Something that has been bothering me for a while now

[tomarin]

In my opinion those polytheists haven’t caused as much strife to the world as Muhammad’s warped monetheism has.

Let’s not be relativists. Monotheism is either true or it’s not.

As for the devil, I cannot think of a better way for him to mislead people than under the guise of a “religion” which appears pious and modest on the surface but is rotten to the core on the inside. Make of that what you will!

At least it’s alive and kicking, unlike faith in the West, which is on life support.

 

[Godfollower]

There is one God, but man has worshiped many gods. As far as the existence of some of these gods, I don’t doubt that some of them have been powers and principalities. As I posted before I think that it is possible that a Muslim worships the true God, though he know it not. What I do not think possible is that the Q’ran describes the same God that true worship goes to.

As to the origin of the Q’ran, I have no proof that it was not (diabolically) inspired. Yes, it may be an invention of Mohammed but the other possibility also exists. Regardless, to dismiss it as a work of fiction (and there is a whole realm of issues regarding the value of fiction left untouched here) when there is the possibility of it being something more is a bit rash.

I agree that the Quran describes God incorrectly. I think it’s clearly a work of fiction, and I believe it to have been authored by Mohammed. Now, I can’t say whether Mohammed was inspired by the devil; but I can note that he once admitted being inspired by the devil in part. That would tend to suggest that perhaps more than just that small part was inspired by the devil.

But, inspired by the devil or not, it’s a mixture of some true statements (e.g., there is only one God, Jesus was a prophet, prayer is good, etc.) and many false statements (Jesus was no more than a prophet, Mohammed was a prophet, God is only one Person, etc.).

 

[Godfollower]

All I can say is that the Catholic Church is much more charitable to Islam and Muslims than they are to us! It’s too conciliatory to Islam. Islam doesn’t need that, it needs to be confronted and resisted.

Vickie

Absolutely! Muslims are far more antagonistic toward Christianity than the Catholic Church is toward Islam. And, yes, we should confront Islam as necessary.

 

[guanophore]

Well, it’s a choice of Sacred Scripture over Sacred Tradition. As a Protestant, I believe Sacred Scripture is the authorative Word of God, and it is by God the Holy Spirit who illuminates our minds to understand the Scriptures. That is the Protestant perspective of sola scriptura; therefore Reformation Day is a great day for us! It’s interesting to watch your struggles on a very basic Christian truth.

No, 2nd. the Reformation is not a “very basic Christian Truth”.

Catholics also believe Sacred Scripture is the authorative Word of God, and it is by God the Holy Spirit who illuminates our minds to understand the Scriptures. What is different is that we believe it should be understood in the context of which it was written, which is the One Church founded by Christ. We also believe that we are to understand it in terms of what the HS has already revealed to the Church.

 

[Booklover]

Let’s not be relativists. Monotheism is either true or it’s not.

At least it’s alive and kicking, unlike faith in the West, which is on life support.

Yeah, and it’s raping and killing its way all over the place but what does that matter since they’re monotheists!

Vickie

 

[Godfollower]

You have heard of the argument from authority, yes? How it is a fallacy when the authority is inappropriate and the weakest of arguments even when from true authority?

That’s an overly simplistic look at it. There are times when the argument from authority is the strongest possible argument there is.

Consent as a defense to crime is a classic example of the argument from authority. “Why shouldn’t we imprison you for doing X?” “Because I’m allowed to.” “Says who?” “[Such-and-such authority].” “Oh, okay then.”

Why is the Sabbath holy? Because God said so.

Why can I claim that I’ve been forgiven for sins that I’ve confessed to a Catholic priest? Because Jesus said so.

Now, mind you, an appeal to the authority of God won’t work with an atheist. But, if a Catholic says “Such-and-such doctrine is incorrect,” then the response to a Catholic of “The Catholic Church teaches otherwise; see ______” is valid.

There are other arguments. I was just pointing out that my interpretation of the Catechism is consistent with other Church teachings, while an argument that my interpretation of the Catechism is incorrect requires the Church to disagree with itself.

