Islam

[Servant19]

Are you really trying to imply that Muhammad somehow agrees with the Christian position and this is something that both Christians and Muslims have just missed?

Why don’t you enlighten us. What is it that Muhammad really meant?

Steve

I’m not sure what the true meaning is. There are so many possible interpretations.

Suffice to say that if they didn’t kill Jesus, they also didn’t kill all the martyrs of Islam either:

***“And say not of those who are slain in the way of Allah: ‘They are dead.’ Nay, they are living, though ye perceive (it) not. *** (The Noble Quran, 2:154)”

"Think not of those who are slain in Allah’s way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord. They rejoice in the Bounty provided by Allah: And with regard to those left behind, who have not yet joined them (in their bliss), the (Martyrs) glory in the fact that on them is no fear, nor have they (cause to) grieve. They glory in the Grace and Bounty from Allah, and in the fact that Allah suffereth not the reward of the faithful to be lost (in the least). (The Noble Quran, 3:169-171)"

.

 

[DebChris]

These two conversion stories may help explain the differences between Christianity and Islam better than anything else.

youtube.com/watch?v=2-L1KIU7lao

youtube.com/watch?v=HIn3pBsd-SA
As mentioned Mohamed is not in the Bible, but Jesus is mentioned in the Koran.

While both of these videos feature zealots, the Muslims that I have known have all led peaceful lives. They are in no way meant to add to the stereotype that many already have regarding Muslims and Islam. The story of Khalid will remind many Christians of the conversion of Paul.

 

[rinnie]

Hi rinnie

Hope you’re well angel

Can you show me where Pope John Paul said that please?

.

Hi Sweetie, how are you? Sure, if you read the crossing the threshold of hope he states Islam is not a Religion of redemption.

The theology but also the anthropology of Islam is distant from Christianity.

So while he indeed did not come out and say Muhammad is a false prophet, saying that it is a Distant from Christianity, means it is not the same teaching. Anyone who teaches another Religion apart from Christ is a false prophet.

 

[rinnie]

I’m not sure what the true meaning is. There are so many possible interpretations.

Suffice to say that if they didn’t kill Jesus, they also didn’t kill all the martyrs of Islam either:

***“And say not of those who are slain in the way of Allah: ‘They are dead.’ Nay, they are living, though ye perceive (it) not. *** (The Noble Quran, 2:154)”

"Think not of those who are slain in Allah’s way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord. They rejoice in the Bounty provided by Allah: And with regard to those left behind, who have not yet joined them (in their bliss), the (Martyrs) glory in the fact that on them is no fear, nor have they (cause to) grieve. They glory in the Grace and Bounty from Allah, and in the fact that Allah suffereth not the reward of the faithful to be lost (in the least). (The Noble Quran, 3:169-171)"

See that is another problem, Christ say he will not leave us orphans. He said he is sending the Advocate the Holy Spirit to lead the Church. He said the Church is the Pilar of all Truth.

If we could not understand the true word of God, if would make us Orphans, which is another contradiction of God.

.

 

[rinnie]

Now Pope Benedict was much clearer on what he thought of Muhammad.

He said he never brought anything that was new. Lets start there, Christ told us everything we needed to know.

The Pope said Muhammad’s preaching was evil and inhuman such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.

A true Prophet would never teach something that was evil and inhuman.

 

[manualman]

Now Pope Benedict was much clearer on what he thought of Muhammad.

He said he never brought anything that was new. Lets start there, Christ told us everything we needed to know.

The Pope said Muhammad’s preaching was evil and inhuman such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.

A true Prophet would never teach something that was evil and inhuman.

Not exactly. You’re referring to B16’s Regensburg address in which he quoted a Byzantine Emperor who said (approximately) that. B16 wasn’t necessarily endorsing that position as much as he was challenging muslims to recognize that faith and reason aren’t opposed. Look it up, it’s easily available.

As for Servant’s claims, he (she?) is being a bit duplicitous. It’s quite correct to note that the church has worked hard in recent centuries to find common ground with other cultures and even religions so as to establish a non-violent dialogue from which the church is confident that Truth will ultimately be persuasive. This is not remotely the same thing Servant appears to be espousing (which appears to be something along the lines of “Quit thinking so much and just believe that it’s the true God at the end of all religious systems, no matter what they formally teach or how glaring the contradictions are…”)

But such assertions simply fall flat in the face of basic catholic teaching such as this from the Catechism (para 66): “The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.”28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries."

