Is Catholicsm and Islam compatible?

[FrDavid96]

I am not against you personally or the Church. I go along with the Church’s stance on Muslims but honestly I find this argument is very weak.

Basically, it is on the Church’s say so.

Correct me if my summary is wrong on the explanation so far:

1. Muslims are spirtual descendants Ishmael.
2. Since Ishmael worhsiped the God of his father, Abraham, therefore Muslims worship that God.
3. (Implication) - Muhammad many centuries later, claimed to be Ishmael descendant and therefore worshiped his God but with different ways and understanding of that God.

Yes. It is entirely wrong. It is what we call a straw-man. One which you setup and which in a moment…

I hope you see the weaknesses in this argument which is essentially a Church derivation. Nobody has yet said the proclaimation iis nfallible, so I guess it is still open for discussion, not that the Church will change this stance, of course.

…you will now knock down said straw-man.

As I said earlier, Muhammad being the descendant of Ishmael, is just a claim. Even if it is true, there is no way to verify that he still believed in what Ishmael believed - the gap/interruption of probably about two thousand years of not perpetuating Ishmael religion; and now Muhammad’s revelations are full of contradiction and errors as compared to what we know from the old Scripture, just does not make his claim credible at all.

Your argument would necessitate for the Church to agree to anyone after Muhammad, if they should make similar claim and introduce new religions.

I never said that the claim of being a descendant is true. In fact I said it doesn’t matter if he is descended by blood.

Direct blood line from Ishmael to Mohammed is irrelevant. Whether it was there or not makes no difference.

What does matter is that other descendants (by blood or by association) of Abraham continued to believe in the God of Abraham alongside the Jewish people. They never stopped believing in that God and replaced Him with a different God. That continues down to Mohammed.

Mohammed did not introduce a new God. He never told people to believe in any new God. He told them that he was a messenger of the God of Abraham; the God of the Jewish people; the God of Christianity.

He did not introduce a new God. He introduced new ways of speaking about that God.

 

[FrDavid96]

I cannot believe the absolutely infantile attempts at arguments I read from people here.

Truly, the level of logic and the level of common sense thinking displayed by people posting things here is below the reasoning of a kindergartener.

The average 5 year old knows the difference between a person (on the one hand) and what someone says about a person (on the other hand).

Are there any 4 year olds out there who can try to explain this very simple fact to certain people posting here?

Please…if you are out there, try to explain it to them.

 

[HarryStotle]

The average 5 year old knows the difference between a person (on the one hand) and what someone says about a person (on the other hand).

Argumentum ad quinque annorum.

 

[HarryStotle]

The average 5 year old knows the difference between a person (on the one hand) and what someone says about a person (on the other hand).

I am not even sure it is proper to call God a “person” in Islam.

Recall that Allah does not reveal himself, he only reveals his will. Thus, for Muslims, God is completely unknown and unknowable, it is absolutely impossible for anyone to know Him.

In the case of Islam where “someone” CANNOT say anything about the person of God, appealing to five year olds to argue for you would be utterly futile because no one, not even your average gifted five year old, can know the difference between the person of God and what Muslims say about God, because nothing can be known about God, Muslims shouldn’t say anything about the person of God and Islam would appear to claim that calling God a “person” would not even be legitimate.

Your oh-so-obvious argument doesn’t seem to apply in the case of Islam.

And Jesus said, "If you had known me, you would have known my Father also; henceforth you know him and have seen him.” (John 14:7)

Apparently we have on the one hand the God of Islam about whom nothing can be said since he CANNOT be known – it is utterly impossible to know him – and on the other hand, Jesus claiming that his disciples “know him [God] and have seen him.”

These two cannot be the same God regardless of what you claim to be distinctions between the person and what people say about the person. There is no saying anything at all about the God of Islam.

From now on take it up with Islamic theologians. Tell them that what they say about God is different from what God is. They will tell you they can say NOTHING about God and what God is cannot be known. Are you going to argue with them and tell them you know things about their God that they don’t, since you apparently know their God better than they do?

Christians worship a God who can be known because he has made himself known. These two cannot logically be the same God. Even a five year old will tell you that.

Argumentum ad quinque annorum back at you!

 

[Reuben_J]

Reuben_J:

I am not against you personally or the Church. I go along with the Church’s stance on Muslims but honestly I find this argument is very weak.

Basically, it is on the Church’s say so.

Correct me if my summary is wrong on the explanation so far:

1. Muslims are spirtual descendants Ishmael.
2. Since Ishmael worhsiped the God of his father, Abraham, therefore Muslims worship that God.
3. (Implication) - Muhammad many centuries later, claimed to be Ishmael descendant and therefore worshiped his God but with different ways and understanding of that God.

