Allah Takes Over Catholic Church

[MarianD]

“Allah” means “God” in Arabic, so “Allah” has long been in control of the Catholic Church unless I’m mistaken in the most basic tenet of this religion.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Malphono,

Of course you stripped my words out of their context, but never mind that.

How so? You flatly stated that illegal immigrants should not be harbored for the reasons you stated. These people are poor and needy, pure and simple. I think you are making an error in judgment here. If you’ve read the accompanying articles in the link provided by brother Dzheremi, you would have noticed that these illegal immigrants are asking for legal status whereby they can be productive members of Belgian society. They are not now bleeding the coffers of the government dry (though the Catholic churches are using subsidies normally given to the Church by the government to serve the needs of the immigrants). The situation is wholly different than what is occuring in the United States, where illegal immigrants are coming in with no specific intention of obtaining legal status, while benefiting from the country’s welfare system. So there is really no justification to apply the “they’re only here for a handout” rhetoric against them.

However, when used by believers in the other religion, the word “allah” is far, far more than generic: it becomes the equivalent of a proper name and there is, indeed, a lot of theology specific to that religion bound up in its use. (Note that when used by Arabic-speaking Christians (and Jews), the word is used strictly in its generic sense.) And that includes representations of the word itself, particularly in calligraphy. (If memory serves, representations of that can be found inside Hagia Sofia, dating from the time when it was expropriated and desecrated by followers of the very same false religion.) Native Christians in the Middle East do not, and never have, employed such signs or banners. They are, as I mentioned earlier, as distinct to the other religion as Icons are to the True Church. As such, a sign or banner of that nature has no place in a church, whether Roman, Melkite, Maronite, Coptic, or whatever.

As already mentioned in a previous post, the banner has no comparison whatsoever to icons or statues or the cross or any other objects of veneration in the Christian faith. Muslims don’t have such sacred paraphrenalia. Mosques are basically empty except for the structure. That should tell you that the banner serves absolutely no religious purpose whatsoever in Muslim eyes, regardless of how much religious significance you want to place on it to validate the “desecration” charge.

Injudicious? Yes. Vile or sacriligeous? No.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother dzheremi,

This reaches into a fundamental point on which you and I will never agree. As I do not agree with the neo-Catholic notion (fed by well-meaning obfuscations such as CCC 841) that Muslims and Christians follow the same God

It is not neo-Catholic. It is Scriptural. The basis for accepting Allah as objectively being the same God of the Christians is St. Paul’s recognition of the unknown god of the pagan Greeks. The situation is practically identical. The Greeks were a henotheistic society who worshipped a supreme unknown god, and St. Paul identified that supreme uknown god as the God of the Christians. To the Greeks, this unknown god gave birth to the many gods they worshipped, and St. Paul very well knew that! The pre-islamic tribes were likewise a henotheistic society who worshipped a supreme god. This supreme god likewise gave birth to the other gods they worshpped. But Muhammad came along and initiated a monotheistic religion. Whether or not Muhammad’s Allah was derived from the concept of the same supreme god of the henotheists, no one really knows. There are detractors of Islam who style Allah as the supreme demon-god of the pre-islamic tribes, yet conveniently forget St. Paul’s teaching to the Athenians.

I do not recognize their prayers as being appropriate to be performed within a Christian church, and would reject any such idea that they are on the same grounds that I would reject holding a Wiccan ceremony, Hindu ceremony, or other non-Christian worship ceremony in a church.

AFAIK, the only other monotheistic religion is Judaism. So your comparison to Wicca and Hindu and “other non-Christian” religions is rather sensationalist (I keep using that word because I find it rather appropriate for several of your arguments ).

They have mosques in which they can pray and if they needed to be squatting in some place in which they can pray they ought to have gone to a mosque to stage their protest.

From what I’ve read in links from the links from the links you provided, Muslims don’t have the same political clout as the Catholic Church does in Belgium (and that’s a good thing, don’t you think?).

It is your assertion against the solidly CATHOLIC media I have found that describes it as such. Here is one such report from Catholic News Agency (a source for Catholic news regularly posted on this very website).

CNA was simply using your source as its own source. There was no independent reporting. So, yes, I consider it sensationalistic.

I am not saying that they did. I am merely saying that just as you or I would not be allowed to do such things inside the church, neither should they. I am not asking that they be unduly subjected, only held up to the same standard of those who DO use the church for its intended purpose.