It has always been catholic dogma that general revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. Muhammed claimed to be not only a prophet, but to be the bearer of additional general revelation. False prophet by definition. One can only get around that by defying what Benedict 16 was explicitly endorsing in his Regensburg address: Faith and Reason aren’t in conflict. God is the source of all reason. Rather different from Servant’s exhortations to quit thinking so much.

EDIT: Perhaps duplicitous is too harsh a word for what might simply be playfulness of Servant here. It’s one thing to be cautious about condemnation as advised by Aquinas (“Rarely affirm, seldom deny, always distinguish”), but it’s quite another to assert that we should simply ignore basic rational contradictions as if they didn’t exist.

 

[otterman]

This is Truth

Bravo !!

There is no place in Catholic teaching that states that Muhammad is a false Prophet.
Stating such things is not being aligned correctly with Catholic teaching…

.

There is no place in Catholic teaching that states that Muhammad is a false Prophet.
Stating such things is not being aligned correctly with Catholic teaching…

Yes there is.

Catholics take the Bible as their reference point, in all matters spiritual, and the Bible teaches which criteria has to be met for anyone claiming to be a prophet in the name of the Bible God,YHWH.

Mohammed did not meet this criteria, and therefore must be a false prophet.

1. He did not come from Hebrew heritage.
   2)He came with a different message to all other Bible prophets.
   3)He did not perform miracles.
   4)He did not speak in the name of the Bible God.
2. He did not live and teach by the Bible Gods Commandments.

Further reading is found within the links below.

bible.org/seriespage/chapter-three-what-prophet

gotquestions.org/false-teachers.html

Jesus, said the following about false prophets:

Matthew 7:15
"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16"You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?…

 

[rinnie]

Not exactly. You’re referring to B16’s Regensburg address in which he quoted a Byzantine Emperor who said (approximately) that. B16 wasn’t necessarily endorsing that position as much as he was challenging muslims to recognize that faith and reason aren’t opposed. Look it up, it’s easily available.

As for Servant’s claims, he (she?) is being a bit duplicitous. It’s quite correct to note that the church has worked hard in recent centuries to find common ground with other cultures and even religions so as to establish a non-violent dialogue from which the church is confident that Truth will ultimately be persuasive. This is not remotely the same thing Servant appears to be espousing (which appears to be something along the lines of “Quit thinking so much and just believe that it’s the true God at the end of all religious systems, no matter what they formally teach or how glaring the contradictions are…”)

But such assertions simply fall flat in the face of basic catholic teaching such as this from the Catechism (para 66): “The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.”28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries."

It has always been catholic dogma that general revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. Muhammed claimed to be not only a prophet, but to be the bearer of additional general revelation. False prophet by definition. One can only get around that by defying what Benedict 16 was explicitly endorsing in his Regensburg address: Faith and Reason aren’t in conflict. God is the source of all reason. Rather different from Servant’s exhortations to quit thinking so much.

EDIT: Perhaps duplicitous is too harsh a word for what might simply be playfulness of Servant here. It’s one thing to be cautious about condemnation as advised by Aquinas (“Rarely affirm, seldom deny, always distinguish”), but it’s quite another to assert that we should simply ignore basic rational contradictions as if they didn’t exist.

I agree Jesus left us History and Reason.

History is what we have in the O.T. and the N.T. Reason is who we can see where the O.T. fits into the N.T.

We are not taught to simply accept all religious systems. Actually we are warned by Jesus NOT to do so.

We have the teaching’s of Christ in the Church to do so. What amazes me, and I mean TRULY AMAZES me is this. There is no religion outside of the Catholic Religion that does not contradict itself. As my Dad always says scripture cannot contradict scripture, if it does you don’t know the correct teaching.

Which leaves us with the Church. It is the Church that teaches us, not our own figure it out for yourself and what it means to you.

I did a thread once on where is your authority. Who has authority over another and where is your proof it came from God. Well I think you can guess where that went.

The bottom line was this either Christ gave the CC Authority to speak in his name through the power of the Holy Spirit. OR…

We have a Holy Spirit that is total chaos.

 

[Servant19]

Servant appears to be espousing (which appears to be something along the lines of “Quit thinking so much and just believe that it’s the true God at the end of all religious systems, no matter what they formally teach or how glaring the contradictions are…”)

I don’t believe I’ve said this in this thread at all.

