- Status
Y
YHWH_Christ
Guest
If you think that was inflammatory, you should read what the Fathers wrote concerning the Jews or heretics. Wanna see what St. John of Damascus says about Islam?
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_islam.aspx
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_islam.aspx
Last edited:
M
Magnanimity
Guest
The new atheists think that they’re doing the same thing when they point out “errors” and ”falsehoods” within Christian sacred writings. Fundamentally, new atheists and the OP here are doing the same thing. They are outside of the community that produced the sacred writings, and rather than going to that community for guidance, they believe they can just pick up the texts and so easily interpret them and find contradictions and errors.
It’s not a reasonable approach to any religion’s sacred writings. It’s annoying when atheists do it to us. And I can’t see any good that comes from us doing it to others. Undoubtedly, every single example of an “error” noted by the 0P has an apologetical Islamic answer to it. (Just like we here constantly have apologetical answers for atheists who come and note the “errors” in our own sacred writings.)
But truth is universal and not exclusively held by any one religion. You can claim that Catholicism has the most truth or more truth than any other religion. But that’s about it. That’s where it stops. As I noted above, which catholic among us does not, in our own Catholic expression, practice the five pillars of Islam? If the Islamic sacred writings are riddled with errors and falsehoods, then again, how do you account for its success? It’s a reasonable question that needs an answer, not just from atheists, but from Christians too. Muslims are dummies? They haven’t seen these “errors” noted by the OP? This all stretches credulity to the brink.
The only dangerous error I see is in believing that you are in the exclusive God-club just by virtue of being Catholic. As lumen gentium 16 makes abundantly clear, God’s love extends to all humanity, to include Muslims.
Crusader13
New member
Well you’re right in that truth is universal. So if you hold that Catholicism has the truths regarding salvation, then it’s a truth that is to be accepted by all. You can’t logically say that Muslims are exempt from this truth, simply because they choose not to believe it.
So according to your statements you believe that a Catholic can leave the church and become a Muslim and still attain salvation? Is that What you’re saying, because I don’t want to misunderstand your position?
M
Magnanimity
Guest
You ain’t lyin! But as a Catholic myself, I know it didn’t stop with the Fathers!! The Lateran councils were particularly unkind and unhelpful to Jewish-Catholic coexistence.
H
historyfan81
Guest
there is another mistake about a samaritan leading the isrealities in to sin via the golden calph
even though sameria would not be founded until the 9th century BC y King Omri and didnt become a seperate group after the exile of the Northern kingdom of Israel and the resettlement of the area under king Sargon II in after 722 B.C
i dont i guess they where timelords
even though sameria would not be founded until the 9th century BC y King Omri and didnt become a seperate group after the exile of the Northern kingdom of Israel and the resettlement of the area under king Sargon II in after 722 B.C
i dont i guess they where timelords
Last edited:
Indeed…
M
Magnanimity
Guest
Quite right. If a person holds (as I do regarding Catholicism) that her religion embodies more truth, goodness and beauty than any other religion, then naturally she’d prefer that all were within her religion.
We would get too lost in the weeds, I think, to discuss my views of salvation. Lumen gentium 14 has something to say that is on-point to your question. But, like always, it imports the requisite bedrock of “knowledge.”
Here is what I know.
God is constantly creating every single human for every single moment of that human’s existence (Aquinas).
God is love (St John)
God desires all to be saved (Sts Paul and Peter)
His mercy endures forever (the Psalms)
Crusader13
New member
Biggest difference is that as Catholics we know that atheists are simply misinformed regarding the truths of salvation and Jesus. Much like the Muslims. However, you seem to be implying that as Catholics we need to accept their views as some sort of charitable act of kindness?!
That’s completely absurd.
Their teachings and beliefs simply aren’t compatible with Catholicism. They are contrary to it, to be blunt. That doesn’t meant we are superior or that God doesn’t love them, but it’s our job as holders and defenders of the truth to preach the gospel and to lead others out of error and into the truth.
Last edited:
Crusader13
New member
Exactly, I agree with all of that. But it’s completely false to assume or believe that God wills the existence of other religions that openly contradict his Son Jesus.
God wants all to be saved and the manner in which that occurs is through his Son Jesus Christ and through His Church. Islam doesn’t save you, the law, as understood by the Jews, cannot save you.
