Catholic Considering Islam

[inJESUS]

Who hates Paul? im just saying he changed most of the things Jesus teached,without him christianity would not be the same.A former enemy becomes suddenly your “friend”,but then changes everything you preached? isnt that weird??

what is weird is that a man 600 years after Jesus comes and changes most of what the prophets talked about for thousands of years, giving himself sexual and financial priviledges no other prophet had, but what is weirder is that you talk about Paul when am sure you have no clue what he preached about and if we were to compare the life of Muhammad to that of Paul we will clearly see who followed Jesus and who spent his days jumping from one bed to another, from one wife to another wife to another “right hand possession”,to even the bed of his adopted son’s wife, to killing and beheading and attacking to spread his ideology yet you come telling us that Paul was a bad example and Muhammad was the ideal to follow…this is not ironic, this is pittiful to say the least that people call good evil and evil good.

 

[AdrianP]

Galatians 1:8 might deal with Mormonism, Islam
8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Read you Bible, yourself, and look what is in it.Khalil was forced to read Bible to show Christians errors. he read it and found Quran errors and become Christian. He get closer and has to get closer to a Christian Church with 7 Mysteries like Catholic or Orthodox Church.
Part 1
youtube.com/watch?v=90ozM2DmkaQ&NR=1
Part 2
youtube.com/watch?v=bt18EElho18&NR=1
Part 3
youtube.com/watch?v=yS6GzsLWih0&NR=1

I’m not agreeing with everything movie said.

WE PEOPLE ARE ON THE SAME SIDE OF FINDING TRUTH AND GETTING HOME TO HEAVEN. THERE IS NO NEED FOR WAR.

 

[bosnian_muslim]

what is weird is that a man 600 years after Jesus comes and changes most of what the prophets talked about for thousands of years, giving himself sexual and financial priviledges no other prophet had, but what is weirder is that you talk about Paul when am sure you have no clue what he preached about and if we were to compare the life of Muhammad to that of Paul we will clearly see who followed Jesus and who spent his days jumping from one bed to another, from one wife to another wife to another “right hand possession”,to even the bed of his adopted son’s wife, to killing and beheading and attacking to spread his ideology yet you come telling us that Paul was a bad example and Muhammad was the ideal to follow…this is not ironic, this is pittiful to say the least that people call good evil and evil good.

 

[bosnian_muslim]

No, the point would be that not only have Christians been guilty of the kind of behavior of which we accuse Muslims, but some (fortunately only a very few, but disproportionately represented on this forum) still defend that behavior, while hypocritically condemning Islam.

Edwin

we europeans say “americans are not that smart” and if he is american,then we are right,are we?

i know many catholics and most are way more tolerant…but then again,maybe its because they are from Europe and this forum is mainly american(americans are known to be fundamentalist)

 

[bosnian_muslim]

if you are so smart tell us the name of that “ruler”

 

[sedonaman]

No, the point would be that not only have Christians been guilty of the kind of behavior of which we accuse Muslims, but some (fortunately only a very few, but disproportionately represented on this forum) still defend that behavior, while hypocritically condemning Islam.

Edwin

You are the one always demanding proof; now you come to the defense of someone using logical fallacies. The discussion was centered around,
"‘No compulsion’ in one part, and ‘fight them, among the people of the book, until there is no more strife and all religion is for Allah’ in another part. We know which model of inter-faith relations has been followed throughout much of Islamic history, and it is not the ‘no compulsion’ one, unfortunately.”
Bosnian_muslim in post # 373 dragged a red herring across the discussion by saying, “You as a catholic can not talk about history, what happened to the Muslims of Spain? who saved the jews of Spain?” Then in # 379 he said,

im talking about BOSNIA

What does the political situation of medieval Spain have to do with the meaning of ‘No compulsion’ and ‘fight them, among the people of the book, until there is no more strife and all religion is for Allah’ or Bosnia today? Nothing. No thing. That’s why I asked what makes Muslims today think they are entitled to Spain. We can pull that thread. If they claim it by right of conquest, then the Spaniards are entitled to now it for the same reason. The conquered rise up and throw out their conquerors, and the descendants of the conquered are “hypocrites” for siding with their ancestors; meanwhile, it’s OK for Islam to deny others what it demands for itself because somehow, by some divine decree, the natural state of affairs is that once land comes under Islamic rule, it is perpetually Islamic, even if the infidel re-takes it. Talk about hypocrisy.

 

[bosnian_muslim]

dont use my qoutes just like that since you have no idea in what context i said all those things,i was talking with 2-3 members about different things…so please read the thread or dont comment it at all

 

[bosnian_muslim]

it is for sedonaman not you

many areas were orthodox but bosnia was not part of it,Bosnia was mainly bogomil

 

[birdsong]

Excellent rebuttal Sedonman.

