do some fancy moves to try to slap you a second time with the back of their hand. The video also suggested that Mary could have just been a pregnant teen since false Messiahs were common in those days and that Jesus wasn’t greeted because he was Jesus, but many people rode into Jerusalem in massive parades since Passover was a time of massive celebration. Ironically, my religion classes have done more hurt than help.

EDIT: Thanks for all the answers so far. This has been really good so far and I will enjoy hearing more/continuing discussions with other questions I have (if you all don’t mind). I was helping my mom out the other day (Friday to be exact) by watching out for this one truck which had to pick up some things from us and I was bored so I started a decade of the rosary, on my third Hail Mary, I was interrupted and haven’t given it more thought. Though, right now, I’m not sure what to believe, but, I did come to you guys as my faith in Islam was in a dive, now I’m just without religion.

 

[Hail_Linus]

Islam preaches that it began before Muhammad. Adam, in Islam, was a Muslim. To be a Muslim simply means to submit to God. Islam’s initial spread was peaceful until Muhammad was forced out of the city. Of course the Qur’an would give guidelines for dividing booty, it’s quite a big deal.

I am aware that Islam preaches this. Catholicism also preaches this about the church. Both are strictly theological beliefs and matters of faith. As a matter of faith this is fine to believe this. However, historically speaking we know as a “matter of fact” when Christianity began and when Islam began. We know as a matter of fact the Christians conquered the Roman Empire peacefully. No matter how one wants to spin it; good or bad; justified or unjustified, Islam began with violence. Furthermore, the Qu’ran, which the Sunnis consider co-eternal with God has instruction on how to dived booty. It has instruction to leave People of the Book alone as long as they pay the required tax.

Well, to back up my scripture book, my Bible at home (The Catholic Living Bible) places Matthew around 60 AD.

The publisher of this book is mistaken. I cited a history book written in the fourth century. There are other sources too.

It wasn’t any wife of his probably, it was Aisha, who is very much honored in Sunni Islam (hated in Shia Islam). Also, if you don’t mind, sharing the whole story of you and Islam, would you share it with me?

I will have to gather my thought and put something together.

Examples? I know that Jesus certainly preached Spirit of the Law over Letter of the Law, but, are there better examples?

The Jews were the first religion with the belief that one’s relationship with God was dependent on how you treated others. Christianity increased the intensity of Jewish morality. First the Jews distinguished themselves from the Gentiles. Christianity teaches we are all brothers. Secondly, in the Gospel of John Jesus essentially replaces the second commandment with an even greater commandment, “To love one another as I have loved you.” Combine that with the parable of the Sheeps and Goats and what you are left with is a religion that teaches Love God with all your Heart, for God loves all his Children and so you must love his Children too as he does, and if you do not love his children ten you do not love him. This is REVOLUTIONARY. There is no religion like it.

Atheist Humanists are charitable give without any divine mandate (Jesus said what you do to the least of your brothers, you do to him). There are quotes in the New Testament which promotes charity, Atheist have none of those quotes.

1. Whether they want to admit it or not, Atheists learned Charity from Christianity. It simply did not exist in the Pagan world.
2. Giving Charity is very nice but hey are missing the mystical aspect. When you have the Eucharist in you, your charity becomes supernatural, you become a branch on the vine.

Some of the scientists and thinkers were persecuted by the Church. I will give credit to the Church for saving some of the Latin and Greek texts but, the Muslims had a far more complete library which the Catholics took from (Cordoba was filled with important texts).

If you do independent research you will see the Church did not really persecute scientists. Even the whole Galileo incident is not the way people tell it. Galileo was personal friends with the Pope. The Pope even asked him to do his research, to attempt to prove Copernicus (Catholic priest) correct. The Pope actually believed in Heliocentric but did not want the Political problems that would occur if this position were stated as fact when it wasn’t even proven.

Also, the Islamic Golden Age was filled with many amazing inventions as well.

An another thread I stated how the Muslims used to be very impressive intellectually. There was a group of Sunnis that were called Mu’tazilites who used the Wisdom of Greek Philosophers like Plato and Aristotle in much the same way as Catholics. As a result, this school of Muslim thought produced brilliant engineers, architects, mathematicians, etc. in what is referred to as their Golden Age.

Unfortunately, the opposing school, of thought of the Ash’arites, believed that the scholasticism of the Mu’tazilites was blasphemous. The Ash’arites persecuted and destroyed the Mu’tazilites right out of existence for this blasphemy. As a result, the intellectual brilliance of ISlam ended and now the world has to try to reason with Ash’arite Sunni Muslims that are unwilling or unable to reason (in the sense that the truth of a matter can be ascertained through logical reasoning).

