Is Catholicsm and Islam compatible?

[FrDavid96]

Thank you for the trouble. A good explanation of the Church’s position which I couldn’t add anything further to. Perhaps I can use some of that in trying to explain this issue myself.

For a searching mind though, the Church coming out with this stance seems to be trying to be politically correct and this is certainly not the first time she is so. It is on this basis that it can be quite a controversy for many Catholics.

No. That is just your personal bias. The Church KNOWS that Christianity and Islam worship the same God. It’s not about being politically correct. We have always known it, from the beginning of Islam. It’s never been doubted.

In other word, like I earlier said, this argument is based on pre-determined premises, some are matter of factually while others are just simply assumed.

No. It’s based on the simple fact of history.
Islam was not just invented in the 20th century, need I remind you. The Church has been observing Islam from the very beginning.

Example of the latter is that descendants of Abraham would still worship his God. Of course we know this is untrue; even within the OT, the chosen people sometimes didn’t themselves. Thus if Muhammad can modify this understanding (of God) and the worship, a possibility that now they may worship an entirely different god remains a possibility. Saying that they are monothiestic simply means that they worship only one diety.

Except for the simple (and undisputed, I might add) fact that the Church has always known that Mohammed never did invent a new God. Mohammed never claimed to have invented a new God, he made his claims about the God of Abraham.

No one says that “because Islam is monotheistic they worship the same god” That’s your strawman to knock down.
It is not “because they are monotheistic” it is “because they worship the God of Abraham.”

As for the Jews, it is wrong analogy to equate them with the Muslims that since they too do not believe in the Trinity and so not necessarily worship different God. Christians derived their knowledge of God from the Jews (Judaism) and if that was true then, therefore it is now. The OT has not changed. The Quran is not OT though, in fact nothing remotely close.

You’re missing the point. You cannot claim that Islam and Christianity worship different Gods “because” one is Trinitarian the other is not; while at the same time saying that it is logical to accept that Jews and Christians do worship the same God despite one being non-Trinitarian. You cannot have it both ways.

 

[HarryStotle]

No one says that “because Islam is monotheistic they worship the same god” That’s your strawman to knock down.
It is not “because they are monotheistic” it is “because they worship the God of Abraham.”

This seems to be begging the question of how is it to be known that the God being worshiped by any particular Muslim, or Muslims in general, or any group whatsoever, is the "God of Abraham? Is it purely because of their claim that makes it so?

That would leave you in a rather dubious place.

Does that mean anyone who comes along and makes claims about how the “God of Abraham” is to be worshiped – converting non-believers by the sword, practicing polygamy, taking child brides, killing apostates, etc., etc., – is legitimately worshiping the God of Abraham?

Does the God of Abraham, for one, have any say at all, concerning what counts as legitimate worship of him? Is it left purely up to the determination of human worshipers to make these kinds of claims and, therefore, all such claims are to be taken at face value?

I remain skeptical that you can address these questions, while holding to the “cannot have it both ways” position.

You’re missing the point. You cannot claim that Islam and Christianity worship different Gods “because” one is Trinitarian the other is not; while at the same time saying that it is logical to accept that Jews and Christians do worship the same God despite one being non-Trinitarian. You cannot have it both ways.

Again, could you define why there are only two ways and not a spectrum of ways that define more clearly at which point worshipers are no longer properly worshiping the “God of Abraham?” Does it ever come down to how God is worshiped, or is that just irrelevant provided some kind of historical affiliation to Abraham can be shown. I would assume the theological details are irrelevant for you and that mere cultural or racial ties are sufficient.

Suppose, for example, a modern Muslim Arab, decides to begin a new Islamic religion with a whole new set of revelations, does this individual and subsequent followers get the bye because of their claim to acknowledge and worship the God of Abraham? At what point and using what criteria would you say, “this one has gone too far in how they worship God?” Or will you inevitably default to “You cannot have it both ways,” and always invoke the “God of Abraham” to render all such religious groups legitimate?

 

[jcrichton]

Jack, do you not see a difference?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[FrDavid96]

This seems to be begging the question of how is it to be known that the God being worshiped by any particular Muslim, or Muslims in general, or any group whatsoever, is the "God of Abraham? Is it purely because of their claim that makes it so?

All you keep doing is to repeat the same logical error from the very beginning.

You fail to understand the difference between these 2 very simple sentences:

1 What God a people believe in
2 What people say about that God

It is very simple. And yet, time and time again, you keep trying to “prove” that those 2 very different sentences mean the same thing. It won’t matter how many times you post, nothing will change. Those 2 sentences mean different things.

I am not going to go through your post and point-out every time you do it. That would be a wast of my time.

 

[theCardinalbird]

Didn’t the Mohamedian heresy originate 100s of years after Christ established his Church? Surely Mohammed was influenced by Catholicsm when creating the Islamic religion? He most likely is talking about the same God that us Catholics worship except that what he said contradicts the teachings of the Church.

Maybe it’s not that Catholics and Muslims worship different Gods, maybe one man (Mohammed) decided to speak heresy about God and created a religion that speaks falsely about God?

I don’t know im just brainstorming here

 

[jcrichton]

I think the problem lies beyond what you have decreed as tradition.

Religion is not simply tradition it is a way of life.

Every religious group would defend its identity as the correct Belief–even those agencies that purport to not having a “belief.”

The pole is a mechanism stolen from paganism, just as St. Nick.

However no Catholic would claim December 25th as a tradition since our Belief is that the Word, God, Became Incarnate, and Lived among men (Immanuel).

It is not a tradition (Dec. 25) that Catholics Celebrate.

Maran atha!