Do you remember what we discussed regarding red-herrings and strawman? As you just saw, mental midgets who fancy themselves as world-class scholars will pull any trick in the book just to confuse, obfuscate and derail the subject of discussion in order to apologise for terrorists and jihadists.

So according to this guy Contarini, just because Christians/the Church might (might!) have been wrong in some of their deeds a looooooong time ago, we Catholics/Christians are not supposed to denounce and criticise the canonised teachings and rulings upon which jihadists base their murderous actions?

what kind of logic is that?

Shame on the useful idiots who enable the terrorists!

You are the one always demanding proof; now you come to the defense of someone using logical fallacies. The discussion was centered around,
"‘No compulsion’ in one part, and ‘fight them, among the people of the book, until there is no more strife and all religion is for Allah’ in another part. We know which model of inter-faith relations has been followed throughout much of Islamic history, and it is not the ‘no compulsion’ one, unfortunately.”
Bosnian_muslim in post # 373 dragged a red herring across the discussion by saying, “You as a catholic can not talk about history, what happened to the Muslims of Spain? who saved the jews of Spain?” Then in # 379 he said,
What does the political situation of medieval Spain have to do with the meaning of ‘No compulsion’ and ‘fight them, among the people of the book, until there is no more strife and all religion is for Allah’ or Bosnia today? Nothing. No thing. That’s why I asked what makes Muslims today think they are entitled to Spain. We can pull that thread. If they claim it by right of conquest, then the Spaniards are entitled to now it for the same reason. The conquered rise up and throw out their conquerors, and the descendants of the conquered are “hypocrites” for siding with their ancestors; meanwhile, it’s OK for Islam to deny others what it demands for itself because somehow, by some divine decree, the natural state of affairs is that once land comes under Islamic rule, it is perpetually Islamic, even if the infidel re-takes it. Talk about hypocrisy.

 

[PJM]

=IrishDude45-I have a feeling that this thread is going disintegrate into a fury of arguments and harsh words but I pray not…

I became Catholic in 2007 after a year of RCIA. I have struggled to be the best Catholic I could be, I studied theology like crazy, I went to Mass, and I followed God.

I have to say that I am impressed with Islam, very very impressed. The Qur’an is like a beautiful ray of light. Muhammad (pbuh) is a wonderful example. The Muslims I know follow Christ’s example better than most Catholics, they are more peaceful and loving than I thought possible.pax vobiscum
Irish

***Why friend?

Do you like the way they dress and treat women?

Please excuse the stupidity of my question, but you’re considering giving up Jesus Christ Himself, Really, Truly and Substanually Present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, for a faith that does not recogonize God, much less Jesus as God.

Friend, what the heck are you thinking:shrug: ***

Love and prayers,

 

[jpaul1953]

**jpaul, that is true. The christian missionaries were well trained and active. They sacrificed their time and money in cause of preaching. Church had good management. They spread all over the world in a planned way. Their effort was rewarded, no doubt. They gained many converts.

But we need to know the truth about our religion and your religion. We have no animosity against Catholics. Let every one learn the matters of others faith freely without prejudice, without hatred and without abuse.**

*Hey Planten,

You have always been kind and thoughtful with your responses, just like now. Thank you for your humanity.

jpaul1953*

 

[DeusVult09]

Mohammed is a prophet,Paul was supposed to be Jesus follower not a new prophet with a new religion.but thats what he became after he changed like 90% of the religion.He allowed the forbidden things,made up his own rules etc etc

where’s your evidence that Paul changed 90% of the religion ? all he did was say that gentile converts should not have to follow the law because they under the grace of Jesus Christ. He did not allow forbidden things he said that gentiles were under grace not the law as he thought that the law will not save people only Christ can.

If you are going to make the accusation that Paul invented Christianity I am going to have to see some solid proof not such ramblings found on anti-Christian Islamic sites. Just show me 1 verse in his epistles where he states any such thing. 1 verse and also explain to me why he was martyred if Christianity was just some big farce he invented?

Then Muslims say that the NT doesn’t contain the words of Jesus because its in Greek not Aramaic or Hebrew. Well I could argue that Mohammad invented Islam because he never met any of the prophets he preached about and his koran has them speaking in qurashi Arabic a language they never spoke either.

AND please,the fact that Koran was written 600 years after Mohammed is nonsene,the first Koran has been written a few years after the prophets death by khaliph Omar(one of his 4 followers,he lived with Mohamed most of his life)…the copy of that Koran still exists in the turkish museum.