Among Christians that is certainly true, but Islam emphasizes good works and faith. The Shahada (creed) and Salah (daily prayer) are essential, but, there are many Hadith which speak about the penalties of treating others poorly and Zakat is absolutely mandated.

Symbolic? So a symbolic savior which never came? Explain please.

I just mean the statement the “dead rose out of their graves and the Prophets visited people” may have been symbolic. We know through the historian Jesus existed and did great works and he was believed to be the Messiah.
Additionally, Constantine the Great, must have had additional information that Jesus had in fact existed because he blamed the Jews for having caused all of the empire’s problems by tricking the Empire into crucifying Jesus, their own God.

 

[Linda_Marie]

If the Trinity was so apparent, why was there early heresy with it to begin with? Better yet, if you don’t mind me asking (since this is a lingering question), how can anyone be 100% man and 100% divine? If you have a pie, it can only be 100% apple or 100% cherry, not both. If we call Jesus 50% divine 50% man, then that means he only has half the powers of God.

Maybe, it was not so apparent. There were many early heresies, misunderstandings of the Teachings. The Trinity is a Mystery. We know that Jesus was fully human, being born of woman. However, He also did things that only God can do, such as raise people from the dead, cure blindness with a mud paste, and raise Himself from the dead. A human person could not do these things. He has revealed Himself as Divine.

Where is the other 50% of God if 50% of His Godhead is Jesus? Where does that leave the Holy Spirit? No, God cannot be divided. Each Person of the Trinity is fully God. Where the Father is, there is the Son and the Holy Spirit. Where the Son is, there is also the Father and the Holy Spirit and where the Holy Spirit is, we also find the Father and the Son. God is One. The Second Person of the Trinity is both fully God and fully Man.

What is there to compel me to trust the Church? I don’t believe in the Bible and the Church has no smoking gun to set it apart from any other hierarchical religious organization.

I don’t have a smoking gun for you, unfortunately.

I practiced no religion prior to my conversion. I was raised nominally Christian, but with no enthusiasm. We sometimes went to Sunday School. I think we went to church 3 times when I was a child. My parents felt that the choice of religion should be left up to us but that we should at least know about Jesus.

I dabbled in the occult, palm reading, card reading, ouija boards and opened a door that would better have been left shut. This proved to me that the spiritual realm exists, something I wasn’t all that sure about, religion to my mind (at the time) being something invented to answer the hard question about what happens when we die.

I’m not sure what set the Catholic Church apart for me when God took me by the scruff of the neck and gave me a good shake. Somehow, I knew He was calling me to His Church, the Catholic Church. Not what you’d expect when my father was an ex-Catholic and my mom an ex-Baptist. I certainly never heard anything good about the Church or Catholics, even Christians growing up. Faith was given to me, a free Gift from God, the Grace to Believe. I certainly didn’t do it.

I grew up in Saudi Arabia, and the history of the Middle East was something that interested me. It was from history that I knew that the Catholic Church was the first Church, and that all others (Christian) have come from Her.

If anyone ever convinces me that the Catholic Church is not the Church founded by Christ on Peter, they will break my faith in God altogether. The Church is the Body of Christ. She has preserved the Teachings of Christ, some of which were written in the Bible. She determined the canon of Scripture so believing the Bible doesn’t come first, but second. We only know that what it says is true because the Catholic Church says that it is.

Growing up in KSA meant that I was exposed to Islam in practice all my childhood, much of it before Western customs changed their society. Plus, we had been living in Iran for about 3 years at the time of my conversion, so I had a good exposure to Shia practices as well. Ashura is rather frightening.

Some Shi’a Muslims beat and flog themselves in parades on this day, to express their grief and to reenact the pain that Hussein suffered.

Google some images to see what I mean.

I did not even consider Islam when God called. It was Christ Who called me. I’m sorry that I cannot explain it any better. It is a mystery to me as to how I Know it was Christ. He touched me, is all I can say.

Well, if Catholicism is the correct way and I don’t return before I die, all I ask is, please, God, forgive me. I don’t choose religion based off of ease but rather off of what can convince and prove itself best.

So, that means no matter how good of a life I live, I am damned as long as I don’t return?

You have been Baptised into the Church and received all the Sacraments of Initiation so You Are A Catholic. God is the only just Judge. He knows your heart and what led you to where you are now. God wants you to be saved. He Created you to live with Him in Heaven. If you are sincerely seeking Him, even if you are led astray for a time, He will know the intent of your heart.

Fair enough, the debate goes onward

Sorry, I was being nit-picky about the word, ‘ceremony’. It is just that ceremony connotes a secular occasion to me.

