Something that has been bothering me for a while now

[Desert_Rose_15]

We believe in One God, who sent the Torah to Prophet Moses and the Gospel to Prophet Jesus. It is the same God who sent the Quran to Prophet Muhammad and made him His last Messenger.
We sent thee not, but as a mercy for all creatures. (21:107)

The Quran was sent to Prophet Muhammad through Angel Gabriel, and not through demons as some people claim.
**{81} Verily this is the word of a most honourable Messenger, (19) Endued with Power, with rank before the Lord of the Throne, (20) With authority there, (and) faithful of his trust. (21) And (O people!) your companion is not one possessed; (22) And without doubt he saw him in the clear horizon. (23) Neither doth he withhold grudgingly a knowledge of the Unseen. (24) Nor is it the word of an evil spirit accursed. (25) Then whither go ye? (26) Verily this is no less than a Message to (all) the Worlds: (27) (With profit) to whoever among you wills to go straight. (28) But ye shall not will except as Allah wills the Cherisher of the Worlds. (29) **

 

[CDNowak]

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.”

Let me help here, we’re talking past each other. The Q’ran presents a god other than the Christian God. This distorts the view of the true God that Muslims hold. Those that follow the Q’ran more closely do not *necessarily *serve the same God (n.b. I am speaking of jihadists, honor killings, and the like) as those that seek the true God through Islam. (Again a work of fiction helps explain this very well.)

The only significant problem I have had with what you have been saying is that it leads to the conclusion that any monotheistic belief is in the same God: be it YHWH, Allah, Lucifer, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. People can have belief in a false god that is not the true God. They are deceived, but that does not lessen the standard at which they hold their deity and holy books. To meet them where they are at involves recognizing this (and then doing the hard work of debunking from within their own experience).

 

[Desert_Rose_15]

When it is too hard for Christians to explain the trinity, and they keep saying that it is a mystery but they believe in it, for Muslims, it is the easiest thing to tell others who God really is!

Al-Ikhlas (112)
**In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
[1] Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
[2] Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
[3] He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
[4] And there is none like unto Him. **

 

[Ignatius]

read this it explains it

catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0207bt.asp

Here is a synopsis:

“The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day” (CCC 841).

To many this sounds like Muslims can be saved by adhering to Islam. That isn’t what it means, as shown by the original context. But t is not meant to say that Islam is a method of salvation parallel to Christianity.

To appreciate how it fits into the picture, one needs to look at LG 13, which starts by proclaiming, “All men are called to belong to the new people of God”—i.e., to the Church. Section 13 concludes by stating, “All men are called to be part of this catholic unity of the people of God. . . . (for) all mankind, for all men are called by the grace of God to salvation.”

All mankind is called to the “Catholic unity of the people of God”—in other words, to become Catholics.

 

[dzheremi]

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.

I see. All this talk of hierarchies makes me think of Mark 10:31. Thank God for such wisdom!

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.

Oh, sure. I didn’t mean to imply that it means that they are physically with us in our services, but that was kind of my point in tackling this idea in that way: They are not, in many ways, with us because their theology says they cannot be, because we blaspheme when we say glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit…

So any way that they are with us must be in some other way, and to me that opens up all kinds of problems. As Mick has pointed out, the Muslims and their holy book are quite clear that they do not worship our God. Does the CCC know Islam better than Muslims? I am not adverse to the idea that Muslims may worship the one true God, but to the extent that this can happen it is outside the rigid confines of the Islamic faith (at least as far as I understand it, as a Christian looking at Islam) which demand that they not worship what we worship (Qur’an 10:104). Why then do we turn around and say that they in fact do? Again, it is this idea that any god is God because there is only one that I have a real problem with. Some people set up things other than God to be worshipped, and worship those things. Would we also apply this liberal “it’s all God” stance to the worshippers of idols described in the Bible, even as our God condemned such as not acceptable? I wouldn’t even chance to consider this, and I doubt any other Christian would either!

Hope I’m being helpful.

Every little bit helps. God bless you.

 

[robsully]

Thank you SSTeacher(Mick) and Desert Rose_15

Would I be correct in the following; Mohammed, through God via a spiritial being, wrote the Quran. Therefore the begining of a new, but not completely different from Judism or Christianity, religion.

That would be an accurate view from the Muslim side?

Thank you

 

[Contarini]

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.