I never said that I said that the koran was written 600 years after jesus also by a man who never met jesus unless you count his mystical experience during the miraj which is fine mohamamd met all the prophets then but if you do then if you reject paul’s mystical experience of meeting paul on the Damascus road then that is pure hypocrisy.

thats a silly question,its like asking why dont the serbs leave orthodoxy now after all the things the soldiers did in the name of orthodoxy?

no its not a silly question my point was you cannot judge all of Christianity by the actions of some Serb nationalists who’s actions have nothing to do with the teachings of Christianity. If so then am I to judge all Muslims and Islam by the actions of terrorists or the genocide in Sudan? That is hypocrisy sir.

My point was the Turks as you will know perpetrated many horrid acts during their conquest and subjugation of our people yet that doesn’t stop you from following Islam so the actions of those Serbs who committed genocide should not stop you or any Bosnians from following Christianity .

ok,so what do you say about this…
you are a traitor because you are a catholic and we know you guys used to be pagan before,just like the whole world…lets just return to paganism if we are gonna follow your logic?

1st Croatians all hate the church and now im a pagan traitor. Wow you are just so amiable. 1st off before the southern slavs were converted to Christianity they were all pagan. That includes you Bosnians too. You must be a pagan traitor too then?

Hell even Mohammad was a pagan before his alleged prophethood is he a pagan traitor too? My point was that people have the freedom to decide for themselves which religion they follow and it is pointless hating them , calling them traitors for making a decision you don’t like. That is my logic not this garbage.

 

[DeusVult09]

maronite,jacobite,…what else is there? i just know he was a christian monk

catholic? they dont follow the Vatican,so i assumed they were orthodox

One part of Koran is universal,the other was a guide to the muslims during the prophets time.There were different kinds of situations that led to different kind of solutions.The universal is that there is no compulsion in religion,or as prophet once said after hearing that some muslims attacked a church “i will rebuild it my self”.You as a catholic can not talk about history,what happened to the muslims of Spain? who saved the jews of Spain?

Now your complaining about catholic history this is pure hypocrisy on your part in my opinion as your history is no better. The Muslims in Spain massacred many Jews what your stating is common ahistorical propaganda propagated by Islamic apologists. Here’s proof in 1011, 400 Jews were killed by Muslim mobs in Granada, in 1033 the moors massacred 6 thousand Jews in fez Morocco, 1066 the moors massacred 4 thousand Jews in Cordoba, in 1465 Muslim mobs rioted again in fez morocco murdering thousands of Jews and leaving only 11 alive. So please don’t complain to me about the Spanish inquisition or tell me how well the moors treated the Jews because the Muslims were just as bad . What you were saying is a pure lie. Hell 1 Muslim dynasty the Almohad’s even said that all Jews had to convert or be expelled just like during the Spanish inquisition so as far as I am concerned you cannot complain about it.

What happened to the Assyrian Christians of northern Iraq? 100,000 of them (at least) were killed by the Islamic warlord tamerlane founder of the timurid dynasy. Well you cant expect much from a man who killed 17 million people can you?

You cannot complain about catholic history at all as far as I am concerned as your own is no better.

 

[Hadi]

What happened to the Assyrian Christians of northern Iraq? 100,000 of them (at least) were killed by the Islamic warlord tamerlane founder of the timurid dynasy. Well you cant expect much from a man who killed 17 million people can you?

.

This man was not Muslim,he killed more Muslims than anyone else.

 

[Hadi]

What happened to the Assyrian Christians of northern Iraq? 100,000 of them (at least) were killed by the Islamic warlord tamerlane founder of the timurid dynasy. Well you cant expect much from a man who killed 17 million people can you?
.

and how many Muslims are included in the 17 million killed.

 

[planten]

Originally Posted by sedonaman
You are the one always demanding proof; now you come to the defense of someone using logical fallacies. The discussion was centered around,
"‘No compulsion’ in one part, and ‘fight them, among the people of the book, until there is no more strife and all religion is for Allah’ in another part. We know which model of inter-faith relations has been followed throughout much of Islamic history, and it is not the ‘no compulsion’ one, unfortunately.”

**There is not true because of misunderstanding the meaning of Quran.

There is “No Compulsion in religion.” Quran 2:256. That is true
But there are always people who do not allow free conversions ( like some Muslims are doing today). They are wrong. Such people always existed.

The other verse which says “Fight them” is also true, against those who compel people for the sake of their religion. They oppress and persecute people. It is necessary (obligatory) for the Muslims to fight such bigots who oppress and compell people.

Islam would go to war to establish “No compulsion.”
I hope the matter is understood now. There is no contradiction. Otherwise it is not allowed to kill any one or fight any one who ever he may be unless he commits some crime.

Please know that the present day Muslims are far from knowing the real meaning (message) of the Quran in these days.**

 

[Cecilianus]

catholic? they dont follow the Vatican,so i assumed they were orthodox

I’m frankly bewildered by this statement. Not only are the Maronites fully Catholic - and have never had an Orthodox counterpart - but of all the Eastern churches they probably have the closest ties to Rome, ties cemented during the Crusades.

