L
Lisa44
Guest
Person one: Jesus is God
Person two: Jesus is not God.
Do these two people worship the same God?
Person two: Jesus is not God.
Do these two people worship the same God?
- Status
B
Badaliyyah
Guest
I am a member of the Melkite Church, as it says at the top of all my posts. So yes, I am Catholic. The official liturgical languages are Greek (because our liturgy is Byzantine), and Arabic…though you will find plenty of English in them as well if you attend in the States, or the local vernacular if you are elsewhere.
I would also point out that our Maronite brothers and sisters, as well as a number of other communions that use Syriac as their liturgical language, also refer to God with a similar word: “Alah”. This has the same Semitic root as the Arabic “Allah”, and since Syriac is the heir of Aramaic, it is the same language and word that Jesus would have used (which Maronites are very proud of).
Now on to bigger and better things.- I claim Muslims and Christians worship the same God because it is true. As I have tried to point out several times disagreement over the object of knowledge or action does NOT mean that we are talking about or intending two different things. Ralph was right on target here when he pointed out that the “objective intention” is the same, even if that intention is inadequately achieved.
- I claim that Muslims and Christians worship the same God because it is the teaching and tradition of the Catholic Church. These are not just lines from a catechism, the catechism is actually quoting the most recent Council, V2 (Nostra Aetate). As I also mentioned earlier, Nostra Aetate is not really saying anything radically new here.
- If I might be allowed to return to an argument from absurdity…as Roman_Catholic pointed out earlier in this thread, if you deny that Muslims are worshiping the same God as Catholics, then you pretty much have to deny it of Judaism as well (because the description of God in Islam and Judaism is basically identical) at which point the whole bottom just falls out of Christianity. Then, you should either toss the OT (in which case you are some sort of Marcionite heretic), or you should pack it up and become a Jew because you are admitting that the Christians deviated from the faith (which is what Judaism has been claiming all along).
Returning again to Thomas and the SCG. Thomas does not need to admit, and indeed denies, that Mohammad was a prophet in order to recognize that Islam holds things about God that are just plain true. Thomas’ position seems to be that Islam is what monotheism looks like in the absence of a guiding revelation. Thomas thinks Mohammad made all sorts of stuff up and is just wrong about many things (Thomas focuses primarily on “carnal pleasures”), but in the midst of just letting Mohammad have it, he says that Mohammad still provides some basic truths about God that available to any person of reason (see the SCG, Bk. I, ch.6). As wrong as Mohammad is, and as much as people were led astray by him, Thomas still spends most of the SCG actually talking about things that people can know without any revelation whatsoever. Muslims believe most of these things and it quite right that they be objects of faith (see Bk I, ch.3, and again in ch.4…notice that Thomas does not talk about the Christian faith explicitly until he gets to 5 and 6 where he is talking about truths knowable only by revelation, like the Trinity). God basically reveals Godself through nature. There is a natural wisdom that one can have about God, and also a kind of natural faith (for those who do not rise to contemplation and knowledge of God in nature on their own).
I think V2, rightly, goes further than this position of Thomas by acknowledging the link between Islam and Abraham, even if in a (rightly) qualified way. This places Islam as a member of a common historical tradition and thus it is not only an expression of humanity’s natural desire for the One.
I am not going to pile up quotes from Thomas, but I have provided some citations. As already mentioned about 4/5 of the book is dedicated to material that Thomas thinks can be known solely through nature. While he takes time to correct certain Muslim philosophical mistakes in this section, he also corrects Christian philosophical mistakes too (the first actual chapters on God in Bk.1 are a full out assault on the position of St.Anselm for instance (see chs. 10-11)…an attack he reiterates in the Summa Theologica). Nonetheless most of the material on God and the doctrine of creation found in Books I-III is held by Muslims as a matter of belief (in many ways Muslims in belief actually outshine philosophers like Ibn’Rushd, who is at times, in Thomas’ estimation, too dependent on Aristotle).
