Bishop urges Christians to call God 'Allah'

[dessert]

I used to be interested in visiting Jerusalem and the “Wall”
but God is universal He is everywhere. I have no desire anymore to go. If I was invited I am not sure.

You ask a straight question and I know you want a straight answer but I don’t think God is "Catholic’ or “Jewish” maybe that is why he didn’t want to be called a name. Or to be put into a box or made into a statue.

That doesn’t mean we don’t need a place of worship to join in prayer, after all the wall to them is like a cross.

The reading today;
" My word is unchanging" (I Peter 1; 24-25)
" My salvation is unchanging" (Hebrews 7; 24-25 )
" My love is unchanging" (Jeremiah 31;3)
" My gifts are unchanging (James 1;17)
And “I myself am unchanging” (Malachi 3;6)

Jesus became the prescence of God. He is here now. In the spiritual sense so we are to look with ‘spiritual eyes’, the eyes of our heart.

Islam is a major culture,
Judaism is a major culture , if it were so true why would others convert to catholic.
Christianity is a major culture.

Catholic is from the greek and universal from beginning to the end.
From eternal to eternal.
From Adam the originator of sin to Jesus carrying the original sin to the cross.
It is finished but a neverending story.
Dessert

 

[Wolseley]

Rodrigo,

Your sarcastic rhetoric reveals the bankruptcy of your position. You have no arguments, because there are none. We all know that “Allah” was the word Jews and Christians used for God before Muslims came along. So what’s the argument about? I agree that for non-Arabic and non-Muslim speakers to use the word is silly. But to claim that “Allah” is not the name of the Christian God is to insult and deride Arabic-speaking Christians. Don’t you think they have enough trouble dealing with Muslims without their fellow-Christians attacking them in this vicious way?

This is separate from the issue of whether Muslims worship our God, although you don’t have very strong arguments there either–the example of the Jews is pretty conclusive (since you have to say either that OT Jews didn’t worship the God we do or that rejection of Jesus constituted a shift in the God Jews worshiped), apart from the inherent problem in saying that any two monotheists worship “different gods.”

No, you really have no case. No wonder you get rude and sarcastic.

In Christ,

Edwin

Here’s another opinion (mine) that is equally “rude, sarcastic, and bankrupt”:

When Muslims in their home countries treat Christians as equal citizens, give them freedom of worship, stop outlawing their worship services and stop confiscating their holy books, then, and only then, will I consider calling God “Allah” to satisfy their sensibilities.

That’s never going to happen, however, because anytime we get into this “compromise” balderdash in order to be “non-offensive”, it always, always, always the CHRISTIANS who have to do the compromising, not the Muslims. The Muslims yell, “We’re offended! You have insulted Islam!”, and the Christians are expected to alter their views, deny their faith, re-arrange their laws, and change their culture, history, and society, so as not to “offend” the Muslims.

Well, forget about that. When you come to MY country, you ADAPT. If you don’t want to do that, go back where you came from. Sayonara.

 

[Fisher]

Hi

Just a news item:

worldnetdaily.com/staticarticles/article57178.html

Bishop urges Christians to call God 'Allah’

Catholic leader believes it would help ease tensions between religions
Posted: August 15, 2007
3:28 p.m. Eastern

Catholic churches in the Netherlands should use the name Allah for God to ease tensions between Muslims and Christians, says a Dutch bishop.

Tiny Muskens, the bishop of Breda, told the Dutch TV program “Network” Monday night he believes God doesn’t mind what he is called, Radio Netherlands Worldwide reported.
The Almighty is above such “discussion and bickering,” he insisted.

Muskens points to Indonesia, where he served 30 years ago, as an example for Dutch churches. Christians in the Middle East also use the term Allah for God.

“Someone like me has prayed to Allah yang maha kuasa (Almighty God) for eight years in Indonesia and other priests for 20 or 30 years,” Muskens said. “In the heart of the Eucharist, God is called Allah over there, so why can’t we start doing that together?”

Muskens thinks it could take another 100 years, but eventually the name Allah will be used by Dutch churches, promoting rapprochement between the two religions, he said, according to Radio Netherlands.
Unquote.

I already say GodAllahYHWH, to end tension between the nations of the world. I support the Bishop, this would be good gesture from Catholics.