 

[Cecilianus]

**There is not true because of misunderstanding the meaning of Quran.

There is “No Compulsion in religion.” Quran 2:256. That is true
But there are always people who do not allow free conversions ( like some Muslims are doing today). They are wrong. Such people always existed.

The other verse which says “Fight them” is also true, against those who compel people for the sake of their religion. They oppress and persecute people. It is necessary (obligatory) for the Muslims to fight such bigots who oppress and compell people.

Islam would go to war to establish “No compulsion.”
I hope the matter is understood now. There is no contradiction. Otherwise it is not allowed to kill any one or fight any one who ever he may be unless he commits some crime.

Please know that the present day Muslims are far from knowing the real meaning (message) of the Quran in these days.**

The verse which states “fight them” refers to fighting against those who oppress Islam (including those who oppress Islam through spiritual or intellectual means - though why this requires a physical response is not clear to me). At the time the verse was written, there were no Muslim states, and no leader imposing Islam by force, so the verse cannot have originally been meant to apply to them.

 

[dzheremi]

maronite,jacobite,…what else is there? i just know he was a christian monk

It does make a difference. Assuming he is not imaginary, there should be some accounting for this. The idea that he was a Maronite seems less likely. Jacobite, perhaps (I have read some Orthodox anti-Catholic writings that claim that the Maronites were Jacobites before the union with Rome…I have no idea how true that is). Point being, no monk of any orthodox form of Christianity would ever accept Muhammad’s supposed prophethood.

catholic? they dont follow the Vatican,so i assumed they were orthodox

This is certainly news to them!

One part of Koran is universal,the other was a guide to the muslims during the prophets time.There were different kinds of situations that led to different kind of solutions.The universal is that there is no compulsion in religion,or as prophet once said after hearing that some muslims attacked a church “i will rebuild it my self”.

An interesting idea. You would think a church rebuilt with Muhammad’s own hands would stand today, as every available evidence of the man’s life is so highly prized by Muslims.

You as a catholic can not talk about history,what happened to the muslims of Spain? who saved the jews of Spain?

They were sent packing, and those were the lucky ones. Unlike many Muslims, I can be honest about the history of my religion. As far as I’ve studied it, I can’t say I agree with things like the Inquisition, but I certainly likewise will not apologize for the Reconquista (which is, of course, a different event). It hurts to lose things, I know, but this is one example of a reversal of fortune among how many successes that were themselves brutal and resulted in tremendous loss of life and hardship for the conquered? And I don’t exactly see you crying over the loss of life, property and all the rest at the hands of the Muslims anywhere else in the world. Basically, Muslims have this ONE defeat (which, lest anyone think I am of any other opinion, they did deserve), being exiled from a land that they had taken using similarly brutal tactics in the first place, and they milk it and complain to the ends of the earth looking for sympathy. I don’t know what to say other than that it hurts to be on the receiving end of the same sort of viciousness displayed towards the kuffar in other situations. If your style of argumentation is any indication, Bosnian Muslim, it would seem that Muslims have learned nothing from it other than how to manipulate history so as to bolster their already incredibly inflated sense of victimhood.

The Jews of Spain fled to many places, including North Africa. I know some Spanish-speaking Moroccans from Tetuan, actually. Nice guys. Don’t know if they’re Jews or what. Anyway, what’s your point?

 

[Cecilianus]

It does make a difference. Assuming he is not imaginary, there should be some accounting for this. The idea that he was a Maronite seems less likely. Jacobite, perhaps (I have read some Orthodox anti-Catholic writings that claim that the Maronites were Jacobites before the union with Rome…I have no idea how true that is). Point being, no monk of any orthodox form of Christianity would ever accept Muhammad’s supposed prophethood.

The story goes they were Monothelites. If they were, they never realized that they had drifted to anything different than the orthodoxy of the rest of the Church, because by the time the Crusades rolled around they thought they were Catholics. They have always been in full union with Rome.

On the other hand, it is logically possible that they could have fallen into heresy and been separated from visible communion with the Church (though the latter never happened) and then simply forgot about it centuries later. That happened with the entire Nestorian Church in the 13th century, when contact was re-established with Rome - neither Pope Nicholas nor Mar Yabh al-Allaha seemed to be all that aware that each other existed, much less in schism from each other. Al-Allaha celebrated his Liturgy for, and received the pallium from, the Pope, effecting ending the schism. (It was re-established several centuries later - 17th c. I think - over a dispute between two contendants to the office of Catholicos, and they appealed to the Pope; the loser was a little less than willing to actually accept the Pope’s judgment, however.)

Just an episode I find interesting and share wherever barely relevant, since Al-Allaha was sent to Western Europe on a diplomatic mission by Kublai Khan who therefore takes the credit for ending a huge schism.