As for the idea that we only know God through the prophets…as I pointed out that is directly contrary to Catholic teaching. In SCG Thomas attacks in it ch.12… but take a look at V1. It is short and can be found online, here. It condemns that position in one of the anathemas on revelation.
this is already too long a post, so I am going to stop there for now.
salaam.
C
Contarini
Guest
C
Contarini
Guest
There is not such thing as a “Muslim god.” There is only one God, about whom Muslims have some true beliefs and a number of false ones.
Edwin
D
Dauphin
Guest
The Church teaches dogmatically that there is no salvation outside of her; She is the only ark of salvation. However, those who are innocently ignorant of Christ and His Church may be saved through a baptism of desire, providing that they believe in God, observe the natural law, and are free from heresy or schism. Such people are implicitly united to the Church.
Since its wording is very vague, it’s in the context of this teaching that Paragraph 841 has to be understood. Since Islam helps foster the belief in one God which is the first criterion of salvation, Muslims who are truly and innocently ignorant of Christ can be saved by the singular grace of God.
The Church most certainly does not teach that you can deny Christ or fail to enter the Church and be saved.
Since its wording is very vague, it’s in the context of this teaching that Paragraph 841 has to be understood. Since Islam helps foster the belief in one God which is the first criterion of salvation, Muslims who are truly and innocently ignorant of Christ can be saved by the singular grace of God.
The Church most certainly does not teach that you can deny Christ or fail to enter the Church and be saved.
D
Dauphin
Guest
I think this is a very good explanation. It’s an excellent example of applying the hermeneutic of continuity to the conciliar texts.It is long standing Catholic doctrine. That’s what’s up.
It comes from Lumen Gentium, no. 16, which in turn comes from the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas.
Lumen Gentium, no. 16 teaches that non-Catholics are “related in various ways to the people of God.(18*)” (*Lumen Gentium, *16).
*Lumen Gentium *16, footnote 18, is “(18) Cfr. S. Thomas, Summa Theol. III, q. 8, a. 3, ad 1”, which states:
This is precisely the authentic teaching of Lumen Gentium 16, despite the common ignorance to the contrary. The Catechism agrees with St. Thomas Aquinas on this point, which is why the Church specifically cites St. Thomas Aquinas in Lumen Gentium.
To more fully understand what St. Thomas and the Catechism are teaching, you need to study further what St. Thomas teaches on this topic. For instance…
In the same article, St. Thomas describes some of these who are “in the Church potentially” as “those who are united to Him in potentiality, which will never be reduced to act; such are those men existing in the world, who are not predestined, who, however, on their departure from this world, wholly cease to be members of Christ, as being no longer in potentiality to be united to Christ.” (ibid.)
In other words, according to Church doctrine, those not predestined to eternal glory are also described as “related in various ways” to the Church, but these cease to be united to Christ “in potentiality” when their life on earth comes to an end.
Muslim are cited in Lumen Gentium as among many non-Catholics who are “related in various ways” to the Church in the manner described above. Some will freely will to convert to Christ and as such are “reduced to act” as St. Thomas explains, meaning they are united to Christ in “actuality” not merely “potentially.” Others may never be united to Christ in actuality.
Seems like nothing new or heretical to me, although I’ve heard many erroneous interpretations of this teaching.
We can’t take the teaching of the council in isolation and interpret it in whatever way we please. The entire doctrinal history of the Church has to be taken into account, especially in those areas where the Church has made dogmatic definitions. We cannot say that those outside the Church are saved, since this is manifestly contrary to Catholic dogma. Ambiguous phrases like “included in the plan of salvation” and “related to the Church in various ways” must always be understood in the context of this dogma.
L
Lisa44
Guest
I
I would also point out that our Maronite brothers and sisters, as well as a number of other communions that use Syriac as their liturgical language, also refer to God with a similar word: “Alah”. This has the same Semitic root as the Arabic “Allah”, and since Syriac is the heir of Aramaic, it is the same language and word that Jesus would have used (which Maronites are very proud of).Elah is aramaic. Adonai is hebrew. correct?
