Do Muslims and Catholics worship the same God?

[FrDavid96]

The satanic bible means another God, right from the start and if “they” claimed to worship the God of Abraham then you would conclude there is one God. Same argument.

You’re talking nonsense.

Even more non-sensical than your previous posts.

Your arguments are fallacious; plain and simple. You are confusing 2 different issues, no matter how much you try to justify why you do it.

Among people who actually know what they are talking about, there is absolutely no question that Christians and Moslems worship the same God–the God of Abraham. The Catholic Church states this repeatedly in the Church’s teachings.

You are trying to argue that 2 + 2 = blue.

 

[dzheremi]

For everyone’s consideration, the idea that we should separate what Muslims believe about God from the identity of who or what they worship (how I’m reading Fr. David’s posts) can also be employed to make the point that we cannot consider Muslims’ God as somehow being the same as ours by virtue of there being one God only. When I asked an Orthodox priest about this matter some time ago (probably the last time we had a thread on this subject here), his reply followed Fr. David’s in some ways, but led to the opposite conclusion. To the best of my recollection, it went something like this:

If I am praised or vilified based on false ideas of who I am, I cannot take either to heart since they do not actually describe me, but rather what people believe about me. And, particularly as concerns Christ, who is God, if even after having corrected false conceptions about me, people show up at some later date to claim things about me which I never myself said, usurping my authority and taking my name to do so, then not only are they not describing me, but if they build their system of worship around such falsehood, they aren’t worshiping me, either. (I know that Muslims already don’t worship Christ…please stick with the analogy…)

So, at least from an Orthodox perspective, the idea seems to be that, as it is possible to build false idols and worship them (see: much of the OT), and that this most definitely involves people making decisions about what they believe and how they will worship based on that belief, it is not so much that people’s ideas about who they worship can change who God actually is and “create another God”, but rather explicitly that they can’t do that. We both agree (Catholics and Orthodox) that there is only one God and no one can make another (recall 1 Corin. 10 or Psalm 96:5).

In other words, Muslims worship a different god than the God of the Christians not because there are actually two different gods in the first place, but because they do not worship God at all. (Note to mods: I am well aware of how this contradicts RCC teaching and don’t intend to present it as though the RCC should not be free to teach whatever it wants about whatever it wants…I just think it’s interesting how very similar arguments about belief can be summed up in essentially the same way but lead to opposite conclusions.)

 

[FrDavid96]

For everyone’s consideration, the idea that we should separate what Muslims believe about God from the identity of who or what they worship (how I’m reading Fr. David’s posts) can also be employed to make the point that we cannot consider Muslims’ God as somehow being the same as ours by virtue of there being one God only. When I asked an Orthodox priest about this matter some time ago (probably the last time we had a thread on this subject here), his reply followed Fr. David’s in some ways, but led to the opposite conclusion. To the best of my recollection, it went something like this:

If I am praised or vilified based on false ideas of who I am, I cannot take either to heart since they do not actually describe me, but rather what people believe about me. And, particularly as concerns Christ, who is God, if even after having corrected false conceptions about me, people show up at some later date to claim things about me which I never myself said, usurping my authority and taking my name to do so, then not only are they not describing me, but if they build their system of worship around such falsehood, they aren’t worshiping me, either. (I know that Muslims already don’t worship Christ…please stick with the analogy…)

So, at least from an Orthodox perspective, the idea seems to be that, as it is possible to build false idols and worship them (see: much of the OT), and that this most definitely involves people making decisions about what they believe and how they will worship based on that belief, it is not so much that people’s ideas about who they worship can change who God actually is and “create another God”, but rather explicitly that they can’t do that. We both agree (Catholics and Orthodox) that there is only one God and no one can make another (recall 1 Corin. 10 or Psalm 96:5).

In other words, Muslims worship a different god than the God of the Christians not because there are actually two different gods in the first place, but because they do not worship God at all. (Note to mods: I am well aware of how this contradicts RCC teaching and don’t intend to present it as though the RCC should not be free to teach whatever it wants about whatever it wants…I just think it’s interesting how very similar arguments about belief can be summed up in essentially the same way but lead to opposite conclusions.)

