Thanks for your response also must hand it to you to come here at a Catholic website promoting 2000 years of Catholicism and giving your views about your (new) Islam Faith.
An interesting point, honestly I would say yes we should… However, and this is a Christian truth, that I’m not sure how Islam deals with. But, God is the author of all truth, whether it be scientific, theological or anyother truth you can think of. God is the author of it all…
Well, quite simply, the Qur’an was orally transmitted. It could be he never heard the chapter. I can’t defend myself against an accusation I’ve never heard basically. Or, Abu Lahab could have been a very intelligent man and Muhammad could have been a con man basically. Abu realized this and naturally refused to follow Islam.
Well, the Old Testament was compiled based off of what the Jews had. The Gospels were written by men and according to Catholic doctrine, inspired by the Holy Spirit. Luke wrote Acts and St. Paul wrote his letters (though my scripture book says some weren’t written by him) and Revelation comes from John. Eventually, over time, the Church decided which books to keep and throw away. The Bible is nothing more than a collection of books. I once read an article though (I lost the link) that stated that the Bible is edited though. For example, the story of the stoning of the adulteress was added in the 12th century or so. That was one of my favorite stories too.
Unless you count hearing St. Paul’s letters in the second reading, no.
Muhammad died in 632. The Qur’an was roughly compiled in 650. That is 18 years. The Hadith were written much later, but the Qur’an wasn’t. These stories, couldn’t have been added after the original compilation because the Qur’an has remained unedited. When the Qur’an was completed several copies were sent around the Islamic World in order to prevent corruption. Also, they had multiple reciters to verify everything. If there was even one error, the reciters would have noticed it.
Islam believes God runs everything and made the rules to everything, but when you start promoting forcing your beliefs on a secular society, there are problems. I’ll stop there, I don’t want to bring up Al-Qaeda or any other extremist group, since the Pro-Life movement shouldn’t be compared to it. But, as we can see with Dr. Tiller’s death, trying to put religion on a secular society can be taken out of proportions.
I’m confused, can you explain this?
Everything that lives will fight for its life. No matter if it’s the smallest bacteria or the largest animal, it fights. The woman is a fully developed human, the fetus is growing inside of her and she has to suffer with all the difficulties. She should have the choice if she wants to go through the Hell of child bearing and birth.
I am not into animal rights. I am against wanton slaughter or brutality but I’m fine with fur coats or swatting flies or eating beef. I eat meat with every meal. So, that argument doesn’t work for me. The fact something feels pain doesn’t make it human.
What makes something human? I don’t see how you define it as definitely human. It is definitely alive but then again, the wooden table my laptop is on was once alive. The meat I’ll have for dinner tonight was once part of a living organism. Living doesn’t mean human.
What would you call the developing embryo, do you expect a cow to come out? A pig? Or dog? It’s human because that is it’s nature, it can have no other nature. This is what got Jesus in trouble with the Pharasies and Temple priests, he claimed to be the son of God which they well understood to mean, that he was God. God can not beget anything that is not God, a human can not beget anything that is not human.
Of course a dog won’t pop out but what do you say for the mothers who have to deal with the child for 9 months? I can’t be a mother since I’m male and I’m happy for that. I’ve heard nothing but pain from having to grow a child for 9 months. Back pains, cravings, mood swings, etc. If this mother had little food or risks being abused for her getting pregnant, is she expected to take all of this torture which will also threaten the fetus? Don’t get me wrong, I’m against abortion in a good number of cases, but, people do have a valid argument in that it is the mother’s body. If it’s the mother’s body, I can’t support a secular state who denies a medical procedure based off of religiously influenced philosophy.
They can leave children to die in a ditch. Children are abandoned all the time.
I can’t deny it’s alive and have some level of awareness. Does it have sentience?
Does it respond to the mother and father or just any outside sounds? I can understand it responding to the mother but the father? How does it know its father’s voice? The DNA in the sperm has little connection with his voice. Also, animals can be alive and aware. It comes down to sentience if you want to ban it in a secular society. Can it think like a human? Can it deny its own animalistic instincts?
Your response to my question here above in reply number 64 is a logical fallacy.
I never ask my dad to use the car but I did ask my mother to ask my dad to use the carFirst off, I want to apologize for me apparently not reading the rules closely enough. I skimmed over them but I must have missed the part about only asking one question. So should I continue with this thread or break up my questions or what?