L
Lisa44
Guest
I thought the Catholic church taught that Jews and Muslims were infidels, or non-believers? If we believed in the same god, then they would be “believers” would they not?
L
Lisa44
Guest
But you don’t deny that we only know Jesus through Jesus?
(I was not making an inclusive statement that humans didn’t have reason).
L
Lisa44
Guest
Hi EdwinIf there is no Muslim god - then who are they praying to, because I know its not Jesus?
I know that this god will reward them in Heaven with virgins, or possibly white raisons, depending on the translation. Does Jesus promise white raisons to warriors?
Who is telling them what to believe? Muhammad, who is telling Muhammad? A demon. Yes a demon is getting very powerful with all his believers.
A demon is who Muslims worship. To tell them anything else is to lie to them and to not allow them the opportunity to find the truth and salvation.
Its my opinion.Now the Jews, when they pray to Hashem or Adonai, yes, they are praying to God. Its just that they reject the Son of God. But don’t insult Jews by comparing them to Muslims, or Muslims toChristians for that matter. I take it as an insult and I’m sure a Jew would too.
Judaism is of course not a false religion made up by men, that would be preposterous! Channeled through demons! Heavens no. But, we all know that Jews do not believe Jesus is the Messiah. Unfortunately, not “all” will be saved (contrary to what some people will say).
R
ralphinal
Guest
First, I am not an Islam Apologist.
“same God”
“same”
Same means equals, or qualifies as…
This is a false, and heretical understanding, that Allah = the trinity.
Allah, is not the “same” as the trinity. If Allah was the “same” as the trinity then there would be no wrong understanding. It needs correcting because it is wrong, and false, like Jesus warned us. Remember Jesus? The third part of the trinity…? Jesus = God
Therefore, those who reject Jesus, reject God.
I can make up a god right now, on the spot, and call myself a prophet of god! I’m a prophet of god. Yes, my god rides around under the ocean on a barge made of croutons! And when I die, I am going to eat peanut butter soup in a flying saucer and have 20 husbands that god will give me.
Oh yes, and did I tell you, “TOGETHER WITH (Catholics) we adore the one merciful God.”
Let me explain it like this. Two students take a math class. One makes an A but does not fully understand it. The other makes a C and does not fully understand it. Did they both take the same class? Yes, but one does not have the same level of knowledge as the other one. If we add a third student, and he makes an F, we can say that he has no concept at all.
This is how it ties in: the Catholic Faith has the Fullness of Truth here on earth. Judaism has an incomplete understanding of God, say a B level. Islam has at best a C. Now, the problem is that Muslims then demand that the test be changed and they be allowed to dictate the information in the way that flips the grades around.
Their understanding is difficient and incomplete, but the do CLAIM to worship the same God. Now, this IS NOT the same issue as is ISlam truely a religion inspired by God. IN fact, that answer could be no JUST BECAUSE of the lacking understanding of God.
B
Badaliyyah
Guest
Adonai is “lord” and is often used as a way to avoid speaking the tetragrammaton. The Arabic equivalent would be “Rabb”.
No. And this is one of the crucial issues behind this whole thread. Saying that Jews and Muslims worship the same God, as we do, does not mean they are the faithful, nor, to put it the other way around, does the typical medieval identification of Muslims as “infidels” and Jews as “perfidels” (to translate rather literally…i.e., they distorted the faith, lied, etc.) mean that they worship other gods. I just means that they are damned inadequate in the way they approach God.
As I pointed out in that last post, there is a kind of knowledge and faith appropriate to Islam. They seem, in Thomas’ estimation, to have a natural knowledge of God that is in many ways quite correct. And among those who are not philosophers, there is a kind of natural faith, if you will. But this does not make them members of the faithful (the “fidels” to continue the overly literal translations), because they do not have that supernatural faith necessary to salvation. They are infidels because they deny certain crucial ideas: Trinity and Incarnation. There is a lack in their understanding that it is fatal, but what they do understand about God is correct and places them in broad agreement with the Catholic tradition. Notice that both points I mentioned are things that Thomas thinks can only be known by revelation. This is why I said that Thomas seems to view Islam, at least in the SCG, as Monotheism-in-the-absence-of-revelation. What they grasp as true and what is correct about Islam (Doctrine of God and doctrine of Creation is Thomas’ focus in the SCG) are all things that persons can know in their natural desire for God as beings in the world.