Angel Valentine

 

[Kei]

Lumber Jack you seem to think Muslims do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah. This is wrong. Muslims recognize Jesus Christ as the Messiah. What they are waiting on is the return on the Messiah who will then defeat the antichrist, a being with one eye.

They do not accept Christ Jesus as the Son of God, and practice a modified version of Jewish laws, keeping some (i.e., most, BUT NOT ALL!!, of the dietary restrictions) and throwing away others (i.e., the Sabbath).

 

[Kei]

Essentially, about 600 years after Christ established thr Church. The question then becomes if heretics worship the same God as Christians, and how far does that extend. Do Unitarians believe in the same God? Do Jehovah’s Witnesses (or Arians, essentially)? I feel most would say yes, quite possibly. But do Mormons? That I am not sure on what people would say.

 

[jcrichton]

Let’s see: Jews:

1 As Yeshua came out of the Temple, one of the talmidim said to him, “Look, Rabbi! What huge stones! What magnificent buildings!” 2 “You see all these great buildings?” Yeshua said to him, “They will be totally destroyed — not a single stone will be left standing!” (St. Mark 13)

Islam:

15 God said to Avraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you are not to call her Sarai [mockery]; her name is to be Sarah [princess]. 16 I will bless her; moreover, I will give you a son by her. Truly I will bless her: she will be a mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her.” 17 At this Avraham fell on his face and laughed — he thought to himself, “Will a child be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah give birth at ninety?” 18 Avraham said to God, “If only Yishma‘el could live in your presence!” 19 God answered, “No, but Sarah your wife will bear you a son, and you are to call him Yitz’chak [laughter]. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. 20 But as for Yishma‘el, I have heard you. I have blessed him. I will make him fruitful and give him many descendants. He will father twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. 21 But I will establish my covenant with Yitz’chak, whom Sarah will bear to you at this time next year.” 22 With that, God finished speaking with Avraham and went up from him. (Genesis 17)

Catholics (Christians):

30 So, what are we to say? This: that Gentiles, even though they were not striving for righteousness, have obtained righteousness; but it is a righteousness grounded in trusting! 31 However, Isra’el, even though they kept pursuing a Torah that offers righteousness, did not reach what the Torah offers. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue righteousness as being grounded in trusting but as if it were grounded in doing legalistic works. They stumbled over the stone that makes people stumble.[l] 33 As the Tanakh puts it,
“Look, I am laying in Tziyon
a stone that will make people stumble,
a rock that will trip them up.
But he who rests his trust on it
will not be humiliated.” (Romans 9)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

And herein lies the problem, the reason for the slaughter of millions if not billions over the centuries.

Please, put some facts back into that inflammatory pretense–in over two-thousand years less than 10 millions of deaths on the claim of “religious wars” vs. over 250 million deaths perpetrated by states that promoted themselves as enlightened secular governments.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

‘Love thy neighbour’ does not mean become as your neighbor or accept what your neighbor proposes.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Understand does not mean enable or celebrating these variables.

Say we were to find people who would believe that drinking human blood is the true way to serve God, does the Church or Pope Francis joins them in their quest for perfection?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[theCardinalbird]

‘Love thy neighbour’ does not mean become as your neighbor or accept what your neighbor proposes.

So true! I should use that when people say Love thy neighbor to excuse sin

 

[jcrichton]

Joe, hundreds of years later… Islam did not exist as a religion till about the 6th/7th century.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Yet, saying or thinking ‘yes, the same God’ does not make it so.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Yeah, it is hollowood’s theology: ‘don’t judge’ and ‘love.’ The problem is that what is being proclaimed is unrighteousness and egocentrism.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[theCardinalbird]

Joe, hundreds of years later… Islam did not exist as a religion till about the 6th/7th century.

I see. That only shows that Islam could have been heavily influenced by Christianity which would show that they could be talking about the same God, just in heretical way.

 

[jcrichton]

I think that both Christianity and Judaism were influential–if you note the Muslims religious culture and practices you find that as Judaism many practices are quite similar (adopted): cleansing, prayer to the East, bearded men, number of daily prayers as group/unit… and you will also find their acceptance of the Virgin and Jesus (which Jews totally reject) as part of the Christian influence… still, three different paths to God…

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[theCardinalbird]

still, three different paths to God

I see. Some things in the Muslim faith are similar to the Catholic faith. However other things like Muslims rejecting the divinity of Jesus is heresy in the eyes of the Church considering also that Jesus was in fact divine

 

[HarryStotle]

All you keep doing is to repeat the same logical error from the very beginning.

You fail to understand the difference between these 2 very simple sentences:

1 What God a people believe in
2 What people say about that God

You keep claiming it is a logical error, but you haven’t explained how those two sentences don’t need to have the same referent by logical necessity if the word “God” would presumably be referring to the same entity in both.

So unless “the people” are insane or irrational, how can it be true that what people SAY about that God need not align completely with what those same people BELIEVE about that God.

It is very simple. And yet, time and time again, you keep trying to “prove” that those 2 very different sentences mean the same thing. It won’t matter how many times you post, nothing will change. Those 2 sentences mean different things.

Yes, the people are “believing” in the first instance and “saying” in the second, in that respect the two sentences mean “different things.” But if it is the same God being referred to in both instances then what is being believed and what is being said should align because they are about the same God and not about “different things” as you keep claiming.

How would it make sense for the people to believe things about God but say things about something else entirely because even though they ostensibly are speaking about God what they are saying about that God does not refer to that God in whom they believe?

Sorry, your position just seems awkwardly confused.

I am not going to go through your post and point-out every time you do it. That would be a wast of my time.

No need to worry about pointing out when I do it, just explain how believing and saying don’t need to be about the same God when the same God is being referenced by those who are doing the believing and the saying.