Can you show me where. I want you to think, and research and pray…the answers will come then

.

 

[Servant19]

But such assertions simply fall flat in the face of basic catholic teaching such as this from the Catechism (para 66): “The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.”28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries."

It has always been catholic dogma that general revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. Muhammed claimed to be not only a prophet, but to be the bearer of additional general revelation. False prophet by definition. One can only get around that by defying what Benedict 16 was explicitly endorsing in his Regensburg address: Faith and Reason aren’t in conflict. God is the source of all reason. Rather different from Servant’s exhortations to quit thinking so much.

EDIT: Perhaps duplicitous is too harsh a word for what might simply be playfulness of Servant here. It’s one thing to be cautious about condemnation as advised by Aquinas (“Rarely affirm, seldom deny, always distinguish”), but it’s quite another to assert that we should simply ignore basic rational contradictions as if they didn’t exist.

No dear friend, I sense you have misunderstood.

What I am asserting, and also praising the Church for, is that the Church always teaches “what is”…not “what is not”

I sense you may not understand this, and maybe even the Church is unaware it is doing this, but that subtle difference is critical.

The Church teaches that public revelation has ended. You “assume” from that that Muhammad is “not” a prophet, but that is not official Church teaching. There is a BIG difference, and no I am not being playful…

On the contrary, I am asking you to think more…



.

 

[manualman]

Making implications denies our soul of correct relationship with God, and puts us in the potential category of error.

Why take that risk?

Maybe I misunderstood then. The above sure amounts to “don’t think it through, just pretend it’s all good” to me. This isn’t advanced logic or clever lawyering stuff. When a guy claims to be a prophet and yet his allegedly divinely revealed teachings flatly contradict teachings given straight from the Son of God himself, I hardly need a phd in logic or philosophy to make a conclusion about said “prophet’s” legitimacy. False prophet.

The only way around that is to refuse to think. If I’ve got it wrong, please elaborate.

 

[manualman]

No dear friend, I sense you have misunderstood.

What I am asserting, and also praising the Church for, is that the Church always teaches “what is”…not “what is not”

I sense you may not understand this, and maybe even the Church is unaware it is doing this, but that subtle difference is critical.

The Church teaches that public revelation has ended. You “assume” from that that Muhammad is “not” a prophet, but that is not official Church teaching. There is a BIG difference, and no I am not being playful…

On the contrary, I am asking you to think more…

You are selectively characterizing the catholic church and attempting to define her only from relatively recent documents. I suggest a bit more comprehensive reading going somewhat further back. There is only one catholic church and she has never repudiated any doctrine or dogma. What you’re seeing recently is a correction in balance. Older dogmatic teaching contains rather a LOT of “what is not” statements. The assertion that she doesn’t make such statements is laughable. These statements generally conclude with the phrase “… let him be anathema.” (Utter rejection of that idea) More recent statements have attempted to build bridges now that intellectual boundaries are already clearly established by earlier teaching.

One of us is being dense, perhaps me, perhaps not. I fail to see how thinking MORE about it will resolve the utter rational incompatibility between certain of Muhammed’s supposedly divinely revealed teachings and certain dogmas of the church. I fully agree that SOMETIMES contradictions can be merely apparent contradictions (which is often the case between catholics and eastern orthodox). But other problems cannot be resolved without resorting to pretense, which is NOT “thinking.” As I noted in my earlier Aquinas quote, his advice was to SELDOM deny, not never. You seem to want that to be never.

 

[rinnie]

No dear friend, I sense you have misunderstood.

What I am asserting, and also praising the Church for, is that the Church always teaches “what is”…not “what is not”

I sense you may not understand this, and maybe even the Church is unaware it is doing this, but that subtle difference is critical.

The Church teaches that public revelation has ended. You “assume” from that that Muhammad is “not” a prophet, but that is not official Church teaching. There is a BIG difference, and no I am not being playful…

On the contrary, I am asking you to think more…



.

But if public revelation is ended how could Muhammad be a Prophet from God. What could he teach or tell us that God forgot?

And how could the Church teach that public revelation has ended, and then recognize Muhammad as a Prophet from God with Public Revelation?

 

[DebChris]

Anything that is contrary to what we as Catholics recite in the Nicene Creed is contrary to Catholic teaching. In the Nicene Creed, we profess our belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ and the Trinity of God. Islam denies both. Therefore, Islam is contrary to Catholic teaching.
As has been stated throughout this thread, the Catholic Church does not recognize Mohammed as a prophet.