Thanks

Islam Denies the Trinity

These facts of history reveal that Islam does not worship the same God worshipped by Christians. Why?

Christians worship one God in three persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. But Islam denies the Holy Trinity and worships a different deity called Allah who is not a Father and who has no son.

Since the religion found in the Bible teaches the Trinity, then it does not take a Ph.D. to see that Islam did not come from the Bible. Thus it is not the religion of the biblical prophets, apostles or Jesus.

 

[Contarini]

Please keep your opinion to yourself.

Why on earth would I do that? This is a discussion board. I’m here to discuss, not to shut up and listen to you rant. If you say things that have no foundation, people will point it out.

I don’t care that you think I’m rue and sarcastic. I think i have made my point clear: the Islamic Allah is not the God of Jesus Christ - unless you think the God of Jesus Christ would make Christians into second class citizens, calling for them to be humiliated by Muslims.

It is Allah who caused the poor Christians of the Middle East to have to open their mouths so that the Muslim jizyah collector can spit into their mouths while collecting the Jizyah, or other similiar humiliations.

It is Allah who caused the poor Christians of the Middle East to have to put up with not repairing their churches or build new ones.

This is perhaps a legitimate rhetorical strategy, but I think it’s not a very good one. It is truer and more reasonable to say that the Muslims have seriously misinterpreted what Allah wants of them, and that Allah actually wants them to believe in His Son, Jesus Christ (the Son they don’t think He has). In a sense this is a matter of semantics–obviously there is only one real God, and obviously insofar as people ascribe false things to God they are failing to worship the real God. So to some extent whether we say that Muslims worship the wrong God or worship the right God mistakenly is a matter of rhetorical preference. But I think there are good reasons why the latter is theologically as well as rhetorically preferable, and I have given some of them in other posts.

BTW: the fact that the Arab Jews and Christians use the word “Allah” before Muhammad is irrelevant since their Christian Allah is not the Islamic Allah.

No, it’s not irrelevant, because it indicates that “Allah” is the generic word for God in Arabic, a word shared by all monotheists. That is why it is better to say that Muslims are wrong about Allah rather than to use “Allah” only to describe those things they falsely believe about God.

It is a dhimmified use of the word Allah to denote the islamic concept of their god and hoodwink Christians into believing that the Muslim god is the same as the God of Jesus Christ.

There’s only one God. You do know that, right?

Likewise, the word “Allah” pre-Islam meant the God of Jesus Christ (to Arab Christians). But once Muhammad hijacked it - Allah no longer means the God of Jesus Christ.

Go tell Arabic-speaking Christians that. In a sense, you are siding with Muslims against them. You claim to be full of sympathy with them, and yet you insult their use of language for God. This is self-defeating on your part.

**Hence I am not insulting Arab Christians who use the word Allah to mean God as this was the original meaning of the word. **

Yes, you are. You said above that once Muhammad “hijacked” the word it no longer means the Father of Jesus Christ. That is an insult to Arab Christians, whether you want to admit it or not.

That was not the point of the bishop’s plea. He didn’t say use the word Allah to be sympathetic to the Arab Christians. He said to use the word Allah to be sympathetic to the Islamic god.

This is the god that tells Muslims to humiliate you.

No, there is only one God, and He did not tell Muslims anything of the sort. Again, I grant that this is a matter of semantics, but that doesn’t make it unimportant.

Finally, I am not interested in defending what the bishop said. I think his proposal was rather silly and hardly even worth talking about. Rather, I’m concerned with the theological and linguistic distortions of those of you for whom hatred of Islam seems to be the paramount consideration.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I thought all baptized Catholics refer to God as Abba Father, according to our baptism we are a new creation as sons and daughters of the living God. We as Catholics are the universal Church of Jesus Christ the Son of God. Iam for all Aramaic speaking Christians calling Abba Father in their native tongue Allah or Dios, God, etc. The universal church (Catholic Church) should refer to the creator in ones own Language, thats beautiful aspect of the Catholic Church. To urge me to refer to Our Father the creator in (Aramaic) a language I dont know is not reasonable. Sounds like Aramaic Catholics already refer to Our heavenly Father as Allah. The Catholic Church has already stretched an olive branch, What has the Muslims done to return an olive branch of Peace?

Our Father Who Art in Heaven…

 

[birdsong]

And you are the self-proclaimed scholar of religion?? LOL!!