That is a fair point you raised but I have certain questions that spring from that. If we use a Saint like that, their knowledge is useless because they’re talking to God and as the creator, God knows far more than any Saint could know. So therefore, wouldn’t it be better to just take the patron Saint of persuasion for everything or just rely on the Virgin Mary (after all, she is the best of all women that have ever lived, the holiest of all women)? A Saint can’t convince God on knowledge so they can only convince God using a plea. But then again, if God’s mind can be changed with a plea we have a whole new problem… But thanks for the answer.
“No doctrines have been changed. They can be developed but not changed The Catechism is the place to go for your answer. I am providing only a partial quote. The link will take you to read more.”
Ah, thank you. Odd, all of the teachings I’ve heard in my life aren’t like this. I always hear that good people in general will be saved, regardless of the Church. The message in the Catechism is different from what I’ve been taught.
Well, while sometimes you have to do what is necessary and take the lesser of the two evils, why would God allow an extremely unholy man to take the holiest title (for the living) in Catholicism? It’s one thing to be a little bit bad, it’s another thing to release massive amounts of suffering to the point where Pope John Paul II has to apologize centuries later (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologies_by_Pope_John_Paul_II). So did God cause the bloodshed of the Crusades or the abuse of the natives of the New World?
The mother is free to do as she see fit as long as it does no harm to her or anyone else, just like we all are there are laws in this country that prevent people form hurting themselve and others. An abortion does both It hurts the mother and it kills the child.
And when they are the person responcible for doing so is prosecuted.
When does sentience begin? At birth? just prior to birth? when the ability to communicate developes? Since humans are sentient and the Child from moment of conception is human we must assume that it is sentient.
the same could be said after birth, does that mean we can kill it before it start to reconize specific people.
That is a 8 year old article.
I apologize, I have been a bit disheveled now that I have to go somewhere to use the Internet instead of sitting in a comfortable chair at home and at my desktop. I would appreciate an explanation.
I understand what you’re saying but it just seems unnecessary to me to do such if someone did that for real.
This all comes down to: is a fetus sentient like the rest of humanity?
I just read over the quote again which I responded to. It said a human can not beget anything that isn’t human. Due to the two negative words I’m sort of confused, what? I want to assume the guy was saying that humans can’t beget other humans, but I’d like clarification instead of assuming.
Sentience has different definitions but it seems a basic one is consciousness. Based off of this link: religioustolerance.org/abo_fetu.htm I’d be against abortion in a secular society at and after the 26 week mark. The fetus from the moment of conception is a human fetus, just as our sperm are human sperm and our eggs are human eggs. If a sperm is wasted, does that mean the person just committed murder because not one fetus was created from that batch? The sperm has the capacity to turn into a human with an egg just as a fetus can turn into a sentient human with proper nutrition.
I never said we can kill the child (note, not fetus) because it fails to recognize people. My marker is sentience. The moment it gains consciousness, it is human and protected in a secular society under my definition. Of course, if we lived in a religious society then I’d oppose abortion entirely, but I believe to ban abortion 100% on religious grounds would be unconstitutional. Until you can prove to me that a fetus, at conception, is sentient, I can’t support secular society protecting a fetus at conception.
What he is saying is that humans can only beget humans.
Exaculty my piont any date we put on it after conception is arbitrary. that is why you have to go with conception. The Egg by itself is not a person the sperm by itself is not a person togeter they make a person. Also sience uses fetus from the 8th week of development.
Fetus : Origin:
Valid yes. However the that did not beleive should not have presented themself for confirmation.
confeesion does lend to bring about a stronger feeling of connection as you are released from sins that pull you away.
Scripture is to aply to all facits of our life.
That great I would suggess rereading it before moveing on to any other books. Then I would read mattheew and luke in that order. Reread Mark and then John and Act. then go on to the Epistels.
Later and Have a blessed day.
Sadly, I couldn’t withdraw myself from being a candidate. My family would punish me if I refused to be confirmed and they knew my objections with it. So I had to choose between punishment or going through a thing that I felt at the time was empty and worthless. I was an Atheist at the time. So, I had no choice.
