CCC on Muslims

[DasErlibnis]

My premise is that the CCC is correct to say that the Moslems worship the same God as Christians, and Jews. The God of Abraham.

The Jewish attitude to Jesus is further from the Christian attitude, as I have demonstrated.

Hence we can see the the Moslem God is closer to the Christian God than the Jewish God.

Since everyone seems to agree the Jews and Christians worship the same God, therefore the Moslems also worship the same God. QED.

Ok. Putting feathers on your head doesn’t make you a chicken. And calling the Muslim moon god, Allah, and claiming that his moon god was actually the God of Abraham doesn’t make it so. It’s usurping, put it in a working vocabulary.

And the next time I want to learn what Christianity really says, I shall go to a Moslem website or an Atheist website. To put it politely, your sources here are biased, very obviously biased. They seem to on about the level of the “Catholics are cannibals” sites that you sometimes find.

Here’s a biased source: The Koran. Nothing is so skewed like that book. But yeah, I am OF COURSE biased as well! And happily so. I do not mean to be objective, I mean to correct erroneous thinking. Motive.

And no, you have not adequately demonstrated that Islam is closer than Judaism to Christianity. Christianity is as different to Islam as the Sun is to the Moon. Pun intended.

But Christianity isn’t just a form of Judaism, it is the fullness of Judaism. We are not trying to make Jews see their God as more like ours, we are saying that we have sprung from their loin, we are their fruit, and we have no basis or formation or confusion with other gods or religions. We conform ourselves as Christians to their God of Judah.

So, regarding the Jews, the question isn’t, is their god like ours? The question is, is our God like theirs?

 

[DasErlibnis]

Das is espousing mohammedan doctrine from their perspective.

muslims reject Jesus as the Messiah (though they often ascribe the title for apparently no reason or without understanding of its implication) for entirely different reasons, which Das explained.

He didn’t espouse anything non-muslim.

It’s my reading of the Surah’s that the Mohammedans are careful to note that “the” messiah is not to be expected, but that Jesus was “a” messiah, and that there are many. This they extract from the meaning of the word: annointed one. Many were annointed, according to the Surahs.

This would be another way that they differ from Christians and Jews. Jews were waiting for “the” messiah, and Christians found in Christ “the” messiah. To this, Islam says, “no matter, there are many”…

Does that sound about right?

 

[jonbhorton]

That is as I understand their position. The wacky dichotomy of their portrayal and understanding of Jesus as the Messiah, is what takes away credibility from the term itself, whether or not they correctly define it from the Judeo-Aramaic perspective of literal definition. It’s pretty tantamount to the same thing they do with Allah as a name and title, its historical precedent, and the God of Abraham.

It’s all built on mohammed’s personal revelations from what was either epileptic episodes producing hallucinations, or satanic influence, or both being utilized. That he had a working knowledge of certain terms, and mainly had incorrect knowledge on what they meant due to the heretical sects he was exposed to, is actually damning of his credibility. It allowed him to weave a tale so stupid it’s obvious, and needs no alternative angle of attack but frontal. Also, his understanding of Jesus is skewed by the many Jews he had interaction with. People tend to clump all these ideas together, forgetting the chronology. This was over 500 years after the Council of Jamnia, lies had fomented and spread, stories conflicted, temple was destroyed, Judaism had lost everything that the man made portion consisted of. In short, they had to start over from square one. Again. And they’re being told that God let it happen, but the people they have come to either hate or begrudgingly get along with, are the ones they have to go to, to learn how to be real Jews in the age of the Church’s infancy.

Mohammed further has to engage these people, understanding the basics of their quarrels, and he has to somehow get the pagans on his side as well. All of this, because his only shot at being something other than a town joke, was to be a prophet. For profit.

His chronology is off and the product of confusing similar Biblical names; he puts forth claims which absolutely do not stand the test of archaeology and future finds, whereas, the Bible does, and at a level so consistently embarrassing for naysayers that it seems they have all but given up on that endeavor. Now, their goal seems to be making the Bible a really cute historical account, based on faulty logic of early tribal peoples. This is via organizations such as “The Jesus Seminar”, and the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA, who publish translations which rehash foundation for heretical doctrine- arianism, gnosticism, etc.

The koran, however, just remains this thing which fell in mohammed’s lap over a period of years, and is still corrupted and incomplete according to any honest muslim scholar. There is no equivalent for the koran to the Dead Sea Scrolls, at least as of yet. It doesn’t even get attacked as false based on natural evidence most of the time. It’s too dang good at providing all the material for attack one needs, by conflicting with itself and the life of mohammed as an example ad nauseum. It’s treated as the lie it is. Whereas the Bible is twisted and deracinated from the ability to put forth the evidence as it exists within its pages and below our feet. Why? Because the Bible is truth. Lies are allowed to subsist as they are and be attacked based on the falsity itself. But truth must be twisted.

No one has to twist the words and life of mohammed to prove it false insofar as divine nature of any degree. He fails miserably on his own.

