M
Magnanimity
Guest
But its own success would hardly be an argument to be used against that particular thing, right?
- Status
Crusader13
New member
You speak as if the Church isn’t grounded in Scripture. You should absolutely care whether a belief is biblical or not, but that’s something I can’t decide for you.
Your words indicate that a spiritual encounter with God is the sole purpose of said faith. If there is one true God, how do you expect to encounter Him in a separate religion which has a gross misunderstanding of who God is?
If the Church’s mission is the salvation of souls by preaching Jesus Christ and Him crucified we can’t say that one can trust in an encounter with God through a religion that teaches Jesus Christ is not God.
Crusader13
New member
I’m not implying that other faiths don’t have any semblance of morality or that their ability to be devout is somehow lacking.
I’m talking about the necessity of the Church as it pertains to a belief in Jesus Christ. Meaning that there is a difference between saying someone should convert and someone must convert.
Your statements lead me to believe that you are of the opinion that people should convert but it is not a requirement. And if conversion is not required then you’re saying that every religion which has some truth can lead you to heaven. The encountering God in whatever religion you feel God is speaking to you approach, seems problematic.
I’m talking about the necessity of the Church as it pertains to a belief in Jesus Christ. Meaning that there is a difference between saying someone should convert and someone must convert.
Your statements lead me to believe that you are of the opinion that people should convert but it is not a requirement. And if conversion is not required then you’re saying that every religion which has some truth can lead you to heaven. The encountering God in whatever religion you feel God is speaking to you approach, seems problematic.
S
Simon62
Guest
Good thread! Always a thorny subject, but call me old fashioned or abiding by the greater part of our faith’s history, I’m with crusader on this.
Gosh! Is that the time already. Way past my bedtime.
Gosh! Is that the time already. Way past my bedtime.
J
Jragzz123
Guest
The difference is that the Bible is true and contains no errors vs the Quran which is false and contains many errors. Read St Thomas on this matter
T
tafan2
Guest
It’s seems to me that what people think is disrespectful is discussing the errors of a religion.
L
L
A
Alphard
Guest
False and dangerous teaching don’t need respect. People, no matter how confused or misled, do.
G
GiftofMercy
Guest
whatever we believe or not, this is violating TOS about
being charitable and respectful. How is tearing down and discussing errors on a non catholic forum, one in which non catholics are free to discuss whatever they wish, in any way charitable
being charitable and respectful. How is tearing down and discussing errors on a non catholic forum, one in which non catholics are free to discuss whatever they wish, in any way charitable
I
irenaeuslyons
Guest
Since when is the number of adherents to a philosophy or creed some kind of proof as to its truth? Argumentum ad populum much?Good gracious.You identify as Orthodox Christian. How many Orthodox are there in the world? Less than 300 million, is that right? How many Muslims are there? A little less than 2 billion, it seems. All of Christendom barely exceeds 2 billion, worldwide. And we’re now around 7.7B folks the world over. …
Then, how do you account for its success? There are almost 2B adherents world-wide. They’re all a bunch of dummies? Duped? Uneducated?
M
mhmtas63
Guest
- O sister of Aaron, your father was not a man of evil, nor was your mother unchaste. (Maryam 19)
Jews asked Muslims that verse during prophet Muahammad. Prophet said: Do Jews not use their ancestor names? Prophet Muhammad interpret that verse in that way. Mary’s brother name could be Aaron, could not?
M
mhmtas63
Guest
- And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah ?’” He will say, "Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.
- I said not to them except what You commanded me - to worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You took me up, You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness. Al-Maidah(5)
- Then Jesus said to him, “Be gone, Satan! For it is written, “‘You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.’” Matthew 4
- Nor could he order you to take the angels and prophets as lords. Would he order you to disbelief after you had been Muslims? Al-Imran (3)
Prophet: Jesus
And also I said Qur’an reject all shirks.
- They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah, and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him. At-Tawbah(9)
M
mhmtas63
Guest
That is comic. You have four books and that is not wrong but Qur’an preach aboul Injil and you said that is wrong.
Qur’an is a book but Qur’an was not revealed as a whole book. It was revealed gradually which last about 23 years. So the revelation which was revealed to Jesus is called “Injil”. Jesus preached that revelation(Jesus always said he talked from what Father taught) and some people wrote some part of that revelation as Gospels with Jesus life story. Don’t you know that?
S
Salibi
Guest
That’s the thing. Mary is not a deity, and Christians have never considered her so.
Not true.
A common misunderstanding. Mary’s title “Mother of God” does not mean that she existed before God or that she begot God the Father but that she was the vehicle by which God incarnate was born among men.
You see the problem here is, if it really were the word of God, it wouldn’t have had such obvious misconceptions of Christians. I think God would have known that Christians have never ever regarded Mary as divine, and would have actually understood what we mean by “Mother of God”.
The fact that he does not indicates that the Koran is a man-made document, written by men with an erroneous understanding of the Christian faith, most likely gleaned from Arian monks. Therefore, either God is stupid or the Koran is false.
Hint: it’s the latter.
Last edited:
M
Magnanimity
Guest
Since forever, though not as you’ve phrased it. You’ve made it very specific—“proof as to its truth.” I’ve not used this language. Rather, I’ve asked, “what accounts for its success?” I’ve asked, if Islam is so easily undermined from within its own sacred writings (these “errors”), how could this fact have escaped the notice of billions upon billions of Muslims? And yes, this same line of reasoning can be rationally used toward atheists regarding their attempts to illustrate the many “errors” of the Bible.