All you’ve done is to draw a -]big/-] circle.

 

[dzheremi]

Not really. I think it’s more of a line: On the right side is God in the uncreated and undivided Holy Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, to whom is worship and glory forever. On the left side is everything else, which is not God and not Christianity.

 

[FrDavid96]

Not really. I think it’s more of a line: One the right side is God in the uncreated and undivided Holy Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, to whom is worship and glory forever. On the left side is everything else, which is not God and not Christianity.

You say this:

Given: Since Moslems worship a false god, they worship falsely.
Therefore: Since Moslems worship falsely, their god is false.

That’s a very accurate summation of your “reasoning.”

I regret calling it a “big” circle. It’s a rather tiny one.

 

[dzheremi]

You say this:

Given: Since Moslems worship a false god, they worship falsely.
Therefore: Since Moslems worship falsely, their god is false.

That’s a very accurate summation of your “reasoning.”

I regret calling it a “big” circle. It’s a rather tiny one.

Can you not disagree without being rude? Since I apparently am not allowed to ignore you since you are a moderator/admin, can you please cut it out with the “scare quotes” and snark unbecoming of a priest? My post was for EVERYONE’S consideration (as I specified) since there are a wide variety of views on this subject. You don’t like mine? Feel free to ignore my posts rather than insult me for disagreeing with you.

As to the substance of your reply, thank God I am Orthodox. Out of respect for where I am posting, that is all I will say.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The only circle is insisting on imposing these semantics. This circle of semantics helps how? In fact the only difference is V-II emphasized common ground rather than difference in this regard.

This circle starts with a doctrine straight out of the lake of fire. And it returns to the same point, that is the only real circle. Within this very real and large circle in another circle of those who may find salvation through Gods mercy. This small circle is the common denominator the Church focused on to emphasize common ground.

And the conversation is now circular so I shall bow out.

Peace

 

[meltzerboy]

For everyone’s consideration, the idea that we should separate what Muslims believe about God from the identity of who or what they worship (how I’m reading Fr. David’s posts) can also be employed to make the point that we cannot consider Muslims’ God as somehow being the same as ours by virtue of there being one God only. When I asked an Orthodox priest about this matter some time ago (probably the last time we had a thread on this subject here), his reply followed Fr. David’s in some ways, but led to the opposite conclusion. To the best of my recollection, it went something like this:

If I am praised or vilified based on false ideas of who I am, I cannot take either to heart since they do not actually describe me, but rather what people believe about me. And, particularly as concerns Christ, who is God, if even after having corrected false conceptions about me, people show up at some later date to claim things about me which I never myself said, usurping my authority and taking my name to do so, then not only are they not describing me, but if they build their system of worship around such falsehood, they aren’t worshiping me, either. (I know that Muslims already don’t worship Christ…please stick with the analogy…)

So, at least from an Orthodox perspective, the idea seems to be that, as it is possible to build false idols and worship them (see: much of the OT), and that this most definitely involves people making decisions about what they believe and how they will worship based on that belief, it is not so much that people’s ideas about who they worship can change who God actually is and “create another God”, but rather explicitly that they can’t do that. We both agree (Catholics and Orthodox) that there is only one God and no one can make another (recall 1 Corin. 10 or Psalm 96:5).

In other words, Muslims worship a different god than the God of the Christians not because there are actually two different gods in the first place, but because they do not worship God at all. (Note to mods: I am well aware of how this contradicts RCC teaching and don’t intend to present it as though the RCC should not be free to teach whatever it wants about whatever it wants…I just think it’s interesting how very similar arguments about belief can be summed up in essentially the same way but lead to opposite conclusions.)

Interesting argument, which I think adds a new dimension to the discussion.

 

[FrDavid96]

Readers here should take note of a particular style of argument known as circular reasoning.

In circular reasoning, the “conclusion” of the argument is actually the “premise” of the argument.

In other words, it goes like this:

I say “A is true”
Since I say “A is true”
Then “A must be true” (and if you don’t believe, me, refer back to the premise.)