When we compare falsity to something true, we have to make sure we fully believe and understand that thing in many regards. This requires education beyond what feels good, certainly. It does require taking on a doctrine of the Church, in faith it is correct.

My main joy in this entire discussion has not been learning the continually mounting evidence against mohammedanism, but rather, how much more true is the Catholic Church and the real teachings of Jesus Christ and the Apostles.

If anyone’s faith has been challenged to a degree of detriment by this thread, I’d entreat them to strive all the more for what is truth, and not the feel good perception of it.

The bottom line remains, Christianity is attacked in a manner which exposes it as true. Mohammedanism is merely shown for what it is, verbatim, per its own texts and accounts. Not to even mention its true fundamental fruits.

Any counter against Christianity in the same is easily shown to be historical misunderstanding of the truth i.e. the Crusades, etc.

Mohammedanism must continually reinvent itself at the cultural whims of its hosts, until it reveals its true nature and takes over with force or mere tacit war for the population and thus influence- threatening force (we see this in the UK and France, Germany to a degree with the Turks, etc).

Christianity has only ever really been conquered in a region from allowance of malignant forces within, but it has always come back around and has always remained stronger, if fewer in number.

 

[jonbhorton]

Even worse for mohammedanism, much like Protestantism, it has no central leadership, and it strives for this. Its effort to affect such conditions can, and might, lead to world war. With no central leadership, there is no real definable islamic doctrine outside of the hadith, which can be questionable, and the koran. The interesting thing about the leadership issue, is as many know, the shi’a/sunni split was over leadership since mohammed didn’t leave a male heir. If I had to compare islamic sects, I’d say shia islam is more like the RCC and sunni is more like Protestants with degrees of piety varying within the sunni. It’s pretty impossible to be a practicing shi’a muslim and not appear pious. But I’m sure there are shi’a who are not devoted, though I’d probably assume them as non-practicing.

Because of the chaos of mohammedanism, it’s a powder keg waiting to explode. Actual, doctrinal Christianity, to me, seems like it’s waiting to be crushed until only the devout remain. Socially, we are basically at this point. It’s almost impossible to be a member of society and not be in danger of extreme amounts of either outright mortal sin, or culpability in its committing. It seems, to me, that somehow traditionally minded Christians and truly religious Jews will be made a scapegoat in this century, or the next depending on how fast trends develop. It seems, to me, that the political nature of islam, being largely marxist with fascist tendencies in many regards to its pure implementation, meshes quite well with this effort.

I can only conclude that islam’s history of violence and subjugation of Christians and Jews is satanic in nature as it is not only anti-Christ as Jesus Christ was, is, and always will be, but it’s hostile to Jews as well. That it condemns pagans and appears staunchly moral belies its true nature. As controlled by satanic/demonic influence, it either converts people away from Christ and the Church, away from true God, or it drives them away from religion and monotheism entirely. It is, I believe, on one side of the coin which the Devil has flipped. The other side, blatant hedonistic humanism- but with rules, dang it!

Christianity doesn’t really accomplish anything by sending people away from it into sinful life. Nor does it accomplish anything with the competing doctrine of islam being kowtowed to, and made to appear legitimate in any manner, shape or form.

Mohammedanism, if anything, operates on a global scale with the mindset of “let them corrupt themselves, and then we shall provide them a singular point of worship, which they crave.” Christianity operates on a model of “We need to get to these people and inform them of the Gospel and all the necessities of salvation NOW”.

Islamic claims are ridiculous, spurious, laughable, and overall devoid of all critical exploration outside of circular reasoning. Its own founding “prophet” killed those who spoke against him, as do his followers today. Those who spoke against Jesus were either left to themselves or converted through either miracles or otherwise arriving at the conclusion of His Divine nature.

Christianity was spread by the Apostles, and early missionaries who went forth from those lands. Never once was Catholicism specifically spread by the sword. Defended? Much. Spread? No. Any endeavor labeled against the Church is often found to be more a civil affair in historical truth. Mohammedanism, however, spread chiefly by the sword, including its founder’s. Mohammedanism has spread so much by the sword, that the name of the sword of Ali, Mo’s son in law, is given as an actual name to muslim boys- Zulfiqar. The name means “bifurcated” because the end of Ali’s sword was forked, like a serpent’s tongue. A Pakistani man in my Arabic class had this name.

To insinuate that its profession of the God of Abraham, via Allah, is the same thing as actually worshiping said God, is just false when compared to the evidence of it as it is.

That it contains stolen elements of truth, masked and wrapped up in all sorts of garbage, who could deny this? But those truths do not belong to it anyway. Those truths must be explored in their proper context. That context is the Catholic church.

I believe this is where the confusion comes from. Perhaps the Church is really just recognizing elements of truth, without saying the thing containing these truths, is true.

It’s semantics really. Semantics that this day and age really can’t afford. Such a statement is probably best worded at the 8th grade level with attached notes about the expounded idea.