 

[Godfollower]

Yeah, and it’s raping and killing its way all over the place but what does that matter since they’re monotheists!

Vickie

No one is saying that Islam is perfect. We’re just saying that they got this one thing right: there’s only one God, and He is to be worshiped and adored.

 

[Godfollower]

I’m not sure, Tomarin. I am admittedly not involved in “traditionalist” movements as others here might be, so I probably don’t know as much about the arguments against Vatican II as they might. So I would hesitate to blame VII for anything. From what I’ve read and been told about it, it certainly wasn’t all bad, even if the after-effects certainly haven’t been all good, either. Hmmm.

I think it’s more the gut-level idea that I can’t maintain the opposition to the idea that the Hindu trinity is somehow analogous to the Holy Trinity (which was the source of my argument in the “We are all Hindus now” thread, which I still stand by) while simultaneously affirming this “any god is God because there’s only one” stance that is part of modern Catholicism. If in Hinduism we have a situation where they have a trinity which is their god, and the second person of it incarnates as a human and is born of a virgin, that would seem to parallel the Christian idea rather closely. As near as I can tell, that was the basis of the (now banned) Hindu poster’s contention in that thread that the Christian Trinity is somehow derivative of the Hindu trinity, and from there the insinuation that Christianity is somehow a cheap imitation or bastardization of Hinduism. My recourse against this vile idea was to point out that even if the Hindus have a trinity, they don’t have the Holy Trinity of Christianity, which is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In other words, it was an argument derived from the idea that it is not only number that matters, but also form and character (in as much as we can appropriately describe such aspects of the Divine).

The poster in question in that thread, it should be noted, eventually appealed to the Catholic idea that others are advancing here: That non-Catholic religions have in them some aspect or aspects of truth, and that as there is only one God to begin with, all religions are simply discribing the One True God in different ways, consistent with whatever their respective theologies are. As much as I can agree with the first presupposition, I cannot agree with the second. I effectively argued myself out of my previously held position!

I think I’m starting to understand your difficulty. Maybe this will help.

Catholicism does not teach that all religions are equal, or all religious beliefs are valid. “Outside the Church there is no salvation.”

But other religions teach some – repeat, some – truth. And God, Who is truth, recognizes that they got part of it right. The Church has the duty to recognize the parts that the other religions got right, and to attempt to correct them where they got it wrong.

Muslims have an advantage over Hindus: they’ve already recognized that there is only one, true God. So they’re closer to the truth than Hindus are. But they still have a ways to go.

Hindus also have some truth in their religious teachings – e.g., murder is immoral.

All the Church says is that we recognize what the other religions teach that is correct, and we go from there. And, after all, isn’t that the better way to evangelize in the first place? Meet the non-Catholic where he or she is, and start helping him or her to the fuller truth?

 

[guanophore]

I find the statement "together with us they worship the one true God" disturbing the more I learn about Islam.

To the extent that they really do worship the God of Abraham, it is true.

It also gives it a distinction that it does not deserve. Islam is not connected to previous scriptures. It is not the continuation or fulfillment of those scriptures. It has nothing whatsoever to do with previous revelations.

It is true that modern Islam does have sects that depart drastically.

NO, the god of Islam is not the God of Abraham!

I think there are some faithful Muslims that would dispute this.

 

[CDNowak]

That’s an overly simplistic look at it. There are times when the argument from authority is the strongest possible argument there is.

Consent as a defense to crime is a classic example of the argument from authority. “Why shouldn’t we imprison you for doing X?” “Because I’m allowed to.” “Says who?” “[Such-and-such authority].” “Oh, okay then.”

Why is the Sabbath holy? Because God said so.

Why can I claim that I’ve been forgiven for sins that I’ve confessed to a Catholic priest? Because Jesus said so.

Now, mind you, an appeal to the authority of God won’t work with an atheist. But, if a Catholic says “Such-and-such doctrine is incorrect,” then the response to a Catholic of “The Catholic Church teaches otherwise; see ______” is valid.