No, that is not quite true, here is the actual context of what you are referring to:
St. Paul is saying that a woman praying with her head uncovered disgraces herself, as if she had her head shaven which is a certain sense of honor we have culturally last. And it is the change in the culture which makes these passages so contravertail, however there are many women who still, as an act of humility, choose to come to services with their heads covered. I think this to be a very nobel thing, for those who elect to do so (particuarly true at Latin Services).
There are dogmatic truths accepted from both testaments of the bible, however the Church does not define what one should beleive for every line of scripture. That said, there is considerable room for one to believe as they may about specific passages (the flood for instance).
What is done is done. you can not undo it. However never let family preasure force you into something you feel is wrong. I the case of the sacrements you should have talked to your preist. He could have talked to your parents on how he felt that at this time your were not ready. I right this more for anyone else that maybe in a similar situation.
There Matthew and Mark are very similar. Mark is much easier to grasp in a lot of ways and that is why I recommend rereading it a couple times before moveing on build a good foundation.
No St Paul is not tell her to shave her head. He is saying that if she prays without a covering it is the same as if she had shaved it. One time you must keep in mind is the people the audiance that would have first received these were and the customs of the time inwhich they were written. for a women to shave her head would have brought disgrace not only on her but to her whole family.
Yes, you must except all of scripture. Understand it? probbly not. There are many things in Scripture that to our modern ears are very barbaric and seem to go against what we Know of God. In the case of Joshua again as I said above you have to look at who and what it is written about. these are a people that lived as slaves for 400 years to a pagan people. Already upon god freeing them they had sin by building a pagan god. To allow them to live amoungst another pagan people would have been to led them back into sin. Also these were pagan that practise many horrid rituals and sacrificies.
Well if I told the priest then I’d still receive punishment, not sure if it would be less or more. I was basically forced into it with no escape and if my mom pressed hard enough, the priest would probably have given in to anything.
So instead of teaching these people the right way they massacre every single one of them? That argument you used can be used to validate so many murderers.
If you don’t mind me saying so, I pray you don’t take this the wrong way but you seem to have more issues going on in your life then just with the Church.
Maybe some of these suggestions have already been made; I didn’t take the time to read through all the posts.
At the same web site is another book by Madrid about The Communion of Saints.
That is an issue with your parents and not the Church. I do feel for you It appears you do not have an open line of communication with your parents on matters of faith. If that is true one has to wonder how open those lines are on all other matter? This is something that you and your parents need to work on.
If you look at it how much influence did they have on the Egpytians in teaching them about God? Given that how much more likely is it that the peoples of canna would have lead the Israelite ito to sin and Idolitry? Also remember that 400 years prior the Israelites had lived in this land with these peoples and had been of no influence on them
Confession is not to attract us to the Mass. It is to reconcile us with God. The Mass is how we as Church give worship to God. Pray the Rosary and Pray it often. I am not clear on what you mean by conjuring up a prayer on the spot? Remeber that prayer is for communication.
YOU wold have to be more specific. AS to the show on EWTN I can not comment as I did not see it so I would need more details. However in reguards to secularism It is in no way good as by it very nature is removes God from the picture. There are different points of view in the Church because there are people in the Church. One must discern which voice you are going to listen to. If the voice is saying somthing that is ipposed to what is taught in Scripture, By Traditition, And from the Magistarium. then do not listen.
I’m sorry if it sounds that way, I didn’t intend it to sound that way. What exactly isn’t right here?
Funny enough, I’m reading “Confessions” by Saint Augustine and I found something which is very relevant to what I’m saying. He says how he once condemned things in the Bible due to his morals, but now (at the time of his writing) he realizes that morals have changed and so then it was permissible. I will have to think about this more.
Well, I’ve heard Confession helps faith and I can’t receive Communion without sinning if I have mortal sins (which I probably do). So, Confession will help me reconcile. By conjuring up, I meant, the people who do the group prayers just make up a prayer on the spot. I’m fine with that/love that for personal praying, but when it comes to group prayers I feel as if we were given the proper way to do it. (Though, this issue isn’t big to me, just a little something I figured I’d share that gets me) For example, if I was running the whole group, school-wide praying, I’d have Our Fathers or Hail Marys since I feel those were given to us as they are examples of perfect prayers.
Well, Islam’s friendliness with secularism is something that pushed me away. The villainization of Ataturk I find disgusting, I believe that Ataturk did important work by secularizing Turkey. I like the fact that Catholicism has a bit more liberal thinking in it.