Vatican II goes beyond that overly minimalist analysis of Thomas to point out that Islam appropriates, in ways that Catholicism does not always approve of, the history of God’s revelation to humanity. This means that the conversation that Catholicism is capable of having with Islam extends beyond some sort of natural-monotheism into matters of God’s particular history with humanity. On the other hand there is no acknowledgment of Mohammad as a prophet (as I mentioned Thomas denies that Mohammad is a prophet, not surprisingly). Catholicism is just acknowledging is the way in which the history of God with Abraham (and following) is crucial to Islam and provides a point of contact.
Nostra Aetate remains a relatively conservative V2 document, though, because, despite the addition of things like that, the organizing principle remains the medieval divisions of pagan, infidel and perfidel (which you are supposed to see as a kind of progression, closer and closer to the truth). For obvious reasons (e.g., the terms impute a kind of malice to Muslims and Jews that is false) those terms are not used by the document, but their logic is still felt I think. And as someone else noted, the setting of NA against the backdrop of Lumen Gentium makes pretty clear that the Council Fathers are not saying anything very radical in NA (n.b., the sections of the CCC on non-Xn religions, which includes 841, is framed on either side by sections which quote LG at length).
If you don’t mind me poaching off of your conversation with Contarini…They are praying to God (the one and only).
You have not told me enough to answer that question, but given the context of the conversation I am going to presume that P2 here is Muslim. In which case the answer is yes.
The point of the Conciliar anathema is that God is knowable by reason alone (and of course you find “proofs” for the existence of God throughout the Christian tradition…Thomas, Anselm, etc.). There are all sorts of things that you can only know by revelation, but God is NOT one of them. That is not to denigrate Jesus as the revelation of God, nor to deny that the Incarnation tells us things about God that we could not know by reason alone.But you don’t deny that we only know Jesus through Jesus?
salaam.
p.s. Ralph’s math example, in the post immediately above is a pretty good one.
C
Contarini
Guest
God. You do agree that there is only one God, right?
If there is no Muslim god - then who are they praying to, because I know its not Jesus?
Why do you know this? What makes you think that any “god” has promised any such thing? Why do you accept the basic Islamic account of the Qur’an and then claim that a “false god” did what Muslims claim the true God did? This doesn’t make sense. If you know something of “Luxemburg’s” work (other than the fact that he talks about white raisins!), you know that he thinks that the Qur’an as we have it is based largely on older Syriac texts. This overturns the entire idea that the Qur’an was inspired by some superhuman being in the form we have it today (which is why “Luxemburg” can’t write under his own name). As a non-Muslim, why do you reject this idea out of hand? Why don’t you even entertain the possibility that the Qur’an is just another human text?
In other words, your polemical purposes are served by this weird, selective acceptance of Islamic dogma.
I suggest that you ask some Jews instead of presuming to speak on their behalf. But that is really irrelevant: truth is just truth, whether people choose to be insulted by it or not. It’s clearly true that if Muslims worship a false god because they don’t worship Jesus, then all who don’t worship Jesus worship a false god, which means that Jews worship a false god. You can’t deny this logic, so you play the “insult” card. Attempt at distraction noted.
Yet it’s what many Christians believed for centuries (from the 13th century when Christians started taking an interest in the Talmud). Judaism as we know it today rests very largely on the Talmud, and Christians do not generally consider the Talmud to be divinely inspired.
Besides, the question is whether Jews and Muslims worship the same God we do. You have repeatedly argued that Muslims can’t worship the true God because they don’t worship Jesus. You cannot escape the logic of this: obviously if this is true then Jews don’t worship the true God either.
I agree with you that Judaism cannot be dismissed in toto as a false religion. For the same reason, Islam can’t either, though obviously it contains far less truth and more falsehood than Judaism (with the exception, I should note, of Islamic beliefs about Jesus).
