what are the differences between muslim and catholic theology?

[Reuben_J]

In fairness, was not Mary around 13 when she married Joseph? granted there is a big difference between 9 and 13 in our thinking.

Christians do not believe that she 13 or younger. Probably much older and 14 would be the minimum. And yes, there’s big difference between 9 & 13.

If we are talking about the differences between Islam and Christianity then this is one difference that can be noted. Marriage in Christianity is only for adults and not children.

 

[GaryTaylor]

In fairness, was not Mary around 13 when she married Joseph? granted there is a big difference between 9 and 13 in our thinking.

So, how do Chrisitans and Muslims think differently and think the same?

I am getting at presumptions with this question.

Theres a big difference between 13 in the USA and 13 in Jerusalem even “today”. The will of God also, which also has nothing to do sexual relations.

 

[SteveVH]

granted muslims denies the Trinity, deity of Christ, Resurression of Jesus, what else?

The difference between Islam and Christianity is, quite simply, Jesus Christ, who has revealed the truth of God’s nature and His relationship with us. One cannot truly know God unless they know Jesus Christ.

 

[SteveVH]

Islam teaches that the word of God is a book. True Catholics believe the word of God is a man.

Very similar to the protestant practice of substituting Yeshua for a book.

“True Catholics” believe that the Word of God is a divine Person who assumed a human nature. I’m sure that is what you meant, but it may be a little misleading to our non-Christian brothers and sisters to call Him simply a man.

 

[Malihe]

salaam ReubenJ and friends,

Again, the disagreement of “others” is based on “other” Hadiths which calculate her age at 9. For emphasis, I will repeat that there are equally and/or more accepted Hadiths that put her age at 13 or 14. You are quoting selective Hadiths without reviewing the body of Hadiths on the subject.

In the middle east, betrothal can still occur at birth or anytime after. This is an ancient custom of all cultures (except our modern ones of course) which seek to join families in strategic alliances. Betrothal is not consumation and equates with our modern term “engagement”.

Finally, my aunt (my mother’s sister) was married at 13 and had her son Jason at 14. In rural areas, until recently, the onset of puberty determined the age and fitness for a female to marry.

An honest, sincere and truthful discussion requires that parties have access and knowledge of relevant information on the subject. Furthermore, such information is seriously considered and contemplated. Otherwise, we are merely promolgating stereotypes and reinforceing pre-existing assumptions.

Peace and Blessings
Malihe

A fine apologetic effort but there are others who will not agree with you with the age of Aisha when the marriage was consummated. She was still playing with doll meaning that she did not pass the puberty age yet and was much younger when she was betrothed. Why she was only a child!

You give some good advice but it cuts both ways. I am all for honest, sincere and truthful discussion; if that’s what you mean, I am all for it.

 

[elwill]

The last I know is that theology is the study of religions that deals with particular systems or school of religious beliefs and teachings. I don’t know how you can restrict him. The most you can do is refuse to discuss certain issue with him.

my point is that age of marriage wasn’t ever relegious issue , not in islam nor in christianity

This would be the Shiah’s claim. They are the true followers of prophet Mohammad. How are you going to say that they do not follow the teaching of Islam/Mohammad? We have a Shiah poster here sometimes back and I thought his rationale about his belief was quite solid. I am not saying who is right or wrong - it is for you to decide among yourselves. But before you dismiss their belief you have to let them speak for themselves, no? Or you can qualify by saying that your belief is a Sunni’s belief (if you’re a Sunni).

i don’t want to talking about shiah beliefs , you can go ask them about the reasons of their odd practices

i think that when the OP asking about differences between islamic and chritianic theology , then it refers to mainstream islam and mainstream christianity , do you agree ?

You are quoting US law. The Church has nothing to do with it. I any case, for Catholic Christians, marriage is a Sacrament. In order to receive such Sacrament you must be of certain age; certainly not as a child who have not yet reached the age of consent or adulthood.

and what is the age of consent from theology point of view ( as long as we talking about theologys ) ?

As I said, I don’t know of any child marriage that were consummated by the ancient prophets. Your Mohammad seems to make that precedent.

what was the age of precedent prophet’s wifes ?

9 year old can be consider child in our days , but she wasn’t considered child 1500 years ago ,
can we find common defination for the what is the age of child as a value supposed to be ?
or are you just judge by 20 century standards ?

 

[mdrummer5]

Hi. You give very reasonable comment but please do not assume what other posters say and then proceed to make an opinion on the assumption.