Forgive me if I don’t believe that a guy with such poor arguments and reasoning is a scholar of anything !! … let me address some of your nonsense:

This is perhaps a legitimate rhetorical strategy, but I think it’s not a very good one. It is truer and more reasonable to say that the Muslims have seriously misinterpreted what Allah wants of them, and that Allah actually wants them to believe in His Son, Jesus Christ (the Son they don’t think He has). In a sense this is a matter of semantics–obviously there is only one real God, and obviously insofar as people ascribe false things to God they are failing to worship the real God. So to some extent whether we say that Muslims worship the wrong God or worship the right God mistakenly is a matter of rhetorical preference. But I think there are good reasons why the latter is theologically as well as rhetorically preferable, and I have given some of them in other posts.

Edwin

So please mr. “scholar in religion”, could you please illuminate us by clarifying why is truer and more reasonable to say that muslims have misinterpretd what muhhamad/allah wanted them to believe in? of course, since you are establishing a standard of “truth” and “reason” (hence your use of “truer and more reasonable”), by necessity you will have to clarify what “truth” and “reason” you are talking about ….

PS: you are trying to investigate/argue what muslims should believe in, yet, you are the guy who a few weeks ago argued with me that a non-muslim had no business telling who is a muslim and who is not? LOL

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Why on earth would I do that? This is a discussion board. I’m here to discuss, not to shut up and listen to you rant. If you say things that have no foundation, people will point it out.

Okay - point them out to me - but the moment you insulted me you crossed the line.

Did I insult you? So why do you think you’re the only one here who’s allowed to insult?

Contarini:

This is perhaps a legitimate rhetorical strategy, but I think it’s not a very good one. It is truer and more reasonable to say that the Muslims have seriously misinterpreted what Allah wants of them, and that Allah actually wants them to believe in His Son, Jesus Christ (the Son they don’t think He has). In a sense this is a matter of semantics–obviously there is only one real God, and obviously insofar as people ascribe false things to God they are failing to worship the real God. So to some extent whether we say that Muslims worship the wrong God or worship the right God mistakenly is a matter of rhetorical preference. But I think there are good reasons why the latter is theologically as well as rhetorically preferable, and I have given some of them in other posts.

Incorrect. Muhammad hijacked God for his Satanic purposes. No true god of Jesus Christ, no matter how misinterpreted, would condone the persecution of his followers.

You think it is semantics? How about you and your relatives live under centuries of abuse and oppression from the Muslims and their Allah?

Contarini:

No, it’s not irrelevant, because it indicates that “Allah” is the generic word for God in Arabic, a word shared by all monotheists. That is why it is better to say that Muslims are wrong about Allah rather than to use “Allah” only to describe those things they falsely believe about God.

It is only your opinion that it is better to say that the Muslims are wrong about Allah.

It is evident that Muhammad plagiarized the apocrypha and stole the divinity of the God of Jesus Christ for his false god Allah. I urge you to read the Quran to see just how evil it is.

Contarini:

There’s only one God. You do know that, right?

Prove it.

Contarini:

Go tell Arabic-speaking Christians that. In a sense, you are siding with Muslims against them. You claim to be full of sympathy with them, and yet you insult their use of language for God. This is self-defeating on your part.

I stand with them and call the Muslims to answer for stealing their god. I don’t stand by and apologize for the Muslims like you do. I don’t condone for one second the oppression of the Arab Christians by the Islamic Allah and the Muslims.

I have made it clear in previous posts that I believe Muhammad STOLE the Arab Christian Allah for his Satanic deity. I will always call Muslims to account for this theft and fraud. You on the other hand attack me for standing with the Arab Christians and all Christians who have been and continue to be oppressed by Muslims and their Allah.

Contarini:

Yes, you are. You said above that once Muhammad “hijacked” the word it no longer means the Father of Jesus Christ. That is an insult to Arab Christians, whether you want to admit it or not.
I have made the distinction between what the Arab Christians believe Allah to be and what the Muslims hijacked. It is very clear I was talking of the Islamic Allah with my post - how you can ever construe what I said about Allah to mean the Arab Christian ORIGINAL meaning of the word tells alot about your preconception and your pro-Islamic sympathies.