EDIT: Thanks for all the answers so far. This has been really good so far and I will enjoy hearing more/continuing discussions with other questions I have (if you all don’t mind). I was helping my mom out the other day (Friday to be exact) by watching out for this one truck which had to pick up some things from us and I was bored so I started a decade of the rosary, on my third Hail Mary, I was interrupted and haven’t given it more thought. Though, right now, I’m not sure what to believe, but, I did come to you guys as my faith in Islam was in a dive, now I’m just without religion.

Praying for you to be given the Gift of Faith.

 

[valentino]

Murcuryon’t believe the fact that priests being sent to different parishes that the bishops knew they were going to remolest.The bishops had their reasons.they put to much trust in these priests and I’m sure that they were convinced that they would not do these things again.Its true that bishops probably believe to readily that these priests can control themselves and believe that God would help them overcome these sins but it was an error in judgement not a outright condoning of their actions.Its true that they don’t like scandals and wouold try to avoid them but don’t accuse them of participating in some kind of evil.All catholics like to believe that these errors can’t take place in our priests but we know they do but I for one don’t like to see it spread all over every newspaper and everyone coming up with induendoes saying the Church is involved with some pedophile ring.

 

[rinnie]

Muhammad is a great man who would submit entirely. But this is just one human, not a chain of humans. Chains tend to be corrupted while one man can be an example to the world.

So, why didn’t Muhammad’s enemy, Abu Lahab just convert and disprove the Qur’an?

Have you read and reflected on the Qur’an? It’s a profound book, Muhammad must of had quite the talent as not only a philosopher but as a writer, a statesman, a speaker, and a general.

Well, I believe humans should try to be just and not toss up their hands and say, “We’ll let God take care of it.” God isn’t going to send a meteor through the roof of all these men to kill them or something. We are responsible for trying them and preventing them for harming more people.

Now this is strange to me. You cannot understand how the Pope One Man can be the leader of us, but then can turn around and see quite clear how Muhammad can?

Can you explain this to me.

Another thing yes we agree that the Pope is not without sin. But do you agree that Peter was given the keys to the kingdom. The word of God states so.

Also please tell me was Muhammad without sin? If he was would you not say he was also corrupt?

 

[Hail_Linus]

Muhammad is a great man who would submit entirely. But this is just one human, not a chain of humans. Chains tend to be corrupted while one man can be an example to the world.

Actually it is a chain (or Kingdom, religion, family, etc.) founded by a strong man that always becomes corrupted and weak. Every human organization always eventually dies out. In his book entitle Heretics, G.K. Chesterton explains how the Church is indestructible for this very reason.

“When Christ at a symbolic moment was establishing His great society, He chose for its comer-stone neither the brilliant Paul nor the mystic John, but a shuffler, a snob, a coward–in a word, a man. And upon this rock He has built His Church, and the gates of Hell have not prevailed against it. All the empires and the kingdoms have failed, because of this inherent and continual weakness, that they were founded by strong men and upon strong men. But this one thing, the historic Christian Church, was founded on a weak man, and for that reason it is indestructible. For no chain is stronger than its weakest link.”

 

[Murcury]

Still without Internet…

… It has instruction to leave People of the Book alone as long as they pay the required tax.

The tax (jizya) is a much deeper subject than it is on the surface. All Muslims in the Caliphate were required to do military service and pay Zakat. The jizya was meant as a replacement for the Zakat and military service since the People of the Book weren’t giving anything. I’ve heard that during the reign of Caliph Umar (I think) that the city of Damascus wanted military protection from the Caliphate. So, the Muslims collected the jizya and promised an army. When the Caliphate became too strained and had to withdraw the army, they reimbursed the tax.

Also, can I have a link from a reputable sources about the Qur’an being co-eternal?

The publisher of this book is mistaken. I cited a history book written in the fourth century. There are other sources too

.

I just asked a deacon, he says that the way he learned it, it’s a possibility that Matthew can be from the 40s. They know that Mark was possibly written in the 40s but there isn’t total certainty on the date of Matthew. He was kind of vague in his answer.

I will have to gather my thought and put something together.

Thank you

The Jews were the first religion with the belief that one’s relationship with God was dependent on how you treated others. Christianity increased the intensity of Jewish morality. First the Jews distinguished themselves from the Gentiles. Christianity teaches we are all brothers. Secondly, in the Gospel of John Jesus essentially replaces the second commandment with an even greater commandment, “To love one another as I have loved you.” Combine that with the parable of the Sheeps and Goats and what you are left with is a religion that teaches Love God with all your Heart, for God loves all his Children and so you must love his Children too as he does, and if you do not love his children ten you do not love him. This is REVOLUTIONARY. There is no religion like it.