Edwin
L
Lisa44
Guest
Hi Ralphinal, thanks for your response,I hear what you’re saying, and it makes sense, except it assumes that we all worship the same God and thats what I have a really hard time accepting. I can claim to worship the God of the Torah too, but do I? If I worshiped the God of the Torah it would be evidenced by the fact that I belonged to a Jewish sect, that I followed their rules and guidelines for behavior that was spelled out by God in his revelation in the Torah. (the “fruits” so to speak). If it walks and talks like a duck, it probably is a duck. Muslims, CLAIM to worship the God of Abraham but they say the Torah is full of lies. Well which is it? Am I a Catholic if I say the NT is full of lies?
Why do we accept their “membership” in the OT revelation if they rejected it in favor or a new revelation (the koran) that teaches contrary to the revelation of the OT? Example- the OT says to love the stranger. The Koran says if the “stranger” is a non-muslim to kill him. This is not the same teaching, therefore not from the same God. Unless God can’t make up his mind.
L
Lisa44
Guest
Perhaps this is the problem, and by the way, I am understanding more of what you say now. I think I need to read the background of chuch teachings in order to see why they conclude what they do. Without reading the background materials, I arrived at a different conclusion, with my own reason. It seems to me contrary to reason to accept that I worship the same God as Muslims.I will say to your credit that your viewpoint, and that of the Church is very charitable. (Especially in light of all the Christians that were killed by the Islamic advance). I’m also wondering how much this willingness to make points of agreement with Islam stems from ecumenism?
Also, where does this idea come from that monotheists are better than pagans? The natural progression you spoke of from pagan to infidel to perfidel? How can anyone judge which is better, a compassionate buddhist or a jihading Muslim? If I had to wager I would go with the compassionate pagan.
It was my understanding that all were equally false? Is this not true?
Also, you mentioned that revelation is not necessary to know about God. I would say this is true AFTER revelation. Before revelation this would have been doubtful. Noah was one in a million.
L
Lisa44
Guest
Hi Edwin,I agree there is one God. I disagree that the Koran speaks of this God and that Muslims know this God in any real and meaningful way outside of vain imaginings attached to a belief is a supreme creator. (I know, it is obvious by now I’m not very charitble in this opinion). God is love, well, that is one interpretation, or one word rather, but there is no evidence of a God of love in Islam. I’m really not sure what their God is? But I am quite certain it is not the God of the Torah or the God of Jesus.
Yes! I do agree with you that the Koran is a human text.
Muslims CLAIM all sorts of things, but that doesn’t make them true. How I think the Koran was composed is slightly irrelevant. I do believe in its foundation stories about Muhammad in the cave, I believe Muslims believing in the Koran, must also believe this. However, the unfolding of the religion of Islam over many years, came about in a political fashion. Hence, humans combined historical texts with what Muhammad spoke of from his “angel” to produce their text called the Koran. A combination of demonic possession and political will to usurp the power of the Jews and Christians by subverting their texts.My comments about insulting Jews and Christians by comparing them to Muslims was a weak attempt to illustrate my point which was that Judaism, the Torah, was revealed by God, Jesus attests to the prophesies of the Jews. However, Islam has NO BEARING on God’s unfolding revelation. It is merely a cult that sprange up, false prophets, to lead people away from God. Judaism and Christianity do not depend on Islam for anything! Its completely irrelevant and of no significance. Jews do not worship a false god, to claim that would be to totally negate Jesus and Christianity. However, like I said, Islam contributes nothing to Judaism or Christianity.
Judaism rests on the Torah. Everything that Christians also hold to be true, but which was surpassed by Jesus’s coming.
Jews DO worship God the Father, as he revealled himself all throughout history. Where they differ from Christians is in the Messiah. Muslims, on the other hand, are NOT Jews. They are a cult, the cult of Muhammad, who borrowed heavily from the bible in order to gain legitimacy for their political agenda.
