E
Even_So
Guest
Dude, or maybe dudette, but i’m guessing dude, Linus believed the most sincere pumpkin patch would draw the great pumpkin. That’s what sincerity did for him.
- Status
E
Even_So
Guest
I tried to reasearch your denomination. I thnk i got it. Possibly. But great post from Isaiah.Then perhaps nothing will convince you?
For difficult concepts (for Catholics), sometimes it’s just best to trust that the Holy Spirit has guided the Church to the proper understanding and to remember the Scripture passage from Isaiah 55:8-9:
8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, says the Lord.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
E
Even_So
Guest
That’s why this is here, so we can all research it if need be. And i be needin’ to. Seems you have a sincere heart, yet sincerity ain’t gonna get you in without the knowledge of Jesus Christ. You combine knowledge, wisdom, and fear, and you will be okay. Isa 33:6 And wisdom and knowledge shall be the stability of thy times, and strength of salvation: the fear of the LORD is his treasure.
D
dzheremi
Guest
No. With the exception of the Christians in Arabia proper and the Arab settlements outside of it (al-Hira is the big one, as it was the first Arab kingdom established outside of Arabia proper, in what is today central Iraq, and its people were mostly Christian, though not necessarily Orthodox), there wouldn’t have been a significant number of Arabic speakers in the communion prior to the Arab conquests of the 7th century. The major linguistic division before that in the East was between the Syriacs and the Greeks (not two entirely separate communities in the first place, as plenty of Syriacs were Hellenized as that came with education in those days), which was also in some sense a class/prestige thing. Arabs were not a major factor despite being settled quite early in some places (Iraq and Syria). The power to affect a change in worship came later, with the rise of Islam and the subsequent displacement of the Syriacs, Greeks, Copts, etc. And of course in places like Ethiopia, the Arab Muslims came as refugees rather than conquerors, and hence were not able to shake the native Christians until some time later (and in Ethiopia’s case, then it was done by the Sultanate of Adal, which was not entirely Arab in the first place; its famous kings and jihadists like Sabr ad-Din or Ahmed Gragn were what we’d think of today as Somalis, although there’s some debate as to whether or not that would’ve been a distinct cultural identity back then, c.15th century).
So, no, the Oriental Orthodox would not have called God “Allah”, unless of course you’re talking about the Arabs who would’ve found themselves in that communion at some point (and it’s true, the Syriac Orthodox did have missions and parishes established among the larger Christian Arab tribes, like the Banu Taghlib; others, like the Lakhmids, were a party of the dyophysites). But again, it is not clear from the available record that being “Arab” meant worshiping in Arabic in those days. In Tremmingham’s 1979 book on the subject (Christianity among the Arabs in Pre-Islamic Arabia), he actually defines Arab vs. Aramaean (read: Syriac) identity as a matter of nomadic vs. sentient/pastoral life, with the Arabs being the nomads and the Aramaeans being the pastoralists. Given that this is in an Arabian context, it is likely that both populations would’ve spoken, or at least understood, either language, as you still do find in Maaloula (home of the world’s only Syriac-speaking Muslims who are not the result of recent conversions to Islam). And indeed, the earliest document yet to surface written in Garshuni (essentially Arabic written in Syriac characters) is from c.6th century (read: over 100 years before Islam), found at Deir El-Surian (‘The Monastery of the Syrians’), one of the Coptic Orthodox monasteries of the Egyptian desert. This is not terribly surprising considering the pre-Islamic tablets found in the environs of Damascus some years ago (detailed in the aforementioned work by Tremmingham) which contain writing in Syriac, primitive Arabic [unvoweled, not connected as it is written today], and Greek. If I recall correctly, they were dated to c.4th century.
The Christians which make up the bulk of the Oriental Orthodox communion call God nout(i) [Coptic; it usually doesn’t surface in this form, since Coptic has many prefixes, and a similar mania for definite articles as Arabic does], Der/Ter [Armenian], Amlak/Egziabher [Amharic; I’m ashamed to admit I don’t know the Tigrinya form, though it’s surely very similar], Aloho [Syriac; Western] or Alaha [Syriac; Eastern, which is still commonly used by Orthodox Syriac Christians in India, as a result of their long association with the Church of the East prior to becoming Orthodox], and only most recently/least consequentially Allah.