It’s like the funny signs we sometimes see:
Rule #1 The boss is always right.
Rule #2 If the boss is wrong, see Rule #1

We all get a little laugh out of that. But what we don’t always realize is that the technique itself is used quite often in debates. We just don’t always see it quite so obviously as we see it on the signs.

The way it’s being used here goes like this:

The question is this: “Do Muslims and Catholics worship the same God?”

The response then comes in the form of a circular argument like this:

Given: Since Moslems worship a false God, their worship is false.
Because Moslem worship is false, they worship a false God.
Conclusion: Since Moslems worship a false God, the God of Islam and the God of Christianity are not the same God.

Note how the first 2 lines just go back-and-forth in tight little circle. False worship means false god. False god means false worship. False worship means a false god. False god means false worship…and so on

That’s why it’s called circular reasoning.

Nothing is actually proven because nothing is tested. The answer is presented as a “given” and the final conclusion is merely a restatement, in different words, of what the speaker expects everyone else to accept as “given.”

 

[tonyfish58]

Readers here should take note of a particular style of argument known as circular reasoning.

In circular reasoning, the “conclusion” of the argument is actually the “premise” of the argument.

In other words, it goes like this:

I say “A is true”
Since I say “A is true”
Then “A must be true” (and if you don’t believe, me, refer back to the premise.)

It’s like the funny signs we sometimes see:
Rule #1 The boss is always right.
Rule #2 If the boss is wrong, see Rule #1

We all get a little laugh out of that. But what we don’t always realize is that the technique itself is used quite often in debates. We just don’t always see it quite so obviously as we see it on the signs.

The way it’s being used here goes like this:

The question is this: “Do Muslims and Catholics worship the same God?”

The response then comes in the form of a circular argument like this:

Given: Since Moslems worship a false God, their worship is false.
Because Moslem worship is false, they worship a false God.
Conclusion: Since Moslems worship a false God, the God of Islam and the God of Christianity are not the same God.

Note how the first 2 lines just go back-and-forth in tight little circle. False worship means false god. False god means false worship. False worship means a false god. False god means false worship…and so on

That’s why it’s called circular reasoning.

Nothing is actually proven because nothing is tested. The answer is presented as a “given” and the final conclusion is merely a restatement, in different words, of what the speaker expects everyone else to accept as “given.”

That is the best piece of Wisdom so Far

I like this a lot “Nothing is actually proven because nothing is tested”

Regards Tony

 

[GaryTaylor]

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a1.htm

IN BRIEF

68 By love, God has revealed himself and given himself to man. He has thus provided the definitive, superabundant answer to the questions that man asks himself about the meaning and purpose of his life.

69 God has revealed himself to man by gradually communicating his own mystery in deeds and in words.

70 Beyond the witness to himself that God gives in created things, he manifested himself to our first parents, spoke to them and, after the fall, promised them salvation (cf. Gen 3:15) and offered them his covenant.

71 God made an everlasting covenant with Noah and with all living beings (cf. Gen 9:16). It will remain in force as long as the world lasts.

72 God chose Abraham and made a covenant with him and his descendants. By the covenant God formed his people and revealed his law to them through Moses. Through the prophets, he prepared them to accept the salvation destined for all humanity.

73 God has revealed himself fully by sending his own Son, in whom he has established his covenant for ever. The Son is his Father’s definitive Word; so there will be no further Revelation after him.

God has said everything in his Word

65 "In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son."26 Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:

In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.

There will be no further Revelation!

OT-NT…“and”…then came new revelation. “There will be no further Revelation!”

The Mohammed doctrine of “further revelation” is not a path to God, following a false path to God logically does not lead to God.

There is no reasoning in which this occurs. Its a false doctrine. A fated path of which we have no idea who finds God or how on it.

The elementary point that there is one God, which wraps all the above in a package of confusion and undoubtedly places souls at risk by false assumptions. And leads some to believe as you witness here to many different conclusions. Its modern and simply does not exist in Church history, the voice of the Saints are a clear warning of what you are playing with here.