C
Contarini
Guest
And garbled versions of the true revelation given to the ancient Hebrews and consummated in Jesus. That gives me two strings to my argument: first of all, I’m unwilling to say that any people who believe in a single ultimate being who created the world worship a “different god”; and in the second place Islam clearly rests on true revelation, although Muhammad (and/or whoever else contributed to the Qur’an) seems to have had a very fuzzy grasp of the Biblical story, let alone the theological fine points of Christianity.
I agree there is one God. I disagree that the Koran speaks of this God and that Muslims know this God in any real and meaningful way outside of vain imaginings attached to a belief is a supreme creator.
If you really thought that, I’d hope that you would try to change your opinion. Charity is non-negotiable. I suspect that you’re using the word “charitable” loosely and sloppily, in the way modern people tend to use it, to mean something like “nice and tolerant.” That is irrelevant. Charity is not, and justice is not either. Your opinion is not necessarily uncharitable–there’s nothing uncharitable about saying hard truths. But it’s not very defensible logically, and it may be that your willingness to jump at an illogical conclusion that reflects badly on your fellow-humans is uncharitable. That’s not something I can judge, though.
Depends on how you would distinguish love from the compassion and mercy so incessantly ascribed to God in Islam. And certainly the Sufi tradition (which for centuries was at the heart of Islamic piety) emphasizes God’s love.
I tend to think that he had some kind of religious experience in the cave also. Whether that was a purely psychological experience, or a demonic illusion, or some kind of true revelation of God which he misunderstood in large measure, I don’t know, though I would lean toward the first option and would be most skeptical about the third (except in the highly qualified sense that any truth always comes from God.)Yes! I do agree with you that the Koran is a human text.
Too cynical. Anyway, my point was that Islamic ideas clearly come in large measure from Judaism and Christianity and not (as Muslims claim) from some direct, unmediated divine (or demonic, as you imply) revelation. Therefore, your argument fails. Islam does rest largely on divine revelation, even though that revelation has been twisted and misunderstood to a great extent.
Yes, but Christians have not traditionally been very kind to the rabbinic traditions that feature largely in the religion we now call Judaism. I think that the traditional attitude was far too harsh. But the picture isn’t as simple as you imply.
Or it is the result of a devout (though deeply flawed) man with a very hazy knowledge of Biblical religion setting himself up as a prophet (no doubt on the basis of what he found to be a very convincing religious experience) in order to bring his fellow Arabs to the worship of the true God without the humiliation of conversion to either Judaism or Christianity. It didn’t lead polytheists “away from God.” They didn’t worship the one God in the first place. (Though I know that some scholars argue that Islam was always primarily directed against Judaism and Christianity and the setting in a polytheistic context is ahistorical.)
Which includes both the written Torah, which we recognize, and the oral Torah, which we do not.
But by giving this so little importance you’re completely back-tracking on your earlier argument, which was that anyone who doesn’t worship Jesus doesn’t worship the true God.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
It seems pretty obvious, if you think truth is better than falsehood.
Apples and oranges. Monotheism is better than polytheism, and compassion is better than violence and cruelty. They are two separate scales. It’s like saying “a gentle adulterer is better than a cruel and violent fornicator, so adultery is not really worse than fornication.”
Why would you have ever believed such a bizarre thing? I know that fundamentalist Protestants think this, and have thought for years that this showed the spiritual bankruptcy of fundamentalist Protestantism!
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Unless he is a Canaanite, in which case you are to slaughter him or her even if he is an infant (a bloodthirsty teaching found nowhere in the Qur’an), or unless he is a male citizen of a city within the divinely ordained boundaries of Israel that refuses to surrender (closer to the most hardline interpretation of the Qur’an).
No, it doesn’t. Not without heavy qualification.
Edwin
W
Writer
Guest
Here’s a suggestion for a Catholic taking exception to the CCC. When we were preparing to cross the Tiber, our family had concerns about some things we read, too. Did we jump up and down and declare heresy? Nope. We assumed it was right, then we endeavored to try to understand those issues in more depth. It worked for us, and I’d suggest a little humility before you jump on the Catechism with both feet.
- Status