There is a very interesting passage in Mark Gruber OSB’s book on his travels in the Coptic Orthodox monasteries in Egypt, Journey Back to Eden, where he describes with surprise being asked to read an epistle at a Coptic liturgy by HH Pope Shenouda III himself. Of course, normally non-Orthodox are not invited to participate in the liturgy in this fashion, but HH was very pleased to have a Western, English-speaking visitor (and a monk, at that). Gruber shares HH’s reasoning: There is nothing inherently valued about Arabic in the context of Coptic services, so if you’re going to do it in one foreign language (Arabic), you might as well do it in another (English).
Arabic was not officially added to the liturgy of the Coptic Church until the 12th century under HH Pope Gabriel II, who served 1131-1145.
F
fnr
Guest
The god worshipped by Muslims is God. They worship only God the Father.
Rabbinical Jews have already been discussed. They worship our God, but in an improper way. Still, they worship with the same Old Testament that Jesus himself quoted. Jesus, if you notice, didn’t go about saying that those who rejected him didn’t worship God, he said that they rejected the invitation that God offered them through himself (e.g. parable of the tenants). In Romans 11, Paul is clear that God has not revoked his promises to the Jews, and that through the Church, all Israel will be saved (though it’s anachronistic to say that Paul is describing Talmudic Judaism like today – the temple was still operating when he was writing).
Here is another example: Arius. The great heresiarch of the Council of Nicea. Was he a Christian? He argued all his points based on the exact same scripture we use. He argue that Jesus was not God. The doctrine of the Trinity was codified to rebut him and clarify Christian belief. But would anyone at Nicea have argued that he wasn’t a Christian? No. He was a heretic. A profoundly wrong heretic, but a Christian heretic.
Muslims are similarly, though even more extremely, wrong on nearly all points other than monotheism. I would say that they are monotheists, but heretical monotheists.
Rabbinical Jews have already been discussed. They worship our God, but in an improper way. Still, they worship with the same Old Testament that Jesus himself quoted. Jesus, if you notice, didn’t go about saying that those who rejected him didn’t worship God, he said that they rejected the invitation that God offered them through himself (e.g. parable of the tenants). In Romans 11, Paul is clear that God has not revoked his promises to the Jews, and that through the Church, all Israel will be saved (though it’s anachronistic to say that Paul is describing Talmudic Judaism like today – the temple was still operating when he was writing).
Here is another example: Arius. The great heresiarch of the Council of Nicea. Was he a Christian? He argued all his points based on the exact same scripture we use. He argue that Jesus was not God. The doctrine of the Trinity was codified to rebut him and clarify Christian belief. But would anyone at Nicea have argued that he wasn’t a Christian? No. He was a heretic. A profoundly wrong heretic, but a Christian heretic.
Muslims are similarly, though even more extremely, wrong on nearly all points other than monotheism. I would say that they are monotheists, but heretical monotheists.
:clapping: :yup:
F
fnr
Guest
I have been to Maronite services (Lebanese Catholic) that use Arabic and English. In those services, the word “Allah” was used to refer to God. They also use Syriac in their anaphora (qorbono), particularly in the words of consecration.
C
Celtic_Maiden
Guest
Moslems seem to adopt everything that is prior to Mohammed coming, Alexander the Great was a Pagan, and prayed to Greek Gods in the plural he thought of himself as a follower of Zeus, is this what they say , which is impossible as he was around before the Moslem religion was founded, its a bit like me saying my relations were from the Viking era, when I know they are not, Why tell lies, when history and facts can bear out the lies.
Ridiculous why make claims that are not true, maybe they are descended from Tutankhamen as well. The only religion who believed in One God were the Jewish Religion then with the coming of Christ the Christians, then six hundred years later Mohammed came on the scene with all sorts of stories. Being descended from Alexander is a joke and sad for any religion to claim that especially when only Jews were around in 365 BC when Alexander was born and died in 323 Died. What does it say when you have to tell porkies to prop up one’s argument- its shallow .
P.S History has Alexander down as being Gay also.
M
malphono
Guest
I’m not getting into this fray but FWLIW I will offer an unsolicited comment (or my :twocents: as it were).