Would the concept of karma be equivalent of treating others well because God wants it? While it doesn’t make God happy per se, it does lead to good or bad karma, which is a divine equalizer.

1. Whether they want to admit it or not, Atheists learned Charity from Christianity. It simply did not exist in the Pagan world.

Atheists haven’t existed in their modern form since the Enlightenment. Also, pagans are theists. But, Atheists give simply because it’s right, no other incentive (well maybe tax deductions )

1. Giving Charity is very nice but hey are missing the mystical aspect. When you have the Eucharist in you, your charity becomes supernatural, you become a branch on the vine

.

Well, that’s only if you believe in it. I have a teacher at my school who believes in water vibrations (look up Emoto Matsuro or something along those lines), supernatural feelings can be fake. But, if you can give me a smoking gun for apparitions of Mary or Saint miracles, that’s something else.

If you do independent research you will see the Church did not really persecute scientists. Even the whole Galileo incident is not the way people tell it. Galileo was personal friends with the Pope. The Pope even asked him to do his research, to attempt to prove Copernicus (Catholic priest) correct. The Pope actually believed in Heliocentric but did not want the Political problems that would occur if this position were stated as fact when it wasn’t even proven.

Well, I did a quick wikipedia search, it is mentioned there.

An another thread I stated how the Muslims used to be very impressive intellectually. There was a group of Sunnis that were called Mu’tazilites who used the Wisdom of Greek Philosophers like Plato and Aristotle in much the same way as Catholics. As a result, this school of Muslim thought produced brilliant engineers, architects, mathematicians, etc. in what is referred to as their Golden Age.

Unfortunately, the opposing school, of thought of the Ash’arites, believed that the scholasticism of the Mu’tazilites was blasphemous. The Ash’arites persecuted and destroyed the Mu’tazilites right out of existence for this blasphemy. As a result, the intellectual brilliance of ISlam ended and now the world has to try to reason with Ash’arite Sunni Muslims that are unwilling or unable to reason (in the sense that the truth of a matter can be ascertained through logical reasoning).

Interesting, though, most scholars put the end of Islam after the sacking of Baghdad. So, how is this relevant to me?

I just mean the statement the “dead rose out of their graves and the Prophets visited people” may have been symbolic. We know through the historian Jesus existed and did great works and he was believed to be the Messiah.
Additionally, Constantine the Great, must have had additional information that Jesus had in fact existed because he blamed the Jews for having caused all of the empire’s problems by tricking the Empire into crucifying Jesus, their own God.

Constantine, from what I’ve been taught, converted after winning a battle (I forgot the name, some sort of Bridge battle). He was scared about the battle but in a dream angels told him to put these Greek letters on his shield (the same letters on Baptism candles) and after he won, he converted.

 

[crazzeto]

Salaam (Peace) to everyone here, forgive me if this isn’t the right place to post. To give a little bit of background in my questions, I am raised in a Catholic family, but two to three years ago I started to question Catholicism and turned Atheist. From there I had a whole roller coaster ride until I ended up at Islam. I’m an open minded person who loves discussion, but when I ask my parents questions they fail. My dad holds beliefs contradictory to official doctrine (and so his answers are faulty) and my mom will not answer the question entirely. They talk about setting me up with this retired Jesuit they know since he is very knowledgeable but they never do so (they’ve been talking about it for a few months). At the same time, my mom laments the loss of her son (me) and prays the Rosary everyday for my return [to the Church]. I enjoy a good discussion and I hate to leave questions unanswered and these questions have only formed over the years.

Anyway, I have questions on so many things but I’ll stick to only certain concepts for now that I’ll ask on.

1. I disagree with the concept of the Pope. I am wondering, why would God give total power to one corruptible man? To give two of my favorite historical examples of what I mean: Pope Alexander VI (The Borgia Pope) was known for his underhanded tactics and allegedly raped his niece. The Pope during the sacking of Constantinople at first condemned the Venetian Crusaders but once he heard about all the treasure they acquired he welcomed them back.

There have been really good Popes, I personally love Pope John Paul II. I respect him immensely for all the apologies he made and the example he showed. But, my question is, why would God rest so much power in the hands of one man? To give an example of what I think is a better example, in Sunni Islam there is no centralized authority besides some scholarly councils. But, if one scholar goes astray (which I assure you, many men from every religion go astray), the whole religion doesn’t lose its way.

Also, I will admit, I am weak in early Church history, but, how come most of the other Patriarchs chugged along just fine after the Pope left? I’ve heard before that there were 5 Patriarchs and 1 one of them (the Bishop of Rome) left. What makes the Catholic Church the apostolic one instead of the Eastern Orthodox?