Here’s the statement from your original post that I am addressing:

I believe that the Trinity, and the CHRISTIAN Trinity at that, is the one true God. Not Islam’s Allah or Hinduism’s Vishnu or anything or anyone else. So I cannot, for the sake my own soul, say that these other gods, which are not the eternal and uncreated unity that is the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Spirit, are somehow also my God.

I understood you to be saying that your reason for disagreeing with CCC841 was your belief that only the Trinity is the true God, and therefore anyone who doesn’t worship the Trinity can’t be worshiping the true God. I don’t think that any of your later posts have made this post irrelevant. I think it remains the best starting point for addressing your questions with CCC841. Your concern is a valid one, and I was trying to address it. Unfortunately, I did so belligerently, and I understandably antagonized you, so that I still don’t think you’ve taken what I am saying seriously. Please do, because I really think it’s helpful to your broader concerns.

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.

You have a point. I care about truth, but unfortunately my love of truth is tied up with a love of winning arguments. I honestly think that I care a lot more about truth than I do about winning, but I admit that they get mixed up, and I am very sorry for the tone I’ve taken.

Let me try to put it in a less confrontational way. Clearly the issue of the Trinity is important for you–as it should be. You rightly understand that as Christians we don’t just worship some abstract concept called “God,” but the living personal Reality of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is the true God. We agree on this.

In your original post, you made a very clear connection between the centrality of the Trinity and your inability to say that non-Christians worship the same God we do. That’s what I jumped on. I understand that this isn’t your only issue. But I think you are right in saying that we need to begin with this. The true God is the Trinity. Yet Jews, who do not believe in the Trinity, worship the true God. How can this be? I think this is the best starting point for addressing the more general question.

Wow. You don’t care if I am rude or if I think you are rude?

I am sorry for saying that. And please note that I didn’t say I didn’t care about being rude myself. I do, though I should care more. What I was trying to say is that if you have a valid criticism of my beliefs, I will take them seriously even if I think you are rude in how you say it. And similarly, if I have what I think is a valid criticism of yours, I’m going to try to make that criticism even if you think I am rude for doing so. But I know I should try harder *not *to be rude.

 

[Contarini]

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.

I don’t think I’m “shifting” anything. If your starting point is your belief in the Trinity–as it should be–and you are interested in the implications of this for CCC 841, then you have to start where the Catechism starts–with the Jews. What the Catechism says about the Muslims makes no sense except in the light of what it says about the Jews. The Catechism’s approach is one of “concentric circles.” It starts with those with whom Christians have the most in common and moves outward. In order to examine the merits of the Catechism’s approach, I think you have to respect this method.

The Catechism does not simply say “everyone worships the same God.” It recognizes that there are varying degrees to which non-Christians share our faith in the true God (just as there are varying degrees, from the Catholic perspective, to which non-Catholics such as myself share the fullness of the Catholic Faith).

I am willing to argue that even Hindu theists (i.e., those who believe in a single creator God) in some sense worship the true God. (The early Christians clearly recognized the supreme Deity of Greco-Roman belief to be the same as the true God–they faulted them for worshiping lesser beings as well.) But I agree that this is a different issue from the question of Jews or even of Muslims.

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.

Well, I would agree with you that the Hindu “trinity” of Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu is clearly not the same as the Christian Trinity. There are analogies, but clearly not identity. For one thing, Brahma the creator is a clearly lesser being in the Hindu “Trinity”–he emerges out of Vishnu’s navel in one common myth. He’s certainly not analogous to God the Father but more perhaps to a semi-Arian view of God the Son.

A friend of mine wrote a master’s thesis arguing that the best analogy in Hinduism for the Trinity is not Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva but the concept of “sat-cit-ananda,” a threefold way of describing God in Hindu philosophy. I’m not sure how much merit there is to this idea.

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.

I am not addressing the question of the covenant with the Jews, or the Church’s relationship with the Jews. I’m addressing the question *you *raised as to whether someone who doesn’t believe in the Trinity can still be worshiping the true God. Since this is clearly the case with regard to the Jews, we need to move outward and ask whether this may also be true (to a much lesser degree) of other non-Christian religions. What the case of the Jews establishes is that people can have very mistaken ideas about God and yet be worshiping the true God. And that’s the principle behind what the Catechism is teaching.

I really am trying to help you out here. I think the Catechism’s position makes a lot of sense, but if you don’t follow the order of the argument–starting with the Jews–you naturally won’t see how it makes sense. I apologize for not putting this more irenically earlier.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[dzheremi]

Alright, I know I said I was done with this, but I think you raise some good points, and so long as they are delivered in a belligerent fashion, I don’t see why I shouldn’t consider them. Thank you for softening your tone. I will try my best to match it.