There are other arguments. I was just pointing out that my interpretation of the Catechism is consistent with other Church teachings, while an argument that my interpretation of the Catechism is incorrect requires the Church to disagree with itself.

If I have over simplified, it is still less then your over simplification with regards to Islam (and again here, you have presumed legitimate authority). I wonder if the Church is capable of being the authority on Islam that it would need to be to make the argument from authority valid. The only argument you have offered is that of authority, but that authority is thrown into question by the very fact that the ‘authority’ does not seem to correspond to reality in this case.

It is reasonable to take two descriptions that supposedly describe the same thing and compare them. If they differ enough in key areas, then it is logical to say that they describe different things, particularly of one description was made with knowledge of the other. The blanket statement made about the god of Islam and the God of Christianity being the same is very difficult to reconcile considering their teachings.

No one is saying that if Islam serves a different god it is what it claims to be, rather it is a deception of a demon.

 

[dzheremi]

Of course you didn’t. I did. That’s how arguments work. You propose an idea, and people who disagree with you introduce arguments showing why you are wrong. You don’t want to talk about the Jews, because the existence of the Jews refutes your argument. They don’t believe in the Trinity, but they worship our God.

I know how arguments work, thank you. The reason why I wrote that my original post did not address the Jews is that you seem to be upset that I did not consider the Jews there, as though before I posted the OP I should have considered the Jews in light of my objection to what the Catechism says about the Muslims, even though what I had in mind was actually how this conflicts with the stance I took in a discussion with a Hindu, so I didn’t really have the Jews in mind. I’m now sorry I didn’t, but I didn’t, so continuing to focus on the deficiencies in the OP as though I haven’t clarified what I have a problem in subsequent posts with isn’t helping anything.

No, you haven’t.

I don’t know what else I can write to make things clear to you. I’ll keep trying in this reply, but I don’t want to just keep going at this. I have a feeling it is dragging the thread into other areas that might better be served by a separate thread.

Because you haven’t defended your original argument, which was based on the Trinity. Are you willing to withdraw that argument and admit that it was mistaken?

Not really, because I don’t think that any of your subsequent replies have really been illustrative of a desire to understand what it is that I am trying to say. I am willing to say that my original argument did not consider all the implications of my rejection of 841 (which is, mind you, essentially what I said in the opening paragraph of this response), but I don’t think that invalidates or answers any of my concerns. Perhaps, as you assert, I am not properly defending my argument. I don’t know what to say except that I’ve honestly tried to do that to the best of my abilities, however deficient they are in your eyes, and that what I am actually concerned about here is not arguing with you, but understanding what I am to do in my current predicament. If you want to win an argument, fine. You’ve won. You’re right and I’m not.

I don’t care whether you are are rude or not. I don’t care whether you think I am rude or not. I care about truth. Do you?

Wow. You don’t care if I am rude or if I think you are rude? Well…uh…I don’t know that I want to continue a discussion with someone who apparently does not value even attempted civility, as silly as it may seem on the internet. Of course it goes without saying that I care about the truth. Do you think I started this thread out of an affinity for lies?

None of what you say is relevant to the argument you originally made about the Trinity. Do you continue to defend that argument? If so, then you must face the implications of what you are saying for the Jews. They do not worship the Trinity.

The original “argument” that I made was essentially a statement of my OWN belief in the Trinity and why, in the context of that belief and other beliefs that are completely consistent with Catholic Christianity, some of the implications of CCC 841 make me uncomfortable. And yes, I still continue to defend my own beliefs and remain uncomfortable with those same implications of CCC 841. It seems that you are trying to force me to shift the focus of the OP from the integrity of my own Christian belief and what CCC 841 means for that integrity onto something else that you have become convinced that I must answer for. I’m not really interested in that.

The question of whether merely believing in “one God” constitutes belief in the true God is a much more complex one. I would be happy to discuss that question with you. But I would like first to settle the issue *you *brought up. Can someone who does not believe in the Trinity believe in the true God?