True, there have been bad Popes, however the pope is protected from corrupting the faith by infalibility. The Holy Spirit, but the most effective possible means would prevent heresy from being taught. The same goes for the whole church governence, the Church at council will never pulmigate heresy.

 

[Murcury]

Maybe, it was not so apparent. There were many early heresies, misunderstandings of the Teachings. The Trinity is a Mystery. We know that Jesus was fully human, being born of woman. However, He also did things that only God can do, such as raise people from the dead, cure blindness with a mud paste, and raise Himself from the dead. A human person could not do these things. He has revealed Himself as Divine.

Why would God be so complicated? Wouldn’t God know that people could easily be confused and be pushed away due to these things? Also, wouldn’t being a son make Jesus inferior to God? Secondly, Adam was created without a mother or a father, why isn’t he divine? The whole concept of the Trinity, while I can understand it, I have some issues with it.

I did not even consider Islam when God called. It was Christ Who called me. I’m sorry that I cannot explain it any better. It is a mystery to me as to how I Know it was Christ. He touched me, is all I can say

It’s alright, I enjoy these stories in general, thank you.

You have been Baptised into the Church and received all the Sacraments of Initiation so You Are A Catholic. God is the only just Judge. He knows your heart and what led you to where you are now. God wants you to be saved. He Created you to live with Him in Heaven. If you are sincerely seeking Him, even if you are led astray for a time, He will know the intent of your heart.

Islam also believes that a person’s intentions are key, and that God knows what lies in your heart. Don’t get me wrong, the Church is great, but right now I have problems with it I’m trying to fix with this thread and there are social teachings I disagree with. For example, their opposition to abortion in its entirety. Abortion shouldn’t be restricted across the board. There should be exceptions (such as danger to the mother) where abortion is acceptable. Then again, I feel, as a man, I’m not qualified to speak on this and I leave this to the women. I once heard a statistic from pro-choice people where 70% of anti-abortion activists are men. I also do not support forcing homosexual marriages but I do support a government given civil union. Sadly, the Church, where I live anyway, supports the Conservatives because of these few social issues and I dislike one issue voting.

 

[Murcury]

Now this is strange to me. You cannot understand how the Pope One Man can be the leader of us, but then can turn around and see quite clear how Muhammad can?

Can you explain this to me.

Another thing yes we agree that the Pope is not without sin. But do you agree that Peter was given the keys to the kingdom. The word of God states so.

Also please tell me was Muhammad without sin? If he was would you not say he was also corrupt?

Well, look at it this way. Muhammad was a great man but I’m unsure about his successors. This is why he didn’t create an eternal Caliphate. Rather, his successors were simply men and were not raised to as high of a platform as the Pope. The Pope, despite being a regular man, is raised on a very high platform and given a lot of responsibility. I don’t trust chains, chains get corrupted, but Muhammad is one man, and I’m not sure if he was without sin (I never looked for that teaching), but he was RasulAllah, a messenger of God. Messengers are very reliable and good and examples. Peter may have been an example, but Pope Alexander VI wasn’t.

Actually it is a chain (or Kingdom, religion, family, etc.) founded by a strong man that always becomes corrupted and weak. Every human organization always eventually dies out. In his book entitle Heretics, G.K. Chesterton explains how the Church is indestructible for this very reason.

“When Christ at a symbolic moment was establishing His great society, He chose for its comer-stone neither the brilliant Paul nor the mystic John, but a shuffler, a snob, a coward–in a word, a man. And upon this rock He has built His Church, and the gates of Hell have not prevailed against it. All the empires and the kingdoms have failed, because of this inherent and continual weakness, that they were founded by strong men and upon strong men. But this one thing, the historic Christian Church, was founded on a weak man, and for that reason it is indestructible. For no chain is stronger than its weakest link.”

So essentially you’re saying that because the Church hasn’t died out, it’s valid?

 

[Big_Dummy]

Salaam (Peace) to everyone here, …1. I disagree with the concept of the Pope. I am wondering, **why would God give total power to one corruptible man? **

I was wondering if the same could be said about Muhammad?

 

[Murcury]

I was wondering if the same could be said about Muhammad?

This has come up again and again. Muhammad was a messenger, he was a very special man who was a cut above others. The Peter, as an apostle, was pretty special since Jesus hand picked the apostles, but, his successors are just normal men, just as successors as Muslim leaders are just men.

 

[rinnie]

Well, look at it this way. Muhammad was a great man but I’m unsure about his successors. This is why he didn’t create an eternal Caliphate. Rather, his successors were simply men and were not raised to as high of a platform as the Pope. The Pope, despite being a regular man, is raised on a very high platform and given a lot of responsibility. I don’t trust chains, chains get corrupted, but Muhammad is one man, and I’m not sure if he was without sin (I never looked for that teaching), but he was RasulAllah, a messenger of God. Messengers are very reliable and good and examples. Peter may have been an example, but Pope Alexander VI wasn’t.