You or I are not poor and needy. You or I have homes, and we can have the option of turning on the heater. You want to set them on the same standard when it is impossible for them to be set on the same standard. Again, please recall Jesus’ exhortations against the pharisees, who used the same rhetoric (same standard for all, no exceptions). Jesus informs us that mercy is more important.

I am denying them nothing. See the preceding paragraph.

From the biblical perspective, I kinda think you are.

By its consecration, yes. By the way it is currently being profaned by being made into the site for Islamic religious services, I would say no. I know you’ll say that’s “sensationalism”, too, but that’s how I see it.

That’s not sensationalism. I recognize logic when I see it. It’s just that we disagree that profanation is taking place. Your position is logical and correct if profanation is occuring. Mine is logical and correct if there is actually no profanation occurring. Since there is objectively no profanation, my position is logically correct.

There is simply no excuse that you can give me that will make it okay for Muslims to be performing their worship within a church, and hanging their Islamic religious banners and whatnot.

Mistake #1. Banners serve not one iota of a religious purpose from the Muslim perspective.
Mistake #2. According to Scripture, the hallmark of worship is SACRIFICE. That’s the Christian definition. But sacrifice is not a concept in Muslim worship. Muslim formal worship consists entirely of prayer.

Were they not doing that, were they instead allowed to stay elsewhere on church grounds provided that they show proper respect for the faith, I would have no problem with any of this. At the Catholic church I used to attend, there were often groups of homeless who would sleep on church grounds.

But unlike them, if these homeless in Belgium stepped outside the church, they would be arrested and deported.

See paragraph one. There is a link in the news story provided to a blog which has pictures that are said to depict just that (they are not very clear, but what am I supposed to do?

It doesn’t really matter if they are playing video games. Those people have been stuck in the church for months. It is/was their home for all practical purposes. Everything you’ve written indicates you want them to live in utter dejection - no heat, no ability to pray (not worship, just pray), no form of even basic entertainment just so they won’t go mad (it’s not like they’re downloading porn off the internet in a church, for goodness sake!). You know what - I challenge you to live like the way you want these poor people to live for several months. If you can do so, come back then, and I’ll have more sympathy for your position.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

“Allah” means “God” in Arabic, so “Allah” has long been in control of the Catholic Church unless I’m mistaken in the most basic tenet of this religion.

You are correct. When the Oriental Fathers first encountered the Muslims, they did not call them demon-worshipping heathens or pagans - they called them heretics. The same with the Western Church. When the Western Church first encountered the Muslims, they called them infidels, classing them along with Jews as believers in the one true God, but lacking faith in Jesus Christ. Brother Dzheremi thinks that the Catholic understanding that Muslims and Christians worship the same God is “neo-Catholicism.” He couldn’t be more wrong.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

The basis for accepting Allah as objectively being the same God of the Christians is St. Paul’s recognition of the unknown god of the pagan Greeks. The situation is practically identical. The Greeks were a henotheistic society who worshipped a supreme unknown god, and St. Paul identified that supreme uknown god as the God of the Christians.

I am well aware of the use of this particular passage to justify statements such as CCC 841. I do not see the two situations as “practically identical” for many reasons, and as such do not consider the interpretation you have offered to be sufficient to substantiate this idea that Islam’s Allah is also our God.

To the Greeks, this unknown god gave birth to the many gods they worshipped, and St. Paul very well knew that! The pre-islamic tribes were likewise a henotheistic society who worshipped a supreme god.

So if the parallel situation involved the pre-Islamic tribes, then it is not appropriate to extend your analysis to the Muslims. They are different religious communities and ought to be treated as such.

the only other monotheistic religion is Judaism. So your comparison to Wicca and Hindu and “other non-Christian” religions is rather sensationalist (I keep using that word because I find it rather appropriate for several of your arguments )

.

Use whatever words you like, my point will remain the same: No non-Christian religion should be using a Christian church for worship. Period.

From what I’ve read in links from the links from the links you provided, Muslims don’t have the same political clout as the Catholic Church does in Belgium (and that’s a good thing, don’t you think?).

Yes, that is an excellent thing. It is also not the responsibility of the Catholic Church in Belgium or any other country to raise the level of “political clout” associated with a false religion such as Islam. To do so in the name of charity (or for any other reason) is extremely foolish on the part of the Church.

You or I have homes, and we can have the option of turning on the heater. You want to set them on the same standard when it is impossible for them to be set on the same standard.