I understood you to be saying that your reason for disagreeing with CCC841 was your belief that only the Trinity is the true God, and therefore anyone who doesn’t worship the Trinity can’t be worshiping the true God.

I emphasized the Christian Trinity not only because I myself am a Christian, but because I wanted some way to emphasize how it is my belief in said Trinity complicates my rejection of the Hindu belief system (which also includes a trinity, as outlined in the thread I linked), and ultimately the Islamic belief system, the Jewish belief system, etc. I had the Hindu idea in mind, however, because it was what transpired in the Hindu thread that led me to realize how I had been hypocritical in my argumentation by holding to the idea that affirming God’s oneness is enough to affirm the worship of the One God, which is essentially how I read modern Catholic apologetics on the subject.

You have a point. I care about truth, but unfortunately my love of truth is tied up with a love of winning arguments. I honestly think that I care a lot more about truth than I do about winning, but I admit that they get mixed up, and I am very sorry for the tone I’ve taken.

I do not hold it against you, and I appreciate your apology. We can all get lost in winning arguments. I’m sure I do as well.

 

[SSTeacher]

Hi robsully,

Thank you SSTeacher(Mick) and Desert Rose_15

Would I be correct in the following; Mohammed, through God via a spiritial being, wrote the Quran. Therefore the begining of a new, but not completely different from Judism or Christianity, religion.

That would be an accurate view from the Muslim side?

Thank you

I think Muhammad was a remarkable man. At the outset, he seems to have been a really religious person. Freed from polytheism by Jewish and Christian influences, his ideas centered on the person of the One God and the reality of things to come in the future life. The Prophet became the Head of a State and thanks to his political genius the Arabs became conscious of their national identity, abandoned their divisions and anarchy, and began to prepare for their entry into history and civilization.

As I understand it, Islamic belief is that God has sent a prophet to every nation to preach the message of there being only one God. Some of the prophets recognized by Islam have names that are familiar to Christians: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, Jonah, and Jesus. Four of the highest–ranking prophets were given books of divine revelation. Those four are Moses, who was given the Torah, David, who was given the Psalms, Jesus, who was given the Gospel, and Muhammad, who was given the Qur’an. Of those four books, Muslims contend that only the Qur’an has been preserved in an uncorrupted state. They believe it is God’s full and final revelation.

The heart of the matter is that Muslims are taught that the early texts of the Bible were corrupted by the Christians and Jews. Islam lumps Christians and Jews all together and refers to them as “The People of the Book” – the Book being the Bible. How do Muslims arrive at that conclusion? It says so in the Qur’an and Muslims are taught that the Qur’an is the infallible word of God.

So there’s the major obstacle. Muslims will accept some parts of Scripture but they will reject other parts as false. Muslims believe in the Virgin birth of Christ, for example, but they don’t accept that Jesus was crucified. And if He wasn’t crucified, he didn’t rise from the dead. So whereas Christ is central to Christianity, in Islam he is relegated to a place below Muhammad. Muslims believe that all they need do is follow the rules revealed by Allah to the last and greatest prophet, Muhammad.

This is, I think, the fundamental difference between the two religions. It puts all the other differences in the shade. We can find similarities and things to agree about but it isn’t because there’s any agreement at source – because there definitely isn’t. At source, it’s a straightforward choice between Jesus and Muhammad and it’s this reality that is currently presenting such a problem for dzeheremi.

What the Qur’an does, in effect, is to re–invent the monotheistic religion of Abraham and, as it does so, it creates the tenets of a completely new religion called Islam. The Qur’an enlarges on some things that are found in the Bible – adding details, if you like – and it also flatly contradicts other things that are found in the Bible.

Don’t take my word for that, though. Read the Qur’an for yourself.

Cordially,
Mick

 

[dzheremi]

The Catechism does not simply say “everyone worships the same God.”

Not in those words, no, but I have to honestly wonder, as I struggle to maintain my Catholic identity, if it doesn’t make too fine a distinction over something that is actually can be stated very simply and unambiguously, and by doing so actually do a disservice to people who do not see the faith as something meant to be inclusive of those who explicitly deny Christ. I am with what Mick posted earlier: Either the Muslims are wrong or the Christians are wrong. Both cannot be right.

It recognizes that there are varying degrees to which non-Christians share our faith in the true God (just as there are varying degrees, from the Catholic perspective, to which non-Catholics such as myself share the fullness of the Catholic Faith).