You NOTICE no-one is promoting it as a path “to God”. God created all men to exist, you cannot not exist. You can only not cooperate with Gods plan in given free-will thus as Mohammed did reject the divine mercy and saving Grace of Jesus Christ of whom “all salvation” comes. What Mohammed did was to create his own god out the stimulated image in his imagination. Its all man made and of the world, and none of the Saints missed this. Not one. Its not hard to see how either. The plagiarism is astonishing, even to point of inclusive idol worship of the false gods and demons of Arabia pre-Islam.

Read the Saints. Its a “unanimous” voice in this regard. The demon always ends with the same proposition, God or the world, he poses as god and through systematic denial of God he places himself before God, that is why its a false doctrine and certainly a path to darkness in which the light and dark cannot occupy the same space.

To wrap this deceit in a package called one God is simply ecumenical dialogue and one never meant for incorrect acceptance of Islam. Fact is when you accept evil you are as much involved in it as he who perpetrates it. Those who accept evil without protesting against it, in reality are then cooperating with it. And when you in fact cooperate with it, then you are promoting it.

Also the argument of the Jews, Christians and Islam is understood in further reading above. Which is my point of the post. Now you see the proper perspective of one God, the God of Abraham.

I find it rather disturbing to reduce this to the elementary logic of one God of which takes a hundred posts to unwrap.

 

[tonyfish58]

GaryTaylor;11689152I:

find it rather disturbing to reduce this to the elementary logic of one God of which takes a hundred posts to unwrap.

It may not be as complicated as all that

It may be just a mindset change and that is all:shrug:

Scripture does not change, the Truth does not change, but the way one looks at it does!

Of course we can all choose our Path to our Lord and may God guide us all on to this right path.

God Bless and Regards Tony

 

[dzheremi]

That is the best piece of Wisdom so Far

I like this a lot “Nothing is actually proven because nothing is tested”

Regards Tony

I would beg to differ, as you might imagine. If we take ‘testing’ in the sense of empirically-based testing, then we can say that no religion is as experiential as Christianity (empirical testing being based around experience of observable phenomena, e.g., St. Thomas feeling the wounds in Christ’s side). Particularly as relates to the other religion being written about in this thread, what we have is two different experiential modes of worship and roots of theology. Christianity is based on the Word made flesh, while Islam is based on the Word made text, and the implications of that difference on the current discussion is great, since it has largely revolved around maintaining some distinction between what Muslims believe about God and the identity of the god that they worship. I’m not entirely sure Muslims often make that distinction, as the attributes of God are kind of a big deal in Islamic theology (e.g., the 99 names).

Anyway, essentially, when you remove experience of God from the equation (say, by saying that He is so completely other than the creation that He cannot have a Son, or cannot be Incarnate, or is not crucified and risen from the dead), you have left a lot of logical theory and proofs, but very little that is “testable” in any real way that might bring the worshiper into communion with God. Hence Islam developed its “mystical side” (Sufism) seeking such a direct experience, and while it might have produced something that drew many more to Islam (as is evidenced by the growth of traditional Sufi orders in places on the periphery of the Arab center), it has not solved the problems at the root of Islamic theology that prevent its worshipers from recognizing and submitting to the true God.

 

[Servant19]

How does a Word become flesh?

 

[tonyfish58]

I would beg to differ, as you might imagine. If we take ‘testing’ in the sense of empirically-based testing, then we can say that no religion is as experiential as Christianity (empirical testing being based around experience of observable phenomena, e.g., St. Thomas feeling the wounds in Christ’s side). Particularly as relates to the other religion being written about in this thread, what we have is two different experiential modes of worship and roots of theology. Christianity is based on the Word made flesh, while Islam is based on the Word made text, and the implications of that difference on the current discussion is great, since it has largely revolved around maintaining some distinction between what Muslims believe about God and the identity of the god that they worship. I’m not entirely sure Muslims often make that distinction, as the attributes of God are kind of a big deal in Islamic theology (e.g., the 99 names).