God can show mercy on whomever He chooses and if He chooses to save non-Catholics that’s something known only to God Himself.
He commanded us to go forth and teach and
baptize, not speculate on who He may or may not save outside of what He commanded us to do. So if a muslim is saved, it’s through Jesus Christ, not because of Allah, as understood through Islam and their doctrines.
Last edited:
T
tafan2
Guest
Islam has some truths, particularly they worship the same God as we do. That is a good thing.
But it also has many errors. And we certainly do not consider Muhammad as a true prophet.
The fullness of truth is held by one religion.
M
Magnanimity
Guest
Yeah, we tell ourselves this. But if we’re honest, how many primary sources of Islamic theologians have we read? I think I’m justified in believing that most of us here do not extensively acquaint ourselves with religions outside of our own. I don’t blame us for this. If you are within a religion that “works” for you, why would you feel the need to broaden yourself?
Sure.
No, I don’t think so. Truth is not the great unifier that we might like it to be. The sheer plurality of religions should be enough for us to know that this is the case. Even within our own religion, show me two Catholics who one hundred percent agree with each other on every single point of faith and morals. There are no two such Catholics. The only person that you will ever completely agree with is you. Yourself. So truth can never be what it is all about.
But I dare say that encountering God is likely what it is all about. And there is a functional element of every religion, and that is to assist the practitioner in countering the Absolute, God. You can believe that Catholicism is the best vehicle for helping one to encounter God but not the only one. That is simply going too far. God extends himself and reaches out to everyone, continuously.
Last edited:
Crusader13
New member
I’m sorry but what you’re saying is not Catholic teaching and is not supported in any Catholic document, not even Lumen gentium.
You’re saying that God wants people to remain in whatever religion they are in because God brought them there or is speaking through their faith. So God wants the muslim to keep denying the Trinity and Jesus Christ ?! You can’t square anti Catholic belief and anti Jesus teachings by saying “And there is a functional element of every religion, and that is to assist the practitioner in countering the Absolute, God.” That’s not biblical in the slightest.
You mentioned in an earlier post
and unfortunately the document you quoted is exactly why there is this misunderstanding regarding these other religions. Because going back prior to VII you don’t find this type of language being used but you believe that somehow the Church grew more enlightened in that finally we accept these other religions as being salvific. And that’s not what the document is saying at all.
Last edited:
Crusader13
New member
Unfortunately, the fullness of truth gets put aside in favor of a more universal acceptance of all truths.
I don’t get the understanding that some have with regards to the teachings of Christ. Either we need baptism or we don’t, either we need a faith in Jesus or we don’t. It can’t be both, so I don’t understand this view that there are other paths to heaven.
I don’t get the understanding that some have with regards to the teachings of Christ. Either we need baptism or we don’t, either we need a faith in Jesus or we don’t. It can’t be both, so I don’t understand this view that there are other paths to heaven.
There is a web-page entitled ‘Romans in Wales for pupils’. In answer to the question: ‘Why did the Romans come to Wales?’ we read:
‘It took about four years for the invaders to finally gain control over southern England, and another 30 years for them to conquer all of the West Country and the mountains and valleys of Wales. The battle for Yorkshire and the remainder of northern England was still underway in AD 70.’
All of this historically accurate; and any student writing these words in an examination paper would pass.
However, the passage contains several anachronisms: ‘England’; the ‘West Country’; ‘Wales’; and ‘Yorkshire’ did not exist as geographic/political entities at that time; indeed, Anglo-Saxons did not invade Britain until the AD400s, towards the end of Roman rule. No AD 70’s Briton would have called herself ‘Welsh’; or a native of the ‘West Country’.
However, we don’t need a ‘time lord’ to make sense of the passage; merely an awareness of the fact that the author (the teacher) is taking what is known (modern day regions of the UK) in order to teach his pupils what they do not know.
Allāh (subḥānahu ūta’āla) uses the same technique: ‘Moses, what has made you come ahead of your people in such haste?’ and he said, ‘They are following in my footsteps. I rushed to You, Lord, to please You,’ but Allāh said, ‘We have tested your people in your absence: the Samiri has led them astray.’ (Ta Ha: 83-85).