So essentially you’re saying that because the Church hasn’t died out, it’s valid?

Wow you are not SURE if Muhammad was without sin?

And what about Jesus did he create the succession of the Pope by beginning with Peter or not? Are you denying that he gave Peter the keys to the kingdom?
Bible says he did.

Now what about John the Baptism was he raised on a higher level? Was St. Peter? Was the Apostles Raised on a higher level as you put it?

If so who put them there?

And OH YEAH thats exactly what I am saying the Church has not died out and its never going to die out. How do I know? SImple a very good Source. GOD. The gates of hades will never prevail. Do you know why its valid? Simple read the Scripture. At Pentecost I am sending the ADVOCATE the HOLY SPIRIT to guide you into all truth. The Holy Spirt is as Valid as it gets. Do you have a problem with that?

 

[rinnie]

This has come up again and again. Muhammad was a messenger, he was a very special man who was a cut above others. The Peter, as an apostle, was pretty special since Jesus hand picked the apostles, but, his successors are just normal men, just as successors as Muslim leaders are just men.

Tell me why did God go to all the trouble from the beginning of time to tell us about the Son of Man comming, and then in the N.T forget to mention Muhammad?

Why did God say that Christ would come back the same way he wemt up in the clouds? Why go to all the trouble to make Apostles if you are going to send one man? And then telll us to stay away from false Prophets?

Did Christ leave us Orphans? He said he wouldn’t. He said he left us the Church! Why did he say that the Church was the Pilar of all truth and not even mention Muhammad? Did it slip his mind?

Why did he say he was sending the Advocate the Holy Spirit? Are you saying the Holy Spirit was not enough we needed Muhammad?

 

[rinnie]

This has come up again and again. Muhammad was a messenger, he was a very special man who was a cut above others. The Peter, as an apostle, was pretty special since Jesus hand picked the apostles, but, his successors are just normal men, just as successors as Muslim leaders are just men.

Show me one thing, just one thing that is different from Peter then the Pope today. Just one thing.

 

[Linda_Marie]

Why would God be so complicated? Wouldn’t God know that people could easily be confused and be pushed away due to these things? Also, wouldn’t being a son make Jesus inferior to God?

Why wouldn’t God be complicated? I believe that we only know a small fraction of Who God is. Is Allah so easily understood? I think not, and I think that Islam does not teach that God is easily understood, but rather unfathomable, unknowable, beyond the comprehension of Man.

The Son is fully God and is Uncreated. The other Name for the Son is the Word. The Word is God, has always been God. Jesus is the Word made Flesh. Jesus is God made man and is no way inferior. How can He be inferior to Himself?

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Secondly, Adam was created without a mother or a father, why isn’t he divine? The whole concept of the Trinity, while I can understand it, I have some issues with it.

Adam was created. It wasn’t a matter of not having a mother or father, it is that Adam was a created being. God is Uncreated. Jesus is Uncreated. God took flesh from the Virgin Mary and was born as Man into Time, but He always Is.

Islam also believes that a person’s intentions are key, and that God knows what lies in your heart. Don’t get me wrong, the Church is great, but right now I have problems with it I’m trying to fix with this thread and there are social teachings I disagree with. For example, their opposition to abortion in its entirety. Abortion shouldn’t be restricted across the board. There should be exceptions (such as danger to the mother) where abortion is acceptable. Then again, I feel, as a man, I’m not qualified to speak on this and I leave this to the women. I once heard a statistic from pro-choice people where 70% of anti-abortion activists are men. I also do not support forcing homosexual marriages but I do support a government given civil union. Sadly, the Church, where I live anyway, supports the Conservatives because of these few social issues and I dislike one issue voting.

I wouldn’t believe any statistics from pro-choice people. What do they say, “There’s lies, damned lies, and statistics.”?

What constitutes ‘the health of the mother’? Pro-choice people hold that just being unhappy about being pregnant is sufficient to kill the baby ‘for the health of the mother’. (Indeed, when I was pregnant with my second, I was offered an abortion in case I was unhappy about it.) The Church does allow for ectopic pregnancies to be treated ‘for the health of the woman’. In these cases, both will die if nothing is done. However, it is possible for a fetus to develop outside of the womb (American woman Nicollette Soto gives birth to baby born outside her womb)

The unborn child is a person, just as you are. The unborn child is an innocent as well. What we have today are people who want to have sex without consequences, even if it means killing your own children.