Why is it somehow an “impossible standard” that they not be allowed to do what I or another person would likewise not be allowed to do in the church?

Again, please recall Jesus’ exhortations against the pharisees, who used the same rhetoric (same standard for all, no exceptions). Jesus informs us that mercy is more important.

Mercy indeed is most important, but it doesn’t need to include allowing people to profane that which is holy. That is my only point in any of these posts. Perhaps you’ve missed it somehow, but I am in favor of helping these people to the fullest extent, but this does not include profaning what is holy with secular activities like computer game playing or blasphemous activities like Islamic prayer services. If my friend or even my enemy has an itch, I will give him a back scratcher to use to alleviate it, not a cross.

From the biblical perspective, I kinda think you are.

From your perspective I am.

That’s not sensationalism. I recognize logic when I see it. It’s just that we disagree that profanation is taking place. Your position is logical and correct if profanation is occuring. Mine is logical and correct if there is actually no profanation occurring. Since there is objectively no profanation, my position is logically correct.

Oh, I see…perhaps I should run all my future posts by you in advance, then? It would save a lot of time…

Mistake #1. Banners serve not one iota of a religious purpose from the Muslim perspective.

I guess those Islamic jihadists throughout the centuries who fought and continue to fight under the flag of the shahada are just a coincidence, then? They could just as easily fight under a flag of the cross, since “banners serve not one iota of a religious purpose from the Muslim perspective”. Thanks for clearing that up.

Mistake #2. According to Scripture, the hallmark of worship is SACRIFICE. That’s the Christian definition. But sacrifice is not a concept in Muslim worship. Muslim formal worship consists entirely of prayer.

Indeed. So it is not true worship from the Christian perspective. What is your point? We should be fine with it occurring within a Christian church because it doesn’t meet our definition of worship? I dunno…that doesn’t make me feel any better…

But unlike them, if these homeless in Belgium stepped outside the church, they would be arrested and deported.

As I have stated before: If they needed to protest in a place in which they could pray according to their religion, they should have chosen to protest in a mosque.

Everything you’ve written indicates you want them to live in utter dejection - no heat, no ability to pray (not worship, just pray), no form of even basic entertainment just so they won’t go mad (it’s not like they’re downloading porn off the internet in a church, for goodness sake!). You know what - I challenge you to live like the way you want these poor people to live for several months. If you can do so, come back then, and I’ll have more sympathy for your position.

You know what? If this is what you’ve gotten from everything I’ve posted so far, I think any further discussion with you regarding this matter is futile. I have written specifically that I do not want them to be unduly subjected, only to be helped in ways that would not allow them to assert their religion in a Christian church or to otherwise profane it. I believe this would have been possible, but was abandoned in this situation in favor of making a political point to the Belgian government about its policies. For shame.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I never meant to imply otherwise.

This is where you and I differ. As Christians, we are taught to embrace martyrdom should it come to us, but I don’t recall any injunction to invite it into your house. That would just be foolish and suicidal, especially in the Middle East where we are in such a precarious position. We have a right and duty to defend ourselves against aggressors of all kinds (not just Muslims).

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 5:40[/BIBLEDRB]

And we still do. Muslims are people, made in the image of God no different than we are. They have inherent dignity and deserve to be loved and cared for same as anyone. This does not mean that their religion should be assisted by Christians, no matter how well meaning.

Wait, you are misrepresenting the article. The Christians are in no way assisting the Muslims in their worship. They are allowed in the Church as refugees for them to stay there. Their prayer is their own action, because they are living in the church building.

I don’t think anyone here is advocating a view that charity is dependent on reciprocity.

Then why the comments of, “why should we allow them in our churches when they don’t allow us in their mosques?” Isn’t that demanding reciprocity?

Immaterial. My point in bringing that up is not to compare the specific actions, only their effect of performing profane actions (changing money, praying to Islam’s false god) in a holy place. Christ saw that taking place and put a stop to it.

Apples and Oranges. First, let me rumor you that they are praying to a false god even though the Church herself has declared that they pray to the same God. You can’t compare two actions just because you agree with the end result. The analogy should have a compatible reason. Robbing a bank and winning the lottery are ways to become instant millionaires, but I don’t think they’d make good analogies for one another.

All of this actually works against the action taken by the church in this case, as it is in direct defiance of Belgian law. That’s neither here nor there, though. I have no problem with the Church helping immigrants no matter what their status (though it is problematic in some ways; see Malphono’s comments), but I have a huge problem with the Church providing space for the non-Christian religions of those immigrants to be practiced and propagated in the church.