These sorts of claims that one can easily undermine historically strong and successful religions is absurd for a number of reasons. First, almost invariably the critic hasn’t actually consulted the religious community that produced those writings for answers to the “errors” she has uncovered (not done appropriate research of secondary sources—the scholars for the religion in question). Second, there is necessarily a placing oneself in a “privileged position” vis-a-vis the adherents of the religion in question. As in, you yourself somehow are either so uniquely intellectually gifted that you can see what all others have missed for centuries or the religious community is composed of dummies. It’s not impossible to be in such a privileged position or for the entire community of believers to all have low IQ’s, but it is so incredibly unlikely as to stretch credulity to its uttermost brink.
We all do and with regularity. Those who argue for “climate change” (or really any scientific claim) appeal to the “consensus” of the scientific community as support for their beliefs. Does this consensus necessitate the “truth” of climate change? No. Is it a legitimate appeal to authority though? Most likely! A climatologist is in a better position than I am to know about these things. So I go to the expert consensus for my provisional truths (scientific truths are, by their very nature, provisional truths).
Moreover, it is valid to argue toward an atheist, for example, that greater than 95% of all humans throughout history have had the tug toward the transcendent (the spiritual/religious impulse). So, the overwhelming majority of all of humanity has been spiritual/religious. This doesn’t necessitate the truth of religions, but it does put the atheist in the tiny-minority predicament. Appeals to authority are invalid when one is appealing to non-experts. But who can be more expert regarding the religious impulse than the one who experiences it? Who can stand over against my own consciousness and be the judge of it? Well, no one can. So I am the “expert” of my own internal self. My (and everyone else’s) religious experiences over the course of human history can be appealed to as evidence to the atheist. Not of necessary truth—but of there likely being something to this religion thing.
Last edited:
As-Salāmu ‘alaykum, brother.
‘She went back to her people carrying the child, and they said, ‘Mary! You have done something terrible! Sister of Aaron! Your father was not an evil man; your mother was not unchaste!’ (Maryam: 27-28).
Muhammad Asad writes: ‘In ancient Semitic usage, a person’s name was often linked with that of a renowned ancestor or founder of the tribal line. Thus, for instance, a man of the tribe of Banu Tamim was sometimes addressed as “son of Tamim” or “brother of Tamim.” Since Mary belonged to the priestly caste, and hence descended from Aaron, the brother of Moses, she was called a “sister of Aaron,” in the same way as her cousin Elizabeth, the wife of Zachariah, is spoken of in Luke 1:5 as one of “the daughters of Aaron.”’ (‘Message of the Quran’).
Asad is referring to the following:
‘In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah. And he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.’ (English Standard Version).
‘In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah, and whose wife Elizabeth was a daughter of Aaron.’ (Berean Study Bible).
‘In the days of Herodus, The King of Judea, there was a certain Priest whose name was Zechariah from the Ministry of the house of Abia and his wife was named Elizabeth who was of the daughters of Aaron.’ (Aramaic Bible in Plain English).
I’ve yet to meet the Christian who claims that calling Elizabeth a daughter of Aaron is an error!
Mary carries her baby home, and the people are shocked. She is – in their yes – a cause for scandal; and they emphasise the enormity of that scandal by drawing attention to the fact that she belongs to a righteous House. How could she behave so badly?
May Allāh (subḥānahu ūta’āla) reward you for your work.
Last edited:
Hello Salibi.
Agreed!
'When Allāh says: ‘Jesus, son of Mary, did you say to people, ‘‘Take me and my mother as two gods alongside God’’?’ he will say: ''May You be exalted! I would never say what I had no right to say…………….
(Al-Ma’ida: 116).
As you can see, Al-Ma’ida 116 does not name any particular group. I opine that it is not Christians who are being condemned for taking Mary as a god; it is the Collyridians, and possibly the Mariamites.
William Cook Taylor writes: ‘In Arabia itself some of the worst heresies were propagated: the chief of these were the heresies of the Ebonites, the Nazareans, and the Collydrians, the last of which derived its name from the collyris, or twisted cake offered by them to the Virgin Mary, whom they worshipped as a deity. It is known to all readers of ecclesiastical history that a sect called Mariamites exalted the Virgin to a participation in the Godhead………….’ (‘Readings in Biography: A Selection of the Lives of Eminent Men of All Nations’).
Washington Irving writes: ‘The Mariamites, or worshippers of Mary, regarded the Trinity as consisting of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Virgin Mary. The Collydrians were a sect of Arabian Christians, composed chiefly of females. They worshipped the Virgin Mary as possessed of divinity……’ (‘Mohammed’).
It is also possible (and this is an assumption on my part) that the sūrah is addressing pagan Arabs who – knowing that a statue (or icon) of Mary and her son had been placed in the Ka’aba by a Christian visitor to Mecca (in the days before Islam) – had come to believe, wrongly, that both were gods.
May Allāh (subḥānahu ūta’āla) bless you, and keep you safe.
S
Salibi
Guest
I see. Thank you for the clarification.
That’ll be one prayer, please
N
Neithan
Guest
Islam is so close it’s frustrating. I don’t know what to make of it. But truth cannot contradict truth, and St. Paul wrote, “though it were an angel from heaven that should preach to you a gospel other than the gospel we preached to you, a curse upon him!” (Galatians 1:8) 530 years before Muhammad was born. The Qur’an claims that the Injil we have received from the Apostles is not the true Injil, and that the Angel Jibreel communicated this.
The Qur’an is not powerless, there is terrible power in it. I am just concerned about the source of that power. The worst lies are almost entirely true — almost. Consider that if our Islamic cousins were Christians, the world would have nearly 5 billion of us now. The Enemy probably foresaw that and was desperate to sow division.
The Qur’an is not powerless, there is terrible power in it. I am just concerned about the source of that power. The worst lies are almost entirely true — almost. Consider that if our Islamic cousins were Christians, the world would have nearly 5 billion of us now. The Enemy probably foresaw that and was desperate to sow division.
Last edited:
- Status