Fair enough but regardless of what the comment was directed at it’s still quite pertinent and you provided no information as to why you feel that way leaving assumption as the only option. However it doesn’t matter why you or anyone thinks that Muslims believe that, my point is that it shows that all faiths have their extremists which is why I mentioned the crusades and the Spanish Inquisition.

In fact when one of the few Muslims on this board asked you if you truly believe that Allah will reward him for killing and dying for the cause of Islam you failed to answer. Is it because the answer is yes and you can’t explain why you believe that?

I’m not trying to be antagonistic but I have yet to hear one shred of information to support claims like yours and living in a stereotypical, mostly white and Christian area I hear this kind of thing all the time and nobody has yet to explain to me why they feel that way other than “remember 9/11?” So if that’s not where you get that idea, where? Before you answer I would ask that you consider this, would you want people to make the same assessment of Catholics based on the two events previously mentioned and some writings in the bible?

 

[Reuben_J]

Fair enough but regardless of what the comment was directed at it’s still quite pertinent and you provided no information as to why you feel that way leaving assumption as the only option. However it doesn’t matter why you or anyone thinks that Muslims believe that, my point is that it shows that all faiths have their extremists which is why I mentioned the crusades and the Spanish Inquisition.

In fact when one of the few Muslims on this board asked you if you truly believe that Allah will reward him for killing and dying for the cause of Islam you failed to answer. Is it because the answer is yes and you can’t explain why you believe that?

I’m not trying to be antagonistic but I have yet to hear one shred of information to support claims like yours and living in a stereotypical, mostly white and Christian area I hear this kind of thing all the time and nobody has yet to explain to me why they feel that way other than “remember 9/11?” So if that’s not where you get that idea, where? Before you answer I would ask that you consider this, would you want people to make the same assessment of Catholics based on the two events previously mentioned and some writings in the bible?

I think you are intruding into a discussion that you do not know anything about. It’s a tragedy that you should make conclusion based on others conversation.

First of all I did not mention anything about religious extremism. I was trying to list out the differences between Islamic and Christian belief. elwill knows about the virgins and the wine and the fight for Islamic causes. The only difference for us would be the interpretation on how we see them. He twisted what I said by saying that all Muslims must kill in order to go to heaven. I didn’t respond to that because I know that was an obvious misrepresentation of what I said. If I should address that then I have to say that he was dishonest in replying to my post and I did not wish to go into that.

What claim do I need to support? elwill did not ask for it, why should you? So you thought I was making wild claim without knowing what I was talking about?

And I see that you didn’t comment on the other poster’s claim about the age of Aisha.

It’s funny that you can see my fault and unable to see that the other guy also omitted or not responded to certain information. I understood all that because we know what we are talking about.

But why did you bring the 9-11 issues and the crusade and inquisition - which are not even mentioned at all here? You need to ask yourself why you did it.

Now for the sake of addressing your grievance in all this - please tell me what is your problem with my posts and I’ll explain to you. Otherwise I would see you as merely suffering from a paranoid illusion and reading into something when none was intended.

 

[Reuben_J]

my point is that age of marriage wasn’t ever relegious issue , not in islam nor in christianity

In Christianity it is an issue (I’ve told you so). It is not in Islam as admitted by you.

i don’t want to talking about shiah beliefs , you can go ask them about the reasons of their odd practices

Fine, and I will not push you into it. Perhaps there is another poster here who would take issue on something like this - that one must respond to anything.

i think that when the OP asking about differences between islamic and chritianic theology , then it refers to mainstream islam and mainstream christianity , do you agree ?

I agree to some extent. However as been noted somewhere else, what is the mainstream Islam? Do you go by vote? Who speaks for mainstream Islam? If you go by vote, then you must take into consideration the fact that Sunnis are so large in number is because Shiites are outlawed and illegal in some Islamic countries where Sunnis are the ruling power.

and what is the age of consent from theology point of view ( as long as we talking about theologys ) ?

In Christianity it would be when a person is reaching adulthood before the Sacrament of marriage can be administered. It would certainly not before puberty. This is certainly the difference between Islam and Christianity.

what was the age of precedent prophet’s wifes ?

None before the age of puberty as far as I know or one that could be proven. Just for the sake of the other poster, because maybe he would be lurking around here – this is not so much about the specific age but whether a person is a child or not.

Islam allows children to be married; Catholic Christian does not.

9 year old can be consider child in our days , but she wasn’t considered child 1500 years ago ,

As far as age is concerned, I think there is not much different before or today. In fact it is the trend now that puberty occurs much earlier than before.

can we find common defination for the what is the age of child as a value supposed to be ?