You see, this was/is the point of phrasing the OP so that it related to my CHRISTIAN beliefs, not the non-belief of others except as was necessary in the Hindu example (which, it should be noted, was the catalyst behind this entire situation, not anything about the Jews). Apparently, the Hindus believe in a trinity, but it is not the Christian Trinity. As the Holy Trinity IS the one true God, not just any other trinity will do for me. So the question of number is not exactly a separate question for me; eventually we must bring in the idea of the attributes of God, to the extent that we can safely speculate on them.

But I will readily admit that I do not know about the Jews. What I have been told by the priests of the Church that I have talked to is that the old covenant that the Jews remain under is an eternal covenant because God promised them it would be. That is certainly good enough for me. Perhaps you should take your argument up with God.

Do you agree with me that this is possible (as the example of the Jews shows), and therefore that your OP was mistaken?

Again, no. I agree that it did not anticipate your argument, but again, you apparently want there to be an argument there that I am pretty much done exploring.

If you do not wish to explore the implications of CCC 841 outside of its possible implications on the Church’s relationship with the Jews, perhaps you should start a thread on that. I am absolutely done with this particular conversation.

 

[robsully]

Hello all.

I have read through most of the thread and have noticed that the Muslims have left the debate. In order to understand the thread better and bring them back into the debate, could I have some questions answered?

1. The Quran was writen by Mohammed?
2. Mohammed was inspired by God?
3. How was Mohammed inspired?

Thank you

 

[Godfollower]

If I have over simplified, it is still less then your over simplification with regards to Islam (and again here, you have presumed legitimate authority). I wonder if the Church is capable of being the authority on Islam that it would need to be to make the argument from authority valid. The only argument you have offered is that of authority, but that authority is thrown into question by the very fact that the ‘authority’ does not seem to correspond to reality in this case.

It is reasonable to take two descriptions that supposedly describe the same thing and compare them. If they differ enough in key areas, then it is logical to say that they describe different things, particularly of one description was made with knowledge of the other. The blanket statement made about the god of Islam and the God of Christianity being the same is very difficult to reconcile considering their teachings.

No one is saying that if Islam serves a different god it is what it claims to be, rather it is a deception of a demon.

Well, no; I’d have to disagree with you there. Just because the descriptions are different doesn’t mean the thing being described is really two different things. Remember Saxe’s poem about the blind men and the elephant? One thought the elephant was like a wall; one thought the elephant was like a spear; one, a snake; one, a tree; one, a fan; and one, a rope.

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

We’re describing God according to our understanding, and the Muslims are describing Him according to their understanding. There are parts of God that no human understands (so, to that extent, we’re all like the blind men). There are other parts of God that we understand that the Muslims don’t. So we have, if you will, a fuller picture of the elephant than the Muslims do.

But there’s only one elephant. Even if their description of the elephant is woefully inadequate.

 

[dzheremi]

Hi, Godfollower. Thank you for your most recent reply and your continued participation in this thread.

Catholicism does not teach that all religions are equal, or all religious beliefs are valid. “Outside the Church there is no salvation.”

Indeed.

But other religions teach some – repeat, some – truth. And God, Who is truth, recognizes that they got part of it right. The Church has the duty to recognize the parts that the other religions got right, and to attempt to correct them where they got it wrong.

I have no trouble with this, either.

Muslims have an advantage over Hindus: they’ve already recognized that there is only one, true God. So they’re closer to the truth than Hindus are. But they still have a ways to go.

Okay.

Hindus also have some truth in their religious teachings – e.g., murder is immoral.

I think most religions have these kinds of basically good, moral teachings. In fact, such axioms don’t even necessarily need religious backing to be accepted. My atheist friends and family would also agree that murder is wrong, or so I hope!

All the Church says is that we recognize what the other religions teach that is correct, and we go from there. And, after all, isn’t that the better way to evangelize in the first place? Meet the non-Catholic where he or she is, and start helping him or her to the fuller truth?