While it’s clear, to me at least, that Jews (even modern rabbinical Jews) do worship the One True God, albeit imperfectly, the same cannot be said for other religious systems. Just because a particular religion is monotheistic doesn’t necessarily mean that they worship the One True God. Amenhoptep IV (aka Ahkenaten) comes to mind here. Was his Aten the One True God? :dts:
While it’s clear, to me at least, that Jews (even modern rabbinical Jews) do worship the One True God, albeit imperfectly, the same cannot be said for other religious systems. Just because a particular religion is monotheistic doesn’t necessarily mean that they worship the One True God. Amenhoptep IV (aka Ahkenaten) comes to mind here. Was his Aten the One True God? :dts:
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
No anti-christian. As you stated; “Muslims are similarly, though even more extremely, wrong on nearly all points other than monotheism. I would say that they are monotheists, but heretical monotheists.”
However, being there is one God, they are in the universal Church of God.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
You are making a rash judgment about Muslims, saying they are all EVIL. That is so wrongIts not stupid, its plausible, think about this for a moment. For sure God is Christ who indeed is real, and you can really think and believe your worshiping God and reject Christ. But whom would you be worshiping and how would you know? Being that there is one God, it doesn’t stand to reason you worship the one God.
Lets look at this another way. Lucifer who indeed believes God exists and indeed refused to follow or worship Him, built his own kingdom here and after here, and certainly needed human followers to fill both areas as God completes the communion of Saints thus His Kingdom.
There’s no reason to believe the same supernatural formula isn’t used. He doesn’t have to tempt one soul at a time, in continuous succession. He could have tempted Mohammed and Mohammed could very well have introduced sublime worship to the devil. There could indeed be and entire religion following Lucifer. Just as with Hitler or Nero. Everyone is subject to the 7-deadly sins from the on-set. All have one or two, when you entertain one all seven are then active.
Why would anyone deem an obvious corrupt individual with some form of non-existing virtue, truth is for every virtue there is an opposing sin. So what virtue is displayed which we deem is of God? Faith, Hope and Charity thus Love? Faith we see, Hope is for world conversion by the sword, and charity and love is for whom and where? Its seen with the way the least of them is corrupted and often results in blood sacrifice. Just as we see in the Holy Land today.
It would be about the same as some denomination killing and raping in Gods name, then us here saying, oh they believe in the God of Abraham because there’s one God. While they deny the one God which exits and verbally. You may be ignorant in worship but being ignorant with the spiritual law doesn’t equate to salvation and as your ignorance becomes action your involvement with the seven deadly sins increase’s and becomes closer to reality.
Who would want to kill all the Christians and Jews? You would say oh thats only the radical followers. But the radical followers, follow the same guidelines of worship 5X daily and from the same book. So the seven deadly sins corrupt completely within this realm.
How do you know who is Christian? Certainly not because they claim they believe in God. That may be a response that requires further conversation, but its not an affirmation of truth, its a statement which may or may not be a true.
Mohammed is a false prophet, the Quran isn’t the word of God and at no time was it considered to be so. So how do you follow a false prophet read a false book and follow the true God and born in a state of sin, introduced to the arena of the seven deadly sins.
I say as Islam said, Allah is the greatest deceiver. But I don’t worship the deceiver or the fact of its truth. In fact, the Quran states that Allah actually raises wicked individuals to deceive and scheme. And further commands people to do evil so that he can then have a reason to destroy them!
Allah may be the greatest deceiver as explained, and he may have deceived an entire religion by converting the most needed to convert the rest or at least as many who can’t find the exist to the maze. Same as with Mohammed.
Just saying. But yes aside from all that there is one God.
We know sin by those who sin, we don’t have to read minds just watch the good works.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
So they are Satanic heretics but in the universal Church!!??
Also, I thought a heretic was non the less a Christian
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
No one is “all evil” …
“Muslims are similarly, though even more extremely, wrong on nearly all points other than monotheism. I would say that they are monotheists, but heretical monotheists.”
However, there is one God and therefore could only be one Church.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Whats a satanic heretic? How much less is a heretic than a Christian?