In Catholicism, a person can be confirmed when they are about 15 or 16, though there may be slight variation. Perhaps that should be good indicator as to the age that you very much want to get from me.

or are you just judge by 20 century standards ?

No, but all time standard.

 

[Reuben_J]

I agree with you. I would not want to state the age but I am sort of being pushed into stating an age. (And possibly I have to answer to someone if I don’t). Do I have to do that in this argument? My point was whether one is a child or not; and I thought puberty would be the nearest indicator for it.

 

[mdrummer5]

Now for the sake of addressing your grievance in all this - please tell me what is your problem with my posts and I’ll explain to you. Otherwise I would see you as merely suffering from a paranoid illusion and reading into something when none was intended.

I apologize and admit that I may have overlooked certain parts of the conversation at hand but paranoid? You said “your Allah seems to reward Muslims who kill and die for the cause of Islam” with no supporting information. If I’m misinterpreting your statement forgive me. I’m simply trying to understand what you’re basing that claim on while also asking how it’s any different than Christians who have done the same.

 

[Reuben_J]

I apologize and admit that I may have overlooked certain parts of the conversation at hand but paranoid? You said “your Allah seems to reward Muslims who kill and die for the cause of Islam” with no supporting information. If I’m misinterpreting your statement forgive me. I’m simply trying to understand what you’re basing that claim on while also asking how it’s any different than Christians who have done the same.

The Qur’an mentions that those who fight in the way of Allah and get killed will be given a great reward:

Let those (believers) Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter fight in the cause of Allah and whoso fights in the cause of Allah, - and is slain or gets victory, We shall bestow on him a great reward. Quran 4:74

With due fairness to Islam, the concept of martyrdom in Jihad as the means for establishing the truth, may lead to martyrdom, but does not necessarily lead to being killed for it in the battlefield, although it necessarily involves the continuous Holy Struggle, and death in the cause of the struggle.

There are many verses on what to expect in Islamic paradise from the Quran and Hadith. I give you a rather mild one here.

Allah’s Apostle (The blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “In Paradise there is a pavilion made of a single hollow pearl sixty miles wide, in each corner of which there are wives who will not see those in the other corners; and the believers will visit and enjoy them.” Sahih Bukhari 6:60:402

At least one Qur’anic commentator on record elaborated graphically on the sensual pleasures.

You were indeed misinterpreting my statement and in my first reply to you I did not bother to address them because it could only inflame this thread which basically asks for the differences between Islam and Christianity.

In my opinion 9-11 is not about Islam; it is about some Muslims who might interpret Islam in their own ways and may not be accepted by other Muslims.

Crusaders and the Inquisitions were not about Christianity belief; they were things done by Christians.

Thus on both counts you were grossly wrong. You tried to stereotype what I was talking – I did no such thing. Then you tried to bring in what certain Christians say and do – I do no such thing. If you are not paranoid then surely you came in with wrong disposition and it does not help this thread. Threads on Islam tend to be derailed or closed by the Mods because people become unruly and do not respect Forum rule. Seeing you are quite new to the Forum, I advise you not to make assumption. Ask for clarification if you need to. Based on that I am willing to overlook what you’ve said and consider this been dealt with.

God bless.

 

[Contarini]

Crusaders and the Inquisitions were not about Christianity belief; they were things done by Christians.

Nonsense. They were all about Christian belief. The Inquisition was about maintaining Christian orthodoxy; the Crusades were about recovering the holy site of Jerusalem, which for medieval Christians had a special relationship to the heavenly Jerusalem. The idea that either of these things were really secular actions under a thin religious garb simply doesn’t hold up under serious study.

 

[sedonaman]

C’mon, people. The Bible teaches that man is created in the image and likeness of God. Islam doesn’t.

 

[sedonaman]

… It [9/11] was a horrible thing that happened …

It didn’t “happen”; it was caused.

 

[Contarini]

C’mon, people. The Bible teaches that man is created in the image and likeness of God. Islam doesn’t.

Islam teaches that God told all the angels to bow down to Adam, and Iblis refused, which is why he was cast out of God’s presence.

 

[mdrummer5]

It didn’t “happen”; it was caused.

It’s already been pointed out that this is off topic so I apologize for even responding to this but you’re arguing semantics. Someone or some people caused it to happen. What’s your point?

 

[sedonaman]

… you’re arguing semantics. Someone or some people caused it to happen. What’s your point?

That there have been a lot of semantic gymnastics over the last 50 years or so, and this sounded like another one of them. Semantic gymnastics have had a tremendous