The Exalted is using what is known to the pagans of Mecca – the existence of a people called ‘Samaritans’ – in order to teach what is unknown: the story of Moses and the golden calf, and the fact that his people were led astray by the ancestors of the Samaritans.
Why would this be a problem?
‘It took about four years for the invaders to finally gain control over southern England, and another 30 years for them to conquer all of the West Country and the mountains and valleys of Wales. The battle for Yorkshire and the remainder of northern England was still underway in AD 70.’
All of this historically accurate; and any student writing these words in an examination paper would pass.
However, the passage contains several anachronisms: ‘England’; the ‘West Country’; ‘Wales’; and ‘Yorkshire’ did not exist as geographic/political entities at that time; indeed, Anglo-Saxons did not invade Britain until the AD400s, towards the end of Roman rule. No AD 70’s Briton would have called herself ‘Welsh’; or a native of the ‘West Country’.
However, we don’t need a ‘time lord’ to make sense of the passage; merely an awareness of the fact that the author (the teacher) is taking what is known (modern day regions of the UK) in order to teach his pupils what they do not know.
Allāh (subḥānahu ūta’āla) uses the same technique: ‘Moses, what has made you come ahead of your people in such haste?’ and he said, ‘They are following in my footsteps. I rushed to You, Lord, to please You,’ but Allāh said, ‘We have tested your people in your absence: the Samiri has led them astray.’ (Ta Ha: 83-85).
The Exalted is using what is known to the pagans of Mecca – the existence of a people called ‘Samaritans’ – in order to teach what is unknown: the story of Moses and the golden calf, and the fact that his people were led astray by the ancestors of the Samaritans.
Why would this be a problem?
G
GiftofMercy
Guest
We are on CAF and this is not a forum to start pulling apart other religions. It is disrespectful.
Catholics are not called to be disrespectful to other religions. Did Jesus do so? Did God in the Old Testament? Read the Discourse between God and Zadok .
We are called to allow God to work through us and shine through us.
G
GiftofMercy
Guest
Dont be offensive.
There is a big difference between being disrespectful and discussing the errors of a religion.
H
historyfan81
Guest
that would make sense geogprahcly of course since you ussing the modern as reference to anciente places
like me saying mongol invasion of iran when the empire was called kharezem ( probably buthcered the name)
iam using the modern geographycal site to convey the location , but the correct term would be mongol invasion of the kharezem empire.
this argument cant be used for the samameritan with moses
like me saying mongol invasion of iran when the empire was called kharezem ( probably buthcered the name)
iam using the modern geographycal site to convey the location , but the correct term would be mongol invasion of the kharezem empire.
this argument cant be used for the samameritan with moses
- geography does not apply as they where in sinai not samaria to use the geography point of reference argument makes no sense
- why not call him a jew? samameritans did not exist as a people yet they where just jews.
M
Magnanimity
Guest
I’ve already said I’d rather that people were Catholic bc I believe that within our Faith, one discovers the most truth, goodness and beauty (in comparison with other religions). Since God loves everyone, and there is nothing outside of his providence and care, then yes, necessarily, God speaks to you through every aspect of your existence, including your religion or even in the humdrum mediocrities of daily life. There is no where you can go where God cannot reach you. And we are all equally precious to him. As I said before, God is ever extending his love toward us, continuously.
But none of this entails some sort of equality among the religions. Even if God loves everybody, it does not follow that all religions are equal with each other. Perhaps in some, the spiritual practices are deeper and more mature than in others. Perhaps in some, there is more of a sense of social justice and helping out the community. And perhaps in other religions, there is just more of a totality of understanding of all things (which is what you probably believe about the Catholic Faith). God loving everyone does not logically entail equality of the religions. I’ve already said above that this is not a zero-sum game. One religion having a lot of truth, goodness and beauty in it does not mean that it is taking away from other religions in order to accomplish this. This is just not the way the world works.
I’m not a fundamentalist or a Protestant, so why would I care whether a belief is “biblical?” You deny that a primary purpose of the church is to assist the people of God in encountering God?!?
The development of doctrine is a reality, and this reality is spelled out in Dei Verbum 8. So yes, in some way the church of course grows in light as the centuries succeed one another. I mentioned nothing about other religions being “salvific.” This is exclusively your wording within this thread.
- Status