I definitely believe in meeting the non-Christian where they are. That’s good. But I don’t agree that this is all that CCC 841 is saying. Let’s look at it again, line by line, if you don’t mind:

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator,

Sure.

in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims;

Not sure if I’d put them in “first” place or not, but this thread is very anti-numeral fixation anyway.

these profess to hold the faith of Abraham

In as far as “profess” is a rather non-commital verb, then I guess this is acceptable. It isn’t as unequivocal as I think our faith deserves, but then I’m sure the Church has its reasons for choosing this over other verbs, and I would defer to whatever those are. It’s hard for me with my linguistics training, but I do sometimes have to admit that not everything ought to be a matter of semantics.

, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day."

This I have a problem with. “Together with us” how? They do not attend Mass or Divine Liturgy and we do not attend their mosque services. Why? Because our respective theological positions forbid it! Every prayer that is offered in a Christian Mass or Divine Liturgy is offered to the one true God who is to be worshipped in unity in the undivided and uncreated Trinity. This is obviously not appropriate for Muslims. So, outside of interfaith activities and the very general sort of idea that both communities offer their prayers up to the heavens, I cannot see how they really are “together with us”. Maybe this is some sort of mystical union that I don’t understand, but if that is so it is certainly not in keeping with the writings and positions of many of the saints (see St. John Damascene’s refutation of Islam posted earlier in the thread), including at least some martyred by the Muslims.

And then of course the question of whether or not they adore “the one, merciful God” is another giant topic…debated here for several pages by now!

 

[CDNowak]

Well, no; I’d have to disagree with you there. Just because the descriptions are different doesn’t mean the thing being described is really two different things. Remember Saxe’s poem about the blind men and the elephant? One thought the elephant was like a wall; one thought the elephant was like a spear; one, a snake; one, a tree; one, a fan; and one, a rope.

We’re describing God according to our understanding, and the Muslims are describing Him according to their understanding. There are parts of God that no human understands (so, to that extent, we’re all like the blind men). There are other parts of God that we understand that the Muslims don’t. So we have, if you will, a fuller picture of the elephant than the Muslims do.

But there’s only one elephant. Even if their description of the elephant is woefully inadequate.

I never said it was the only reasonable view, just a reasonable view. It is also one that allows me to continue to say, in good faith, that the Catholic (/Orthodox) understanding is superior. To say that the Q’ran-ic understanding is of a different part of God is to raise it to the level of the Scriptural understanding of God. To believe that Allah and God are one we must believe that God one hand established the Church and on the other it was the work of deceivers. The chaos of the god of the Q’ran seems more reminiscent of the Babylon mystery gods (say in the Epic of Gilgamesh), then the God of Scripture.

Also note that while I contend that Allah of the Q’ran is not YHWH of Scripture, that all worship of Allah is attributed to YHWH, unless it be in rejection of Him, as the 15 centuries of violent conquest that is the history of Islam.

 

[SSTeacher]

Hello all.

I have read through most of the thread and have noticed that the Muslims have left the debate. In order to understand the thread better and bring them back into the debate, could I have some questions answered?

1. The Quran was writen by Mohammed?

So it’s reported.

1. Mohammed was inspired by God?

Muslims apparently believe that he was.

1. How was Mohammed inspired?

If one presupposes that the Qur’an is on the same level as the Bible then I guess it’s reasonable to suggest that Muhammad was inspired in exactly the same way as any of the forty or so people who authored writings that were subsequently accepted into the biblical canon.

Helpfully,
Mick

 

[CDNowak]

This I have a problem with. “Together with us” how? They do not attend Mass or Divine Liturgy and we do not attend their mosque services. Why? Because our respective theological positions forbid it! Every prayer that is offered in a Christian Mass or Divine Liturgy is offered to the one true God who is to be worshipped in unity in the undivided and uncreated Trinity. This is obviously not appropriate for Muslims. So, outside of interfaith activities and the very general sort of idea that both communities offer their prayers up to the heavens, I cannot see how they really are “together with us”. Maybe this is some sort of mystical union that I don’t understand, but if that is so it is certainly not in keeping with the writings and positions of many of the saints (see St. John Damascene’s refutation of Islam posted earlier in the thread), including at least some martyred by the Muslims.