T
thinkandmull
Guest
On the Traditional subforum they said that CAF doesn’t tolerate dissent from the Magisterium, and yet you are the forum master claiming that the Church is wrong when it says Muslims worship the same God, instead of trying to explain it. You say they are heretics who worship satan, which means they are evil, since they don’t worship Satan explicitly and can thus only worship him in their hearts.
As for me, I know there are good muslims. I have one as a friend
As for me, I know there are good muslims. I have one as a friend
A
Apotheoun
Guest
Saying that Muslims “worship” a false god (or a demon) is not a personal attack upon them, nor does it follow that Muslims are essentially evil, which is utter nonsense; instead, it is a statement of fact about the theological claims made by Muhammad, the false prophet and deceiver of millions of people.
The false god of Islam creates evil, and makes men sin, and this is clearly not the God revealed by our Lord Jesus Christ. Moreover, it is impossible to worship with the Father without the Son, and anyone who makes that type of claim certainly cannot be taking our Lord Jesus Christ seriously. The incarnation is not an optional belief, it is a required belief, a necessary belief if one is to worship the Father in Spirit and in truth.
The false god of Islam creates evil, and makes men sin, and this is clearly not the God revealed by our Lord Jesus Christ. Moreover, it is impossible to worship with the Father without the Son, and anyone who makes that type of claim certainly cannot be taking our Lord Jesus Christ seriously. The incarnation is not an optional belief, it is a required belief, a necessary belief if one is to worship the Father in Spirit and in truth.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
The native Americans before Columbus could pray. If your heart is in the right place, God accepts it. Duh.
I guess I got Gary Taylor mixed up with Apotheoun, icon
I guess I got Gary Taylor mixed up with Apotheoun, icon
D
dzheremi
Guest
Amen, Apotheoun. This whole “You mean Muslims are evil?! I know good Muslims. You’re being a meanie” kind of reply is ludicrous. I know good Muslims too. I do not think that their goodness is to the credit of their religion, or at least not any more than I could say that the goodness found in my atheistic friends is to the credit of atheism. It does not work that way.
And frankly, for all this reminding of the magisterium, et al., I can’t help but think of Pope Emeritus Benedict’s Regensburg lecture delivered in 2006 and the resulting violence. While Pope Benedict did not originate the idea (he was simply quoting Byzantine Emperor Manuel Palaeologos), I agree with the contention found therein that everything that Muhammad brought that was new was very bad. So any discussion about the supposed merits of Islam must be had within the context of greater merits of Christianity, as indeed there is nothing in Islam which is good that is unique to Islam or not found in Christianity in greater measure.
So I can say, also not as a personal attack on Muslims, that any good Muslim you might know or I might know is so despite their religion, as there truly is nothing good in it of itself. And what can we say of the forces behind any belief system which takes grains of truth and goodness and perverts them with massive amounts of soul-destroying denial of Christ and with politically-mandated violence in the name of God, supposedly from the mouth of God (in place of the earlier command that whoever should not receive you should be left alone; shake the dust from your feet and move on…this is far from “Fighting is prescribed for you, though you dislike it” as Islam’s Allah tells its people)? I fail to see how it can be anything but ultimately rooted in evil.
And frankly, for all this reminding of the magisterium, et al., I can’t help but think of Pope Emeritus Benedict’s Regensburg lecture delivered in 2006 and the resulting violence. While Pope Benedict did not originate the idea (he was simply quoting Byzantine Emperor Manuel Palaeologos), I agree with the contention found therein that everything that Muhammad brought that was new was very bad. So any discussion about the supposed merits of Islam must be had within the context of greater merits of Christianity, as indeed there is nothing in Islam which is good that is unique to Islam or not found in Christianity in greater measure.
So I can say, also not as a personal attack on Muslims, that any good Muslim you might know or I might know is so despite their religion, as there truly is nothing good in it of itself. And what can we say of the forces behind any belief system which takes grains of truth and goodness and perverts them with massive amounts of soul-destroying denial of Christ and with politically-mandated violence in the name of God, supposedly from the mouth of God (in place of the earlier command that whoever should not receive you should be left alone; shake the dust from your feet and move on…this is far from “Fighting is prescribed for you, though you dislike it” as Islam’s Allah tells its people)? I fail to see how it can be anything but ultimately rooted in evil.
- Status