You on the other hand refuse to see this point and give legitimacy to the thieves instead of the rightful owners.

I repeat: the word Allah was STOLEN by the Muslims for their Satanic deity. No true God of Jesus Christ would cause the Muslims to oppress them.

Go stand in the corner with the Muslims who have oppressed Chrstians for centuries. I will stand on the opposite side FIGHTING for the oppressed and not the oppressors.

cont

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Contarini:
No, there is only one God, and He did not tell Muslims anything of the sort. Again, I grant that this is a matter of semantics, but that doesn’t make it unimportant.
Prove there is only one god.

Please read the Quran and the hadiths where Muhammad told the Muslims to oppress Christians. He told you to pay the Muslims jizyah with humiliation. The Muslims impose humiliation on you by spitting in your mouth, hitting the nape or your neck, or yanking your beard and slapping your face while they collect their protection money.

The prophet of your Allah expelled the Jews and Christians from their homes and made their women and children slaves. Did you know that? Or are you saying that Muhammad was unfamiliar with Allah?

Contarini:

Finally, I am not interested in defending what the bishop said. I think his proposal was rather silly and hardly even worth talking about. Rather, I’m concerned with the theological and linguistic distortions of those of you for whom hatred of Islam seems to be the paramount consideration.

In Christ,

Edwin

There has been no theological and linguistic distortions. I defy anyone to prove that the Islamic Allah is the original Allah of the Arab Christians.

This entire thread is about what the bishop said. Get with the program, buddy. If you are not in tune with the discussion perhaps it might be wiser if you do not throw insults around. You were obviously ranting without understanding what was being discussed.

Now, as a self-appointed scholar of religion perhaps you might want to study Islam and go on the Haj since your sympathies are obviously with the Allah that oppressed and continue to oppress Christians.

While you’re at it, please read the Quran and the hadiths about how the Christians are to be oppressed by the Muslims.

Stealing the original word Allah from the arab Christians does not give the Islamic Allah a free pass from criticism. When you steal a word and apply it to a concept so diametrically opposite to its original meaning you don’t get a free pass to apply your NEW meaning to the original. Theft is theft.

It is a pity that there are people like you who cannot stand with the oppressed and stand against the oppressors. It takes an atheist to speak out for the millions of Christians oppressed by Muslims who act in accordance with the wishes of their Allah, while a supposed Christian sides with the Muslims.

I’m sure there are many here who can see right through you.

Chau
Rodrigo

 

[Contarini]

So please mr. “scholar in religion”, could you please illuminate us by clarifying why is truer and more reasonable to say that muslims have misinterpretd what muhhamad/allah wanted them to believe in?

Because there is only one God. To say that Muslims worship “a different god” is a figure of speech by which you are asserting that their concept of God is so distorted that you choose to name it according to what is false, not according to what is true. This is ontologically misguided. Goodness and truth are realities. Evil and falsehood are privations of the goodness and truth that should be there, not realities in and of themselves. Therefore, it is less misleading to say that Muslims have a defective understanding of the true God than to say that they worship a false god. The latter is to turn the absence of a perfectly true understanding into something positive and real, which it isn’t. (Obviously it is different when people explicitly worship a being who is not the author and creator of all reality.)

PS: you are trying to investigate/argue what muslims should believe in, yet, you are the guy who a few weeks ago argued with me that a non-muslim had no business telling who is a muslim and who is not?

I am not arguing about what they should believe in, except that they should believe in Christ and the Blessed Trinity. You can laugh at me, but that will not make my position any less coherent. I have said that a non-muslim has no business describing one self-proclaimed Muslim as a “true Muslim” and another as a “false Muslim,” right. How does this contradict anything I am saying?

You and others persist in misunderstanding me as saying that non-Muslims can’t talk about Islam. That is never what I said. We can talk about it, as long as we recognize that we are simply talking about the beliefs and practices of a certain self-identified group of people throughout time and space, not about some essence that exists apart from what real people say and do.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Incorrect. Muhammad hijacked God for his Satanic purposes. No true god of Jesus Christ, no matter how misinterpreted, would condone the persecution of his followers.

Are you saying that God never lets people misinterpret His will in horrible ways?

You think it is semantics? How about you and your relatives live under centuries of abuse and oppression from the Muslims and their Allah?