Again, the Church didn’t provide space for Muslims, it provided space for immigrants most (not all) of whom happen to be Muslims. The purpose of the Church is not to assist Muslims but to help illegal immigrants who otherwise would be returned to the hardships of their own country.

Immaterial. The church’s good will is one thing; the Muslim’s abuse of it is another.

The problem here is you see them as Muslims whom you hate. What if these people were Chinese Buddhists? The Church doesn’t see them for the color of their skin or the religion they believe in, the Church saw human beings who genuinely needed help.

If I allow you into my home for dinner and you perform some objectionable, non-dinner related activity in my home, am I to allow it because I let you in? No!

Wow, so you kicked dinner guests out for going to the bathroom?

And Muslims cannot make do with what they have (the many, many mosques in Brussels in which they could have stayed, had their co-religionists cared to house them) why, exactly? Do we have to allow our religion and our holy places to be defiled by Christ-deniers in order to show charity towards the Muslims, or is there some third option here that ought to have been taken by the church that would have avoided this situation? I am not in any way advocating turning people away into the cold, but I just cannot understand why this particular action is being lauded as an example of the best kind of charity when it seems clear to many (not just me) that it is being exercised in a foolhardy fashion. Did Christ not tell His apostles to be as wise as serpents before sending them out to evangelize the world? Being charitable is not a zero sum game where we have to allow our faith to be gutted of its meaning or else capitulate to claims that we are not following Christ. It is imperative that we exercise charity while maintaining a strict sense of what is allowed in our religion. I do not believe letting Muslims pray in our churches is one of those things that ought to be allowed.

Again, true charity isn’t about sending people to find it among their friends first, then come back to us for help. If you see a beggar on the street, do you ask them if they asked any family members for food first before you give them some?

We love the Muslim people just as much today, when they slaughter our co-religionists in Iraq and other places, as we ever have. We will never stop loving them. I am not at all saying that we ought not to love and pray for them and be charitable to them. I just think that this particular situation is absolutely the wrong way to go about it, that’s all.

Sorry but I’m starting to see bigotry here. When did these specific people get lumped with the terrorists? There are many people who in the name of Christianity today commit may crimes. Do we want to be lumped with them? I’ve known Muslims in my life and they know I am a Christian. So far none of them has tried to kill me. Why will I not help Muslims who I know are not the same as those terrorists?

 

[The_Wanderer]

My only real response can be

 

[dzheremi]

You are correct. When the Oriental Fathers first encountered the Muslims, they did not call them demon-worshipping heathens or pagans - they called them heretics. The same with the Western Church. When the Western Church first encountered the Muslims, they called them infidels, classing them along with Jews as believers in the one true God, but lacking faith in Jesus Christ. Brother Dzheremi thinks that the Catholic understanding that Muslims and Christians worship the same God is “neo-Catholicism.” He couldn’t be more wrong.

Blessings,
Marduk

To be clear: The current understanding of the Catholic Church’s relationship with Islam as set forth in CCC 841 is substantiated with reference to Nostra Aetate and Lumen Gentium, promulgated in 1965 and 1964, respectively. This is what I meant by “neo-Catholic”, in that these are recent declarations.

 

[dzheremi]

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 5:40[/BIBLEDRB]

This has what to do with the situation? Yes, we are to be generous to a fault. But I do not see anything in this verse that says we are to cast our pearls before swine. In fact, I think there’s a different Bible verse about that…

Wait, you are misrepresenting the article. The Christians are in no way assisting the Muslims in their worship. They are allowed in the Church as refugees for them to stay there. Their prayer is their own action, because they are living in the church building.

Allowing Muslims to conduct their prayers within a church and hang their Islamic banners outside of it is aiding Islam.

Then why the comments of, “why should we allow them in our churches when they don’t allow us in their mosques?” Isn’t that demanding reciprocity?

Perhaps, depending on how it was intended. To me, saying “this is a situation they would never allow if the situation were reversed” is not the same as saying “we ought not allow this to occur unless they would allow us the same”. If anyone has made the second argument in such unambiguous terms, I have not seen it.

Apples and Oranges. First, let me rumor you that they are praying to a false god even though the Church herself has declared that they pray to the same God.