This is fine. Not everything that every non-Christian religion teaches is wrong, and I would never hold such a view. I do not make the leap that this means that they worship our God, though.

I am willing to argue that even Hindu theists (i.e., those who believe in a single creator God) in some sense worship the true God. (The early Christians clearly recognized the supreme Deity of Greco-Roman belief to be the same as the true God–they faulted them for worshiping lesser beings as well.) But I agree that this is a different issue from the question of Jews or even of Muslims.

So if you recognize that we ought to treat the Hindus differently than the Jews or the Muslims, is it wrong if I say we ought to treat the Jews differently than the Muslims?

Well, I would agree with you that the Hindu “trinity” of Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu is clearly not the same as the Christian Trinity. There are analogies, but clearly not identity.

Aye, there’s the rub! That’s what I would say about Islam’s Allah (not the Allah of the Arabic-speaking Christians, who is my God, my Lord and my Saviour…ya quddus, irhamna!). In some respects, it seems similar, but it is ultimately a different identity. It is something that I cannot recognize as my God any more than I can serve the one true God and Mammon.

I am not addressing the question of the covenant with the Jews, or the Church’s relationship with the Jews.

Alright. I would approach the Jews in light of the covenant, though. The Lord said His covenant with the Jews is an eternal covenant. Were it not the case that the covenant is still in place, I would have no problem treating the Jews as I would the Muslims. It is a matter of Christian history that we have always believed the God of Israel to be our God as well. This is not the case with Muslims, for reasons expounded upon much more expertly throughout the ages than I could ever manage here.

According to the press release issued by the USCCB after the Vatican approved a clarification of this very issue via a revision of the Catechism, "Catholics believe that the Jewish people continue to live within the truth of the covenant God made with Abraham, and that God continues to be faithful to them.” (source)

I’m not sure if I even like all of the implications of the statement I’ve just quoted, but this nonetheless is the basis of the idea that Catholics can and should treat the Jews differently than other non-Christians.

I’m addressing the question *you *raised as to whether someone who doesn’t believe in the Trinity can still be worshiping the true God.

Where did I raise that question? I can certainly see where you infered that question from what I wrote in the OP, but I do not see where I raised that question.

I really am trying to help you out here.

Thank you. I appreciate it.

 

[Seraphim25]

It has been said by Paul that God is a just Judge; If therefore we believe that God is a just judge, then it isn’t up to use who is saved and who isn’t. However, we do know that Jesus has stated this several times that those who reject him as the son of God and who came to redeem the world that Gods wrath remains on that person. Moreover, we also know that the apostles were sent out to make disciplines of God so that all may know and accept God through Jesus Christ.

If a Muslim believes what was told of him at birth and dies and never hears the gospel message then I will acknowledge that God will trial him fairly and justly. If however, he was told of the gospel and refused to listen and then dies then again God, will judge him justly. If we believe that God is absolute then their must be also absolute truth. Jesus says that the only way to gain the father is through Jesus and no other. Therefore, we know that by Jesus saying this as Christians this is absolute truth.

One thing is certain however, is that Islam does not accept Jesus as the Messiah Lord and redeemer. The only label placed on him is a good teacher and prophet but give all authority to Muhammad. I personally believe that they aren’t following the true God because how could they be? If they are denying Christ as Lord and we say as Christians how they are fine they are worshiping the same God then we are in trouble. Just because they acknowledge Abraham does not mean they are acknowledging the God that Christians do. We are denying the authority that God has and set up through Christ Jesus (not through Muhammad or any other believe). Why did the Jews get expelled from Israel after or near 70 A.D? They did so because they rejected Christ just as the prophets proclaimed.

I don’t understand the connection? Jesus didn’t say the follow me and then say or up until some body else comes along with better understandings of God. Or didn’t say I am the truth and the life the only way to the father is through me and say but I know the world changes so I will let people slide if they follow somebody else. This is very murky water and I don’t want no part in it. I will simply say that God is faithful and God is my judge and he will judge as all at the opportune moment,

 

[robsully]

Hello SSTeacher and thank you for responding.

Standing on the outside of the forest looking in at the trees I have found something interesting regarding Mohammad and Islam.

Mohammad, selected by a divine being, brought in a new religion , one based from the Torah. The Quran surpassed the Torah and is the foundation of Islam. This new religion has spred throughout the world.

What I find interesting is the similarities between the Islam and Mohammed story and the Paul and Christianity story.