That’s not a rational argument. You are exploiting the suffering of your fellow-Christians in order to turn bad arguments into good ones. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Prove it.

Well, if the book of Isaiah and the New Testament are not enough for you, try St. Thomas Aquinas (ST 1, question 11, art. 3). He lays the basic issues out pretty well. Frankly, if you are willing to deny that God is one in order to debunk Islam, then I think your position refutes itself.

I have made the distinction between what the Arab Christians believe Allah to be and what the Muslims hijacked.

But you are willing to let the Muslims get away with this “hijacking.” That’s an odd way of opposing the falsehood of Islam.

You on the other hand refuse to see this point and give legitimacy to the thieves instead of the rightful owners.

No, that is what you are doing.

The rest of your post is empty rhetoric.

Edwin

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Are you saying that God never lets people misinterpret His will in horrible ways?

Who speaks for God? I don’t. Do you?

That’s not a rational argument. You are exploiting the suffering of your fellow-Christians in order to turn bad arguments into good ones. You should be ashamed of yourself.

How are my arguments bad? You have to show that first.

You should be ashamed to be standing with the oppressors of Christians, though.

Well, if the book of Isaiah and the New Testament are not enough for you, try St. Thomas Aquinas (ST 1, question 11, art. 3). He lays the basic issues out pretty well. Frankly, if you are willing to deny that God is one in order to debunk Islam, then I think your position refutes itself.

I asked you to prove there is only one god and what do you do? You provide scripture to prove that. Aren’t you using a circular argument here? Talk about bad arguments.

But you are willing to let the Muslims get away with this “hijacking.” That’s an odd way of opposing the falsehood of Islam.

The point is I don’t allow Muslims to get away with this ‘hijacking’. I am calling them to account. What are you doing? You are siding with the oppressors of Christians, that’s what you’re doing.

No, that is what you are doing.

How have I given legitimacy to the thieves? By showing up that their stolen use of Allah is in no way similar to the original Arab Christian use since they oppress Christians?

Please make some sense. Even I am embarrassed for you.

The rest of your post is empty rhetoric.

Edwin

Talk about empty rhetoric. That last sentence is as empty as it gets.

 

[Contarini]

Who speaks for God? I don’t.

Yes, you are making the assumption that you can say what God would or would not do. Your logic seems to me this:

1. Muslims have done bad things in God’s name (of course, you ignore the fact that Christians have also done this).
2. God would not allow people to do bad things in God’s name.
3. Therefore, we must say that “Allah” is not God’s name, even though that means ratifying the Islamic “hijacking” of the word.

I asked you to prove there is only one god and what do you do? You provide scripture to prove that. Aren’t you using a circular argument here? Talk about bad arguments.

I thought you accepted the authority of Scripture. My apologies if I was mistaken. However, I did not rest on that–I gave you a link to St. Thomas Aquinas’s very succinct argument. He puts it better than I can. Deal with that text.

The point is I don’t allow Muslims to get away with this ‘hijacking’.

Yes, you do, because you say that “Allah” is now primarily to be regarded as the name for the allegedly false Islamic god. You disregard the far more reasonable possibility that “Allah” is simply the Arabic-speaking word for God. Your argument against this has been that Muslims oppress Christians, and therefore Christians should give up their traditional word for God because Muslims use it. There is no logic to this whatsoever. It’s a classic example of a non sequitur.

Edwin

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Yes, you are making the assumption that you can say what God would or would not do. Your logic seems to me this:

1. Muslims have done bad things in God’s name (of course, you ignore the fact that Christians have also done this).
2. God would not allow people to do bad things in God’s name.
3. Therefore, we must say that “Allah” is not God’s name, even though that means ratifying the Islamic “hijacking” of the word.

Who is talking about God allowing people to do bad things in his name.

I am talking about the islamic Allah COMMANDING Muslims to persecute Christians. This is not my assumption - it is in the hadith.

Are you telling the Catholics here that their god has COMMANDED the Muslims to oppress them?

Do you think they will take you seriously?

I thought you accepted the authority of Scripture. My apologies if I was mistaken. However, I did not rest on that–I gave you a link to St. Thomas Aquinas’s very succinct argument. He puts it better than I can. Deal with that text.

I asked you to prove that there is one god. You didn’t. I am not interested in discussing Thomas Aquinas.