Yes. It is entirely wrong. It is what we call a straw-man. One which you setup and which in a moment…

I hope you see the weaknesses in this argument which is essentially a Church derivation. Nobody has yet said the proclaimation iis nfallible, so I guess it is still open for discussion, not that the Church will change this stance, of course.

…you will now knock down said straw-man.

As I said earlier, Muhammad being the descendant of Ishmael, is just a claim. Even if it is true, there is no way to verify that he still believed in what Ishmael believed - the gap/interruption of probably about two thousand years of not perpetuating Ishmael religion; and now Muhammad’s revelations are full of contradiction and errors as compared to what we know from the old Scripture, just does not make his claim credible at all.

Your argument would necessitate for the Church to agree to anyone after Muhammad, if they should make similar claim and introduce new religions.

I never said that the claim of being a descendant is true. In fact I said it doesn’t matter if he is descended by blood.

Direct blood line from Ishmael to Mohammed is irrelevant. Whether it was there or not makes no difference.

What does matter is that other descendants (by blood or by association) of Abraham continued to believe in the God of Abraham alongside the Jewish people. They never stopped believing in that God and replaced Him with a different God. That continues down to Mohammed.

Mohammed did not introduce a new God. He never told people to believe in any new God. He told them that he was a messenger of the God of Abraham; the God of the Jewish people; the God of Christianity.

He did not introduce a new God. He introduced new ways of speaking about that God.

That was exactly what I addressed though my language may not be clear. That Muhammad a descendant of Abraham is just a claim. Anyone can make such claim. What is the Church’s stance on Bahai? Or the Ahmadis? These people also make similar claim.

Muhammad certainly introduced new God, to put it bluntly. There is no proof of continuity that he continued from the religious belief and practices of Abraham. There is no scriptural references and continuity from the religion or God of Abraham. Muhammad came out of nowhere and claimed he is descendant of Ishmael and proceeded to introduce a new belief (Islam).

That would be in the nutshell for Islam.

 

[jcrichton]

If it is true, as some claim, that Mohammed had a supernatural revelation, but it was really a demon, then he actually started a religion to worship Satan masquerading as God

Hi, De Maria!

…this has been my observation from the description of the anti-Christ who will place himself as God and occupy God’s place (remember the dome in the Holy City?); it is said that he will tax Believers and force every to have a seal on their foreheads/hands and that only through that submission can anyone purchase goods/food… we know that Christians are forever being oppressed, taxed, and razed out of existence wherever Islam has a stronghold.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Hi, Reuben!

This is called simplification for the sake of ecumenism.

Have you noticed those who were crosses and even upside-down crosses (usually in the performing arts industry–including pornography) publicly thanking God for their success (usually related to art that is sacrilegious or outright immoral)?

They claim the same God (as those in the homosexual communities and the “Christian” simpletons that through “bleeding-heart theology” seek to support them) as the whole of Christianity.

Though on the most elementary and basic tenet there is some residual commonality (the bare belief that there exists one True God) there’s a miniscule grain of almost truth… the reality is that that God that they claim they willfully reject and disobey through their life experiences.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

The fallacy is held by you.

A simple understanding of God does not mean that everyone Worships that God.

I’ve heard from the pulpit on numerous occasions that “we are all children of God.” While it is a wonderful affirmation, I cannot force anyone who rejects Jesus, the God that Saves, as their Lord and Savior, to accept this affiliation with God.

Further, it is Christ Himself that Reveals that only those who Believe in the Immanuel (the God-with-us), who look upon Him on the Cross and Believe in Him are granted the Grace and Ability to Become Children of God.

The best mankind can claim as generic is “Creatures” made in the Image and Likeness of God. Sonship is totally a different matter–one that cannot be forced upon or gain for others as it is a personal relationship where each and every human must engage on his/her own determination.

It is as with the issue of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost–non-Catholics want the “right” to be included in that Revelation and Gift to the Church… yet, they reject the Church’s Authority and the Revelation that there’s but One Faith, One Gospel, One Spirit, One Baptism, One Body: the Church.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Christians worship a God who can be known because he has made himself known. These two cannot logically be the same God. Even a five year old will tell you that.

This is exactly the folly of those who argue for a homogenous “worship” or the one homogenous God.

It does not exist, but they bet the billions they don’t have that it is true and correct!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[FrDavid96]

FrDavid96:

The average 5 year old knows the difference between a person (on the one hand) and what someone says about a person (on the other hand).

Argumentum ad quinque annorum.

It was not an attempt to prove me right. It was expressing frustration at the lack of intelligent thought I find in the posts here.

 

[FrDavid96]

FrDavid96:

The average 5 year old knows the difference between a person (on the one hand) and what someone says about a person (on the other hand).

I am not even sure it is proper to call God a “person” in Islam.

Recall that Allah does not reveal himself, he only reveals his will. Thus, for Muslims, God is completely unknown and unknowable, it is absolutely impossible for anyone to know Him.