Abortion advocates are not concerned about women’s health. Look at the condition of abortion clinics - not a lot different from the back-alley butchers of the past. If they really cared, they would be campaigning for all abortion clinics to be subject to the same hygeine/sanitary standards as for any other health facility providing surgery. They don’t. In fact, they actively obstruct the inspection of abortion clinics and they advocate laws to shut down pregnancy centres which offer ongoing care for pregnant women, and support after birth, just because they do not offer abortions. No, they do not care about the woman’s health.

I also do not support forcing homosexual marriages but I do support a government given civil union. Sadly, the Church, where I live anyway, supports the Conservatives because of these few social issues and I dislike one issue voting.

Why is the government in the business of marriage at all? Why isn’t it a strictly religious affair? Why does the government of any place support marriage? Why are there tax concessions for married couples? What benefit to the government and to society is there to support marriage with special laws? There must be something that a married couple gives to society that warrants special treatment by the government. Why else would it forego taxes it would otherwise receive?

Traditional Marriage, one man, one woman - for life, stabilizes society and has proven to be the very best way to raise the next generation, therefore it is desireable to support it. Many different methods have been tried in the past, homosexuality isn’t something invented by this generation. All of these other methods were found wanting in some way, indeed their societies collapsed, and Traditional Marriage became the norm - because it delivers for society and for the future.

What benefit could homosexual civil unions give to society that would justify the concessions given by government to such a union? They cannot, by their very nature, produce the next generation, so there is nothing they can give to future society, no natural offspring, no next generation to raise. If there is no benefit to society or the future, why should the government have special laws supporting their union. What does homosexual ‘marriage’ offer society that compares with what Traditional Marriage gives?

 

[MartinJordan]

To the question of “why is God so complicated”, I can see why it’s unfathomable for Muslims for example to wrap their head around this Faith of Catholics because Mohammad comes 600 years later without studying the Church’s teachings. Wait he couldn’t because he was illiterate

MJ

 

[Murcury]

Still no Internet…

Wow you are not SURE if Muhammad was without sin?

Well, I’ve seen countless examples of his charity and kindness and wisdom. Moses was a great prophet for the Jews, but was he without sin? I would research your question but I’m on limited internet time now.

And what about Jesus did he create the succession of the Pope by beginning with Peter or not? Are you denying that he gave Peter the keys to the kingdom?
Bible says he did.

If Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom, then that means any apostolic church would have a claim. The Russian Orthodox claim to be descended from Peter. The old fashion Catholics claim that the line of Rome are broken. I’m sure there are many other groups that claim that the Bishop of Rome is not the successor of Peter. But, to me right now, that doesn’t matter. I’m more interested in the Pope in his role today and safeguards against corruption rather than a battle that still rages today regarding the validity of the Papacy.

Now what about John the Baptism was he raised on a higher level? Was St. Peter? Was the Apostles Raised on a higher level as you put it?

In Islam, John the Baptist is a prophet. Moses is a prophet (and messenger). Jesus is a prophet (and messenger). The list goes on. They are not normal men. They are very pious and good men, there can’t be a prophet of God who is evil.

If so who put them there?

God.

And OH YEAH thats exactly what I am saying the Church has not died out and its never going to die out. How do I know? SImple a very good Source. GOD. The gates of hades will never prevail. Do you know why its valid? Simple read the Scripture. At Pentecost I am sending the ADVOCATE the HOLY SPIRIT to guide you into all truth. The Holy Spirt is as Valid as it gets. Do you have a problem with that?

Thank you for your prayers. But, please look at the whole scripture argument from a neutral light. To me, at the moment, I don’t see the Bible as divine scripture. Whatever is contained in the Bible has the same amount of sway over me as the Bhagavad Gita (Hindu scripture) or Meditations (by Marcus Aurelius).

Tell me why did God go to all the trouble from the beginning of time to tell us about the Son of Man comming, and then in the N.T forget to mention Muhammad?

Some Muslims claim there are Old and New Testament references to the coming of Muhammad. I see some of them as a stretch, but others look a bit questionable. wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_was_mohammed_in_the_bible

Why did God say that Christ would come back the same way he wemt up in the clouds? Why go to all the trouble to make Apostles if you are going to send one man? And then telll us to stay away from false Prophets?

This all bounces back to the part where we have to show whether the Bible is valid or not. If it is, then what is contained in that book can be considered true. If not, then unless God told you personally, it is moot. I still don’t believe that the Bible is valid. (Please refer to this argument for your other two points as well)

Show me one thing, just one thing that is different from Peter then the Pope today. Just one thing.

Well, I would try to produce a great answer but my Internet is broken. But, off the top of my head: did Peter have a College of Cardinals? I know there are Bishops and Deacons in the early church. Also, Peter preached for Christians to continue following Jewish law, after all, Jesus followed it. The Pope today (thanks to St. Paul) doesn’t have the continuation of Jewish law at all. My sons aren’t required to be circumcised, I’m not forced to eat Kosher, I don’t have to rest on the Sabbath, etc.