Yes, you do, because you say that “Allah” is now primarily to be regarded as the name for the allegedly false Islamic god. You disregard the far more reasonable possibility that “Allah” is simply the Arabic-speaking word for God. Your argument against this has been that Muslims oppress Christians, and therefore Christians should give up their traditional word for God because Muslims use it. There is no logic to this whatsoever. It’s a classic example of a non sequitur.

Edwin

Please don’t twist my words. I have previously made the distinction between the Original Allah and the Islamic Allah, have I not?

Where have i said that because the Muslims oppress Christians that the latter should give up their use of the original Arabic word for God because Muslims use it?

Please show this.

I have said that the Christians should not use the word Allah in sympathy with the Muslims because the Islamic Allah is not the same as the original Allah.

How many times do I have to make the distinction between the original Allah and the Islamic (hijacked) Allah?

Do you want me to spell it out for you YET AGAIN? My beef is the use of the word Allah in sympathy with the Muslims - in answer to the bishop’s ridiculous proposition. Where did the Arab Christians come into this? If you read my original posts - it should be clear that the Allah I was referring to was the Islamic Allah in answer to the bishop’s risible proposition.

 

[Contarini]

Who is talking about God allowing people to do bad things in his name.

You are. You are saying that when Muslims use the word “Allah,” it must refer to a being other than the One True God, because they do bad things in the name of “Allah.”

Are you telling the Catholics here that their god has COMMANDED the Muslims to oppress them?

Obviously not. I am saying that Muslims think false things about God. Why do you dismiss this possibility?

I asked you to prove that there is one god. You didn’t. I am not interested in discussing Thomas Aquinas.

Because doing so would demonstrate the futility and irresponsibility of your arguments. You are going up against the entire Christian tradition on this, and yet you claim to be some sort of champion of Christianity. Are you seriously a polytheist, or are you just playing a cynical game? If you assure me that you really think there is more than one God, I will start a new thread on the topic. Otherwise, please stop stalling and deal with the real issue.

Please don’t twist my words. I have previously made the distinction between the Original Allah and the Islamic Allah, have I not?

Where have i said that because the Muslims oppress Christians that the latter should give up their use of the original Arabic word for God because Muslims use it?

I understood this to follow from your statement here:

Likewise, the word “Allah” pre-Islam meant the God of Jesus Christ (to Arab Christians). But once Muhammad hijacked it - Allah no longer means the God of Jesus Christ.

However, I was unfair to you, and I apologize. I should have realized that you were describing a logical and not a temporal sequence (i.e., those whose use of “Allah” is not dependent on Muhammad can go on using the term). Since you were getting so much mileage out of a rhetorical appeal to sympathy with Middle Eastern Christians, I was trying to turn that around on you, and I should have left such tactics to you.

The point remains, however: Allah is the Arabic word for God. It is the word used by Arabic Christians, and therefore the burden of proof rests on those who say that when Muslims use it it must be seen as denoting a different being. Simply showing that Muslims ascribe unworthy things to God is not enough. Many Christians ascribe unworthy things to God, but it is unreasonable to say that they therefore “worship a different God,” except in a rhetorical sense.

The real issue is that there is only one God, and therefore anyone who is talking about a single deity who created everything and transcends the physical universe is talking about the same being, however imperfectly. (And yes, that would apply to the Hindu concept of “Ishvara” as well.)

Edwin

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

You are. You are saying that when Muslims use the word “Allah,” it must refer to a being other than the One True God, because they do bad things in the name of “Allah.”

How does that mean I am speaking for God?

Haven’t I proved Muhammad was a fraud for plagiarizing the apocrypha and other sources?

Are you saying that the God of Jesus Christ has commanded the Muslims to persecute Christians? That is what you’re really saying, aren’t you?

How you can come here and metaphorically look the Catholics in the eye when you even think that - can sign your name with “In Christ”.

Obviously not. I am saying that Muslims think false things about God. Why do you dismiss this possibility?

So you think the bishop is right to sympathize with such false things about a God that persecutes Christians by the use of the hijacked word Allah?

Because doing so would demonstrate the futility and irresponsibility of your arguments. You are going up against the entire Christian tradition on this, and yet you claim to be some sort of champion of Christianity. Are you seriously a polytheist, or are you just playing a cynical game? If you assure me that you really think there is more than one God, I will start a new thread on the topic. Otherwise, please stop stalling and deal with the real issue.