In the case of Islam where “someone” CANNOT say anything about the person of God, appealing to five year olds to argue for you would be utterly futile because no one, not even your average gifted five year old, can know the difference between the person of God and what Muslims say about God, because nothing can be known about God, Muslims shouldn’t say anything about the person of God and Islam would appear to claim that calling God a “person” would not even be legitimate.

Your oh-so-obvious argument doesn’t seem to apply in the case of Islam.

And Jesus said, "If you had known me, you would have known my Father also; henceforth you know him and have seen him.” (John 14:7)

Apparently we have on the one hand the God of Islam about whom nothing can be said since he CANNOT be known – it is utterly impossible to know him – and on the other hand, Jesus claiming that his disciples “know him [God] and have seen him.”

These two cannot be the same God regardless of what you claim to be distinctions between the person and what people say about the person. There is no saying anything at all about the God of Islam.

From now on take it up with Islamic theologians. Tell them that what they say about God is different from what God is. They will tell you they can say NOTHING about God and what God is cannot be known. Are you going to argue with them and tell them you know things about their God that they don’t, since you apparently know their God better than they do?

Christians worship a God who can be known because he has made himself known. These two cannot logically be the same God. Even a five year old will tell you that.

Argumentum ad quinque annorum back at you!

Still, you miss the entire point.

All you do is point out things that Islam says/believes about God and say that because they say different things about God, it isn’t the same God.

You are trying to prove that because Christians and Moslems worship differently, then they worship different Gods. No. It means nothing more than that they worship differently.

It is the same non-starter lack of any logic or sense you’ve tried to use from the beginning here.

We have one President of the United States.

Democrats say one thing about him.

Republicans say something different about him.

That does not mean that we have 2 Presidents of the United States. Instead, it means that different people say different things about him.

It does not matter that what is said by the two sides is incompatible with each other. There is still only one person being discussed. The person (or being or entity or whatever) does not multiply because people say different things.

 

[FrDavid96]

That was exactly what I addressed though my language may not be clear. That Muhammad a descendant of Abraham is just a claim. Anyone can make such claim. What is the Church’s stance on Bahai? Or the Ahmadis? These people also make similar claim.

Muhammad certainly introduced new God, to put it bluntly. There is no proof of continuity that he continued from the religious belief and practices of Abraham. There is no scriptural references and continuity from the religion or God of Abraham. Muhammad came out of nowhere and claimed he is descendant of Ishmael and proceeded to introduce a new belief (Islam).

That would be in the nutshell for Islam.

No. He did not. He claimed to be a prophet of the same God that Abraham worshiped. He claimed to be a prophet of the same God the Jews worshipped. He claimed to be a prophet of the same God the Christians worshipped.

He did not claim to be a prophet of any “other” God. He claimed to be a prophet of the God of Abraham.

Yes, he claimed to introduce new things to say about God. Different things. No one says otherwise.

But the fact is (and yes, it is a fact, no matter what people here might mistakenly think) that he never attempted to introduce a new God.

 

[Kei]

Is Donald Trump a racist, hateful, sexist bigot, or is he someone who gave up his reputation for the sake of America and simply wants the best for his country? Or is it somewhere in between or neither of these?
Does this mean that the fake news, whatever it is, isn’t talking about Donald Trump? Some may say a defamation means one isn’t speaking about the person himself, but a fiction, as the persons character is nothing like that. Others would say they are still talking about the same person, as it is, after all, about the same person, even if they are wrong.
Let us consider the latter as true. Now the question becomes: does this change for God? God isn’t just anyone, He is Perfect, by definition. Does this mean that anything reported of Him that is not Perfect is describing a lesser God, and thus is not the same God? Saying this would be problematic: we know not all faithful Jews and Christians understood the fullness of the Nature of God. Gregory the Wonder Worker was given the true Nature of God in the Trinity via divine revelation. Prior to this divine revelation, and assuming this changed his viewpoint, was he worshipping a different God? No, he was a faithful Christian.

I don’t like the idea of saying that Jews would find Christianity strange. Many of their traditions were no doubt lost through the ages, many could barely understand Hebrew in the modern age prior to the founding of Israel. The ideas of 1st century Judaism were most likely closer to Christian thought than most people probably realize.

Now, onto the subject at hand: the Church has already defined this. Had it not, I too would say we worship a different deity. After all, Mohammed got his revelation from an “angel” and even thought he himself was possessed and tried to kill himself multiple times, but the “angel” would tell him he is a prophet of Allah. And then, he maims God of His Word by denying that Jesus, whom he says is the Word, is God. Not to mention the many things he declares of God…
I understand it. When you have a close friend, you don’t want people to defame him or her. Some in Donald Trump’s family might say, “That’s not him, that’s a fiction that (insert “fake news” name) is reporting! He’s nothing like that!”
Yet, this is an emotional response which seems logically possible, yet logically speaking, the other is not only apparently possible but already defined by the Church.