And then of course the question of whether or not they adore “the one, merciful God” is another giant topic…debated here for several pages by now!

dzheremi, I wonder what your thought are on Lewis’ hypothesis: that all good deeds done because they are good are done in God’s name, and evil deeds in Satan’s. It certainly seems to me a logical extension of the hope of salvation to those who remain ignorant of the Truth.

This is one of the unfortunate ambiguities arising from the Second Vatican Council. Hopefully we will have a clarification of many such points coming out of the talks with the SSPX.

 

[Godfollower]

Hi, Godfollower. Thank you for your most recent reply and your continued participation in this thread.

No problem!

Godfollower;5852505:

Catholicism does not

teach that all religions are equal, or all religious beliefs are valid. "Outside the Church there is no salvation."Indeed.

But other religions teach some – repeat, some – truth. And God, Who is truth, recognizes that they got part of it right. The Church has the duty to recognize the parts that the other religions got right, and to attempt to correct them where they got it wrong.

I have no trouble with this, either.

Muslims have an advantage over Hindus: they’ve already recognized that there is only one, true God. So they’re closer to the truth than Hindus are. But they still have a ways to go.

Okay.

Hindus also have some

truth in their religious teachings – e.g., murder is immoral.
I think most religions have these kinds of basically good, moral teachings. In fact, such axioms don’t even necessarily need religious backing to be accepted. My atheist friends and family would also agree that murder is wrong, or so I hope!

Oh, I know. I just couldn’t think of anything more specific offhand.

All the Church says is that we recognize what the other religions teach that is correct, and we go from there. And, after all, isn’t that the better way to evangelize in the first place? Meet the non-Catholic where he or she is, and start helping him or her to the fuller truth?

This is in a strange hierarchy. Lumen Gentium and the Catechism both deal with Catholics, Orthodox, and non-Catholic Christians; then with “those who have not yet received the Gospel” – first among whom are the Jews, to whom God first revealed Himself. Then there are “those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans.” So the Muslims are first of group number six. Or whatever.

these profess to hold the faith of Abraham

The Latin in Lumen Gentium is “nobiscum Deum adorant unicum, misericordem” – “With us they adore the one, merciful God.” I don’t take that to mean that they physically sit next to us or whatever; I take it to mean that we worship the one, merciful God, and so do they. I agree that we aren’t exactly eye-to-eye about this; but Muslims, Jews, and Christians alike agree that there’s only one God, and He is to be the object of our worship and adoration.

And then of course the question of whether or not they adore “the one, merciful God” is another giant topic…debated here for several pages by now!

Right. Hope I’m being helpful.

 

[Godfollower]

I never said it was the only reasonable view, just a reasonable view. It is also one that allows me to continue to say, in good faith, that the Catholic (/Orthodox) understanding is superior. To say that the Q’ran-ic understanding is of a different part of God is to raise it to the level of the Scriptural understanding of God. To believe that Allah and God are one we must believe that God one hand established the Church and on the other it was the work of deceivers. The chaos of the god of the Q’ran seems more reminiscent of the Babylon mystery gods (say in the Epic of Gilgamesh), then the God of Scripture.

Also note that while I contend that Allah of the Q’ran is not YHWH of Scripture, that all worship of Allah is attributed to YHWH, unless it be in rejection of Him, as the 15 centuries of violent conquest that is the history of Islam.

Yes. That’s my problem with this theory. It raises the Quran to the level of the Bible, and it raises Mohammed’s flawed understanding of God to be equal to that of Sts. Peter and Paul. It seems to me to be much more consistent with Christian theology to say that the Muslims have a flawed understanding of the one, true God than to say that they worship some other “god.”

 

[elvisman]

Well, it’s a choice of Sacred Scripture over Sacred Tradition. As a Protestant, I believe Sacred Scripture is the authorative Word of God, and it is by God the Holy Spirit who illuminates our minds to understand the Scriptures. That is the Protestant perspective of sola scriptura; therefore Reformation Day is a great day for us! It’s interesting to watch your struggles on a very basic Christian truth.

Great answer.
Can you point me to the Scripture verse that confirms that the bible is our only Authority? I can’t seem to find it.