I am asking you to prove your belief. What mine are is irrelevant. I do stand with oppressed people though. Christians are not the only oppressed I stand with.

You on the other hand seem very content to stand with the oppressors of Christians.

And you call me cynical?

I understood this to follow from your statement here:
Likewise, the word “Allah” pre-Islam meant the God of Jesus Christ (to Arab Christians). But once Muhammad hijacked it - Allah no longer means the God of Jesus Christ.

That’s right - but only for the hijacked version. Or do you want to twist my words again. Are you that desperate to score cheap points?

However, I was unfair to you, and I apologize. I should have realized that you were describing a logical and not a temporal sequence (i.e., those whose use of “Allah” is not dependent on Muhammad can go on using the term). Since you were getting so much mileage out of a rhetorical appeal to sympathy with Middle Eastern Christians, I was trying to turn that around on you, and I should have left such tactics to you.

You may consider it mere ‘tactics’ and ‘rhetorical appeals to sympathy’. It would be laughable if not for what the poor oppressed Christians have to suffer over the centuries.

Your arguments really are very cheap, aren’t they? Can’t you even elicit a drop of sympathy for the oppressed instead of always siding with the oppressors?

The point remains, however: Allah is the Arabic word for God. It is the word used by Arabic Christians, and therefore the burden of proof rests on those who say that when Muslims use it it must be seen as denoting a different being. Simply showing that Muslims ascribe unworthy things to God is not enough. Many Christians ascribe unworthy things to God, but it is unreasonable to say that they therefore “worship a different God,” except in a rhetorical sense.

Burden of proof?

Sure - read my articles on the plagiarizing of the apocrypha and other non-divinely inspired sources.

Ask yourself whether a true God of Jesus Christ would COMMAND Muslims to oppress his flock

Of course the Allah of Muhammad is a different God. Do you think the God of Jesus Christ would choose a man who killed, murdered, tortured, made women and children into slaves, stole livestock, raided caravans and villages and had sex with the little girls?

Do you?

The real issue is that there is only one God, and therefore anyone who is talking about a single deity who created everything and transcends the physical universe is talking about the same being, however imperfectly. (And yes, that would apply to the Hindu concept of “Ishvara” as well.)

Edwin

So you worship the Sun then - since Akhenaton also believed in one God - the Sun.

If I claim there is a single God called Bibilbox who created the universe and lives in a jar in my kitchen you’d also believe Bibilbox is Allah? No? So why would you think the Islamic Allah is the God of Jesus Christ just because Muhammad said so?

Are you in the habit of believing the lies of a man who killed, murdered, tortured, made women and children into slaves, stole livestock, raided caravans and villages and had sex with the little girls?

There is only One God and his name is Bibilbox and Rodrigo is his prophet.

Oh and God Bibilbox commands all people called Edwin to be persecuted.

What do you think about that?

 

[Publisher]

In just about every other “issue” discussed on this forum, an appeal to the Magisterium is always cited…what does the Magisterium say on this issue about whether Allah an YHVH are ths same God? Isn’t the catecism from the Magisterium? It would seem, that even though the Magisterium is invoked as an authoritive teaching tool, not all Catholics really accept what the Magisterium teaches…even those in “union with Rome.”

 

[Booklover]

In just about every other “issue” discussed on this forum, an appeal to the Magisterium is always cited…what does the Magisterium say on this issue about whether Allah an YHVH are ths same God? Isn’t the catecism from the Magisterium? It would seem, that even though the Magisterium is invoked as an authoritive teaching tool, not all Catholics really accept what the Magisterium teaches…even those in “union with Rome.”

The Catechism only states that they profess to worship the God of Abraham! Make of that what you will!

Vickie

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

In just about every other “issue” discussed on this forum, an appeal to the Magisterium is always cited…what does the Magisterium say on this issue about whether Allah an YHVH are ths same God? Isn’t the catecism from the Magisterium? It would seem, that even though the Magisterium is invoked as an authoritive teaching tool, not all Catholics really accept what the Magisterium teaches…even those in “union with Rome.”

That would only be true if the Magisterium came from God himself. Unfortunately it comes from human beings who may or may not be wrong.