 

[jcrichton]

NO.

It is not just about a different worship or does your Bible Command you to kill all those who reject Yahweh God?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[FrDavid96]

NO.

It is not just about a different worship or does your Bible Command you to kill all those who reject Yahweh God?

Maran atha!

Angel

Again, the simpleton response lacking any attempt at logical thinking.

You aren’t addressing the question “which God” you are addressing the question “what do they say about God?”

Two different questions.

Unless you can reach the point in your intellectual maturity to where you can understand the difference between those 2 questions, you are going to keep doing the same thing over and over again.

You can post all day saying that Christians and Muslims say different things. You will just continue down the line of proving nothing but your own inability to understand the question.

 

[theCardinalbird]

(13 characters)

 

[FrDavid96]

Wow, for a Christian you are quite stuck on making all gods reign in Heaven.

May the Holy Spirit Guide you the rest of the way.

Maran atha!

Angel

Would you say that Islam is a heresy?

Yes or no?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Wow, for a Christian you are quite stuck on making all gods reign in Heaven.

May the Holy Spirit Guide you the rest of the way.

Such a revolting statement as you have made, directed as it is to a priest, in the old forum would have resultedin the user being banned for life – I saw that with my own eyes when people who alleged they were Catholic spoke with such disrespect to the ordained clergy,

 

[HarryStotle]

…in the old forum would have resultedin the user being banned for life –

So the question then arises, “Is the old forum the same as the new forum?”

According to Fr David there is a difference between what a forum is and what people say about it. Even five year olds know that according to the Padre.

What the padre seems to forget is that what some people think and say may, in fact, be definitive about what a forum, or God, or what have you, actually are.

I would suppose there are philosophical questions to be had even when discussing what forums are and what they are not, and when they actually become different. That is a discussion to be had and to be permitted.

I would also suppose that what the person(s) of God have to say about what God is would, indeed, be definitive. Ergo, it isn’t logically true to say that what persons say about God is necessarily different from what God is. Depends upon who is doing the saying and what they are saying, no? So the good Father’s argument doesn’t amount to an argument because what some people say may be crucial in determining the truth of a matter.

For a Muslim, what Mohammed had to say about God was definitive. There we have a “who” saying a “what” as far as Muslims are concerned.

Now Fr. David seems to want to absolve himself of being a “who” saying a “what,” as if what he is saying ought to be definitive merely because what people say about a thing is different from the whatness of the thing. That may be true most of the time, but it isn’t true all of the time. So merely because it is frequently true does not amount to an argument that it is necessarily true.

Fr. David, and you as well now, want to claim that the Church has ruled definitively on the matter that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. How is that not also subject to Fr. David’s objection because a group of whos (the Church) is, apparently, saying something definitive about a what. If that group happens to be correct, then that would undermine the grounds from which Fr. David has been arguing all along. Apparently, in this case what someone has to say about the God of both Islam and Christianity is the last word on the matter. Ergo, Fr. David’s claim undermines his own argument.

In this case, you and Fr. David both want to argue that what a specific group of people (the Church) is saying about a thing is the definitive reason for accepting the truth about the thing. See the problem?

The question still remains, is the Church correct in speaking for Islam regarding whether the two conceptions of God are, indeed the same? Seems to me that the Church telling another religion about what it believes about the God it believes in is delving into matters that the Church ought to stay out of.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

In this case, you and Fr. David both want to argue that what a specific group of people (the Church) is saying about a thing is the definitive reason for accepting the truth about the thing. See the problem?

The question still remains, is the Church correct in speaking for Islam regarding whether the two conceptions of God are, indeed the same? Seems to me that the Church telling another religion about what it believes about the God it believes in is delving into matters that the Church ought to stay out of.

I don’t argue anything here…there is no one here who merits such a distinction as that level of discussion.

In my lecture hall, the people here who have submitted comments to Father David would not have even been allowed to be recognised let alone speak – since at the point displayed by people here, they would not have reached a sufficient level of formation to have reached the stature of being able to speak in the lecture hall. That required a sufficient level of theological achievement. Before that, they were lectured to; they were auditors…hearers.

I compliment @FrDavid96 for his good-hearted desire to try to explain to those who were not comprehending. I, on the other hand, apply in the forum the same criteria I used in the lecture hall.

I honestly think good-hearted attempts can be counter-productive when it involves laity below a certain threshold of theological formation…to say nothing of the odd persons one can encounter in this forum who manifest aberrant behaviour most charitably described as “disturbed”

The Church has articulated that both the Jews and the Muslims worship with us the God of Abraham. Period. The laity are to assent – and that is it. No discussion. No argument. End of topic.

What “seems” to such people holds absolutely no interest with me…let alone any weight or value.