 

[Jay53]

Hello SSTeacher and thank you for responding.

Standing on the outside of the forest looking in at the trees I have found something interesting regarding Mohammad and Islam.

Mohammad, selected by a divine being, brought in a new religion , one based from the Torah. The Quran surpassed the Torah and is the foundation of Islam. This new religion has spred throughout the world.

What I find interesting is the similarities between the Islam and Mohammed story and the Paul and Christianity story.

I don’t wish to derail the thread, but there is no proof or credible evidence that Muhammad was “selected by a divine being”. He contradicts God’s previous scriptures. I believe he himself thought he was possessed by demons when he first received his “revelations”.

 

[Filioque]

I think the CCC needs to be put into it’s proper place. Just as Sacred Scripture needs to be read in it’s historical context and be interpreted in the mind of the Church, which is given the authority to do so. The CCC is a document that should be used as a starting point, or rather cliff notes on the Faith.

The problem with using the Catechism in isolation, is the same as Sola Scriptura, and Private Interpretation. it should lead us to want to read, study and live the faith more fully. Not be taken as a stand alone source of the Faith.

I posted on another thread a reccomendation to read the book The Salvation of the Unbeliver by Fr. Lombardi, Riccardo SJ. Published in 1954 it is pre-concilliar, and explains the Catholic position, as well as soundly refutes the errors of Fr. Feeney on the subject. I’ve seen many copies around, although it (IMO) should be reprinted.

 

[SSTeacher]

Hello SSTeacher and thank you for responding.

Standing on the outside of the forest looking in at the trees I have found something interesting regarding Mohammad and Islam.

Mohammad, selected by a divine being, brought in a new religion , one based from the Torah. The Quran surpassed the Torah and is the foundation of Islam. This new religion has spred throughout the world.

What I find interesting is the similarities between the Islam and Mohammed story and the Paul and Christianity story.

Engaging thought pattern but I don’t think it can be sustained. I’d align Muhammad with Islam and Christ with Christianity and I suppose Zeyd or Abu Bakr might be seen as corresponding to Saint Paul but it’s definitely a stretch. Christ’s life has been described as the greatest story ever told and rightly so. It is incredible. Muhammad’s story, on the other hand, which begins with his birth in the year of Our Lord circa 570, is quite credible.

Peace,
Mick

 

[Harpazo]

I agree with you, dzheremi 100%. I find the CCC to be incredibly ambiguous here in this regard. What provoked them to bring up Islam at all? Yes, we all know they claim to worship the same God as us, but since when does claim equal truth? Zoroastrians worship one god, does that mean they worship the same one as Christians? Some Buddhists worship Buddha. Does this mean they worship the same god?

If people here are going to take claims as gospel truth, then I’ve got some prime real estate to sell them in the Everglades.

St. John of Damascus, pray for us!

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[SSTeacher]

I agree with you, dzheremi 100%. I find the CCC to be incredibly ambiguous here in this regard. What provoked them to bring up Islam at all?

In Christ,
Andrew

Andrew,

But isn’t this part of the settled order in the West? Everything but everything necessarily has to to be developed, defined and delineated.

In Christ,
Mick

 

[Contarini]

Andrew,

But isn’t this part of the settled order in the West? Everything but everything necessarily has to to be developed, defined and delineated.

No. That’s the stereotype, not the reality. It’s a stereotype with a good deal of basis in reality, as is true of many stereotypes. But it’s still not the same as reality.

Westerners do have a tendency to want to nail things down. But it’s a tendency, not a mandate.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I agree with you, dzheremi 100%. I find the CCC to be incredibly ambiguous here in this regard. What provoked them to bring up Islam at all? Yes, we all know they claim to worship the same God as us, but since when does claim equal truth?

I’m not sure where you and dzheremi get this “equal truth” business. You are reading it into the CCC. It ain’t there.

Zoroastrians worship one god, does that mean they worship the same one as Christians?

Depends on what they mean by it. I’d be inclined to say yes, to some extent.

Some Buddhists worship Buddha. Does this mean they worship the same god?

What Mahayana Buddhists call “Buddha nature” does seem like some sort of approximation of at least one way we can talk about God.

Again, the point is that the farther you go out from Biblical revelation, naturally the more tenuous the links. (Although of course there may be points where Buddhists have more of the truth than Muslims. For that matter, there may be truths that either Buddhists or Muslims or both possess which we Christians have not fully grasped.)

Edwin