Anyway, essentially, when you remove experience of God from the equation (say, by saying that He is so completely other than the creation that He cannot have a Son, or cannot be Incarnate, or is not crucified and risen from the dead), you have left a lot of logical theory and proofs, but very little that is “testable” in any real way that might bring the worshiper into communion with God. Hence Islam developed its “mystical side” (Sufism) seeking such a direct experience, and while it might have produced something that drew many more to Islam (as is evidenced by the growth of traditional Sufi orders in places on the periphery of the Arab center), it has not solved the problems at the root of Islamic theology that prevent its worshipers from recognizing and submitting to the true God.

I like to keep it simple - Theology, Knowledge, Doctrine in the end can all become a veil hindering us from the Love of God.

The whole purpose of all Knowledge that man can attain to has only one purpose, that is to teach us to Know and to Love God!

God answers all the prayers no matter what Faith we follow! We are all under Gods Grace no matter what Faith we Follow!

Who am I to exclude others because of Faith

If one looks the connection can be found, when it is found it is a simple Truth and all the complexities disappear!

God Bless and Regards Tony

 

[GaryTaylor]

Not the point of the discussion.

Deductive and inductive reasoning is exactly what we are discussing. The conclusion reached in 841 occurs by generalizing or extrapolating the initial known facts.

 

[Servant19]

Not the point of the discussion.

Deductive and inductive reasoning is exactly what we are discussing. The conclusion reached in 841 occurs by generalizing or extrapolating the initial known facts.

But, Gary your entire reasoning begins with the premise that “you are right”, and that “Jesus is God”

How is that an objective premise to compare two theologies?

 

[tonyfish58]

Not the point of the discussion.

Deductive and inductive reasoning is exactly what we are discussing. The conclusion reached in 841 occurs by generalizing or extrapolating the initial known facts.

Gary - What is this answer based on

I assume it may be my reply to you that you referenced?

God Bless and Regards Tony

 

[GaryTaylor]

But, Gary your entire reasoning begins with the premise that “you are right”, and that “Jesus is God”

How is that an objective premise to compare two theologies?

My reasoning isn’t of question, I’m merely giving the supplied language in question a clear view as mentioned above. My position is clear and by using the exact same theology as the one which proposed the reasoning of the text in question.

 

[tonyfish58]

Mohammed did reject the divine mercy and saving Grace of Jesus Christ of whom “all salvation” comes.

Gary - A lot of accusations re Muhammad and the Koran were posted above, but I picked up on this for a comment - So what are some on Muhammad’s quotes re Christ

1- Indeed, We gave Moses the Scripture and sent Messengers after him in successive series. We also gave Jesus, son of Mary, clear arguments and strengthened him with the blessed Word of God. (Is it not then unjust on your part that) whenever a Messenger came to you (O Jews!) with that (teaching) which did not suit your fancies, you behaved arrogantly? You belied some (Messengers) while others you seek to kill (even now).( 2:87)

2-Say, `We believe in Allâh and in that (the Qur’ân) which has been revealed to us, and what was revealed to Abraham, Ismâîl, Isaac, Jacob and his children, and what was given to Moses and Jesus and (we believe) in what was given to (all other) Prophets from their Lord. We (while believing in them) make no discrimination between anyone of them, and to Him do we submit ourselves entirely.’ 2:136

3-We have made these Messengers excel one another. There are those of them to whom Allâh has spoken much, and some of them He has exalted by many degrees of rank. And We gave Jesus, son of Mary, clear arguments, and We supported him with the blessed word (of God). Had Allâh (so) willed, people (who came) after them (- the Messengers) would not have fought one another (particularly) after clear arguments had come to them, but (as it was) they differed one from another; so that some of them believed while others disbelieved. Had Allâh (so) willed they would not have fought one another. Yet Allâh does whatever He intends. 2:25

The above will suffice, but as you can see Jesus is not Rejected - Here are more islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/134284303-all-quranic-verses-about-jesus-pbuh.html Muhammad Glorified Christ, but he corrected the direction that Church Doctrine was heading.

God Bless and Regards Tony