To the question of “why is God so complicated”, I can see why it’s unfathomable for Muslims for example to wrap their head around this Faith of Catholics because Mohammad comes 600 years later without studying the Church’s teachings. Wait he couldn’t because he was illiterate

MJ

I was originally a Catholic. Yes, Muhammad was illiterate, which makes it even more amazing that the Qur’an has stories that are very close to the Bible. If you look at Chapter 3 which is about Mary, the mother of Jesus, her story is very similar to the Bible. Yet, Muhammad couldn’t read and the rest of the biblical stories are too close for comfort. It’s as if he had a Bible he was reading from but books were rare and Muhammad was illiterate, so how could he get the stories in the Qur’an so similar to Bible stories? The Muslim answer is, he didn’t write the Qur’an, God did.

 

[Murcury]

I think not, and I think that Islam does not teach that God is easily understood, but rather unfathomable, unknowable, beyond the comprehension of Man.

God is beyond our knowledge, we cannot truly understand God like we understand gravity. But, in Islam (or Judaism) the concept of God is very simple, so simple a kid can understand it. God is one. No three in one which you then need to explain. It’s simple. But I see where you’re coming from, thank you.

God took flesh from the Virgin Mary and was born as Man into Time, but He always Is.

Thank you for your explanations. I never thought of it that way.

(American woman Nicollette Soto gives birth to baby born outside her womb)

One serious question I’d like to ask: does most health insurance providers pay for that? I know if I had a wife and she had to choose between her life for a small price or her life, her child’s life for an obscene fee; the child’s life may become less important.

The unborn child is a person, just as you are. The unborn child is an innocent as well. What we have today are people who want to have sex without consequences, even if it means killing your own children.

Define a person. If a person is defined as someone with a soul then does that mean in the secular West, we should subjugate the Atheists (for example) to our own definition of a person based off of religious reasons? If we lived in a Christian country then forcing the Atheists to define a person as someone with a soul would be fine. But, I don’t want to jump to conclusions. How do you define a person?

No, they do not care about the woman’s health.

It is unfortunate. Though, I can say that I was once in a Hospital and I decided to use the bathroom in my brother’s room. The bathroom floor was wet as if the toilet flooded the room a little bit. This is in a Hospital, I think our general health system (in the USA anyway) is in a state of disrepair.

Why is the government in the business of marriage at all? Why isn’t it a strictly religious affair?

Because then people without religion couldn’t get married and as a secular country, we can’t discriminate against those without faith.

Why does the government of any place support marriage? Why are there tax concessions for married couples? What benefit to the government and to society is there to support marriage with special laws? There must be something that a married couple gives to society that warrants special treatment by the government. Why else would it forego taxes it would otherwise receive?

Well, I won’t lie, children is one, and that does help your argument. But from another perspective, it cuts down on the spread of STDs if you stay with one partner. It also leaves more real estate available since the couple will be living together. But, yes, I see your point, it’s mostly for the children.

Traditional Marriage, one man, one woman - for life, stabilizes society and has proven to be the very best way to raise the next generation, therefore it is desireable to support it. Many different methods have been tried in the past, homosexuality isn’t something invented by this generation. All of these other methods were found wanting in some way, indeed their societies collapsed, and Traditional Marriage became the norm - because it delivers for society and for the future.

What has been tried in the past? Also, the Greek societies had very strong homosexual undertones but yet the Greeks flourished and only collapsed when they were conquered. For life with exceptions, right? I know a man who died because he got abused by his wife and refused to leave because marriage is for life.

What benefit could homosexual civil unions give to society that would justify the concessions given by government to such a union? They cannot, by their very nature, produce the next generation, so there is nothing they can give to future society, no natural offspring, no next generation to raise. If there is no benefit to society or the future, why should the government have special laws supporting their union. What does homosexual ‘marriage’ offer society that compares with what Traditional Marriage gives?

It only benefits society with the real estate thing and the STDs (and probably more exist but those seem most obvious). But, a homosexual couple would help support adoption, imagine if we could clear out large chunks of foster children! Also, two homosexual men, are more likely to be working than a traditionalist man and wife, who could have the wife stay home. Also, no maternity leave since they can’t get pregnant (well, the men anyway). Also, you’re making a component of your people happy and as a secular state, we have to look out for the people’s will and happiness. If we deny the majority something they need and demand we can’t say we’re for the people.

By the way, Linda Marie, thank you for all your answers so far. I was at Mass today at my school, and it was interesting to sit there… I can elaborate if you wish.