I would much rather have someone explain to me how the Islamic Allah can be the God of Jesus Christ and command Muslims to persecute Christians.

Christians must have done something bad to incur the wrath of God then, mustn’t they? Between Jesus Christ and Muhammad Christians must have collectively sinned so much that He almost made a repeat of Soddom and Gomorrah - except your sins were not so great so He didn’t destroy you - he only commanded his new favourites - the Muslims to oppress you instead.

Food for thought, though, even if you disagree with what I have said.

 

[Mag_Uidhir]

In just about every other “issue” discussed on this forum, an appeal to the Magisterium is always cited…what does the Magisterium say on this issue about whether Allah an YHVH are ths same God? Isn’t the catecism from the Magisterium? It would seem, that even though the Magisterium is invoked as an authoritive teaching tool, not all Catholics really accept what the Magisterium teaches…even those in “union with Rome.”

CCC 841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day."

They have a different idea of God, plus they don’t recognize the necessity of believing in the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Contarini]

How does that mean I am speaking for God?

That you think the true God would not allow people to ascribe false things to Him. Therefore, you are trying to protect His honor by a verbal shell game.

Haven’t I proved Muhammad was a fraud for plagiarizing the apocrypha and other sources?

I’m not sure that means he was a fraud, but I agree that his theology was heavily dependent on garbled misunderstandings of Judaism and Christianity.

Are you saying that the God of Jesus Christ has commanded the Muslims to persecute Christians? That is what you’re really saying, aren’t you?

No–for the hundredth time, I am saying that Muslims believe false things about God. You refuse even to consider this possibility. Please stop misrepresenting what I am saying. I acknowledged that I was misrepresenting you, though I’m sorry you had to repeat yourself so often for me to get the point. Please do me the same courtesy.

So you think the bishop is right to sympathize with such false things about a God that persecutes Christians by the use of the hijacked word Allah?

I have made it clear that I don’t agree with the bishop. However, he is not sympathizing with the false ideas of Muslims, but with the true things they believe about God.

I am asking you to prove your belief. What mine are is irrelevant. I do stand with oppressed people though. Christians are not the only oppressed I stand with.

If you are claiming that Muslims and Christians worship two different deities, then your understanding of God is highly relevant. Otherwise we can’t have a meaningful discussion.

You on the other hand seem very content to stand with the oppressors of Christians.

No, I’m standing with the truth.

That’s right - but only for the hijacked version. Or do you want to twist my words again. Are you that desperate to score cheap points?

No, my point is that I now understand what you meant. I thought you meant that the word was now unusable, and I have admitted that I was blinded by my desire to turn your rhetoric back on you.

You may consider it mere ‘tactics’ and ‘rhetorical appeals to sympathy’. It would be laughable if not for what the poor oppressed Christians have to suffer over the centuries.

I’m sorry, but there is no logical connection here. Christians have oppressed Jews. As a Christian, I don’t think this means that we worship a false god. I think it means that we misunderstood what God wanted of us.

So you worship the Sun then - since Akhenaton also believed in one God - the Sun.

As I understand Akhenaton’s theology, he thought the sun disk was a manifestation of the one God. However, he may not have. Note that I explicitly said “one God who transcends the physical universe.”

If I claim there is a single God called Bibilbox who created the universe and lives in a jar in my kitchen you’d also believe Bibilbox is Allah? No? So why would you think the Islamic Allah is the God of Jesus Christ just because Muhammad said so?

You can’t create gibberish and base an argument on it. To say that the God who created the universe is spatially contained in a jar is logically incoherent, and I am not aware of any person or culture who has ever believed any such thing. So you have no case. Note again that I explicitly said “transcends the physical universe.” A good case can be made that Mormons, for instance, really don’t believe in the same God we do.

Again, the whole argument is based on bad semantics. When we say “the God of Muhammad” we mean “Muhammad’s representation of God.” I do not believe that Muhammad’s representation of God is identical with the real God, no. But then many Christians believe mistaken things about God as well, and all of us have a woefully inadequate concept of God. All language purporting to speak of the one God who created the universe is pointing, however imperfectly, toward the same reality. It is therefore semantically preferable to say “Muslims believe in the same God we do, but they think mistakenly about Him,” rather than, “Muslims believe in a different God.”

But if you don’t believe in one God in the first place, no wonder you can’t understand these things.

Edwin