I am no longer an active member of the Roman Catholic Church (haven’t bothered to un-enroll and probably won’t, but I do not consider it a fit spiritual home), so such reminders are of no consequence to me.

You can’t compare two actions just because you agree with the end result.

Very good. Now explain this to anyone who tries to compare the Muslims of today with the Athenians preached to by St. Paul. cough

The purpose of the Church is not to assist Muslims but to help illegal immigrants who otherwise would be returned to the hardships of their own country.

Indeed, so they should do that to the best of their abilities without compromising their faith to the degree that you have non-Christians praying according to their specifically anti-Christian religion, hanging banners indicating the presence of that religion within the church, etc.

The problem here is you see them as Muslims whom you hate.

Wow, really? I was unaware that being against a person’s religion means I hate them.

What if these people were Chinese Buddhists? The Church doesn’t see them for the color of their skin or the religion they believe in, the Church saw human beings who genuinely needed help.

Have you not read anything I have written in this thread? “Muslim in need of help are foremost people in need of help”, etc.? It would not matter what religion or skin color these people are. If they are not Christians, the church is not the place for them to worship.

Wow, so you kicked dinner guests out for going to the bathroom?

Very funny.

Again, true charity isn’t about sending people to find it among their friends first, then come back to us for help. If you see a beggar on the street, do you ask them if they asked any family members for food first before you give them some?

No, you’re right. I give them some. But if they require something of me that I cannot provide them, I direct them to the proper place where they can find what they need. As the church is not the proper place in which to conduct Islamic prayers (according to their own religion, not just mine), if they needed to occupy a place in which they could pray, the should have occupied a mosque and not a church. This must be at least the third time I have written that. Please read it this time.

Sorry but I’m starting to see bigotry here. When did these specific people get lumped with the terrorists?

How did I lump these specific people in with the terrorists? Did I write “We love Muslims, even as these specific Muslims kill people”? No, I didn’t. My point in putting that in is to show that the love truly IS unconditional, as that was the call you were (rightly) making – that we love Muslims with no expectation of reciprocity. I agree with that, so I used the most extreme example I could think of to show the lengths to which we should be prepared to love Muslims as our fellow brothers and sisters in humanity. While I see now how you could have come away with the impression you did based on my words, please know that I did not intend them to be understood in that way.

 

[malphono]

How so?

It should have been very obvious, but I’m not going to pursue this. :banghead: In the end it makes no difference.

As already mentioned in a previous post, the banner has no comparison whatsoever to icons or statues or the cross or any other objects of veneration in the Christian faith. Muslims don’t have such sacred paraphrenalia. Mosques are basically empty except for the structure.

That should tell you that the banner serves absolutely no religious purpose whatsoever in Muslim eyes, regardless of how much religious significance you want to place on it to validate the “desecration” charge.

Injudicious? Yes. Vile or sacriligeous? No.

I have a more than a passing familiarity with such things, but evidently the significance of the Arabic calligraphy for religious purposes in their religion is totally lost on you. :banghead: Whatever. Again, in the end it doesn’t matter: I’m not pursuing it beyond a serious prayer that the veil be lifted from the eyes of those who cannot see this for what it is.

 

[malphono]

Malphono, you may leave out of the frustration felt upon hitting the wall of another’s naivette (I may do the same, in fact; I fear my coming back here after a six month absence may have been a mistake), but please do not think that you do not have allies here. There is nothing un-Christian in preserving our faith against the falsehood of Christ-deniers, and all the happy go lucky inclusophilia in the world will not change the truth. He who has ears, let him hear…

Well, I’ve finally reached that point, at least in this thread. As I’m sure you, too, have noticed, it has become abundantly clear that the inclusophilia remains unabated and has taken on a life its own. It’s become equally clear to me that no amount of reiteration and repetition is going to make a whit of difference. As my dad would have said, we’re on the merry-go-round here: around and around in circles. I’m getting dizzy: time to get off and find a drammamine. :hypno:

 

[dzheremi]

As much as I hate to admit it, I think you’re probably right, Malphono. I started this thread to see why such an action was not halted and those who authorized it punished. I suppose I got my answer: Because the modern Catholic Church sees no problem with this situation, and neither do the majority of its adherents, who actively support it on the basis of misguided application of charity.

Do not wonder, then, about the Catholic Church as it declines across the western world, and capitulates to the enslavement of Islam by its own actions. God save us all. And God forgive me for ever having approached this Church of heretical indifference. I did not realize what I was doing.