The Catholic Church esteems Muslims for their belief in the God of Abraham. This is what we have in common. As the descendents of Ishmael, Muslims come under the Covenant of the Circumcision as found in Genesis.

The best way to learn what adherents of a particular religion believe is to ask adherents of that Faith rather than to make assertions regarding it. See post #41.

 

[Servant19]

My apologies if this is what is being implied by my posts in this thread.

I will bow out as a result.

Please continue in categorising the Beloved of a billion people as “false”

.

 

[rinnie]

My apologies if this is what is being implied by my posts in this thread.

I will bow out as a result.

Please continue in categorising the Beloved of a billion people as “false”

.

Oh come on Servant19, you know we love you. Just because we don’t agree with the teachings of Muhammad should not make us enemies.

At the end of the day we have to agree on one thing. Our love for one another and our Love for our God. And that is the One True God the God of Abraham we both adore and glorify.

Is it that True God that will bring us all together someday. And Muhammad did get that right!

You must admit that’s really important!

 

[MartinJordan]

Please continue in categorising the Beloved of a billion people as “false”

This beloved has denied Christ as Son of the Most High. There is no further revelation. We can’t let our minds be muddled by compromise. Especially when dealing with Salvation.

Happy are the pure in heart, for they will see God. Catholicism defends this Truth. Learn what means to be “pure in heart”.

MJ

 

[Servant19]

Oh come on Servant19, you know we love you. Just because we don’t agree with the teachings of Muhammad should not make us enemies.

At the end of the day we have to agree on one thing. Our love for one another and our Love for our God. And that is the One True God the God of Abraham we both adore and glorify.

Is it that True God that will bring us all together someday. And Muhammad did get that right!

You must admit that’s really important!

Thankyou angel. My agenda is universal love. My agenda is respect and dignity towards those that have a pure understanding of the sanctity and purity of God’s love amongst the Muslims.

Many Muslims in the world see Christ as the Son of God (and understand what that means). Many Muslims in the world know that He was crucified and do not deny His resurrection.

Its respect for that possible minority that is my agenda.

That’s my final word here in this thread

God bless all.

.

 

[Novocastrian]

Well may I ask why doesn’t the Church do that then and categorically state that Muhammad was a false prophet?

Because it’s self evidently true. Muhammad taught against Christianity, so he can’t have been a true prophet.

 

[rinnie]

Thankyou angel. My agenda is universal love. My agenda is respect and dignity towards those that have a pure understanding of the sanctity and purity of God’s love amongst the Muslims.

Many Muslims in the world see Christ as the Son of God (and understand what that means). Many Muslims in the world know that He was crucified and do not deny His resurrection.

Its respect for that possible minority that is my agenda.

That’s my final word here in this thread

God bless all.

.

Servant, above all remember this, Everything comes from Grace from God. And until he gives us grace to understand something, we never will.

St Paul was the most book smart, educated Apostle of Christ. Yet he picked the most uneducated Apostle an mere fishermen Peter to lead his Church.

Grace has nothing to do with intelligence, its God given.

When we say the rosary, one is the Lost Child in the temple. Jesus is taught scripture by the most educated people of that time. But yet a Child begins to teach them what the scripture truly means. Which teaches us one thing, true wisdom does not come from a book, education, true wisdom comes from God.

So now I will speak to you as a Child. I know of the love God has for Muslims. I admire much about them. Number one on my list is the way they take time out and pray to God everyday. I know God loves them and is close to them.

There is no limitation to how and where and when God relates to all people.

But be patient. It is going to take time for some people to see Muslims as loving people, because of the violence of the people who claim to be true followers of God, and what they did to this country.

Believe it or not, people still say it is the Jews that killed Jesus, and continue to hate and persecute them for it. They call themselves Christians, and yet do not even know the true word of God.

Jesus came here for one reason, and one reason only. To die for our sins, because we could not be sinless. But they blame the Jews. Its like saying Jesus died for the Jews not us, It makes no sense. Jesus died for everyone.

I know people say how could God love Muslims who kill, I would say the same way he loves and forgives Christians who kill. Just like all Christians are not saint, all Muslims are not evil.

People are evil, all races, colors, religions. etc. and People are good, all races, colors, religions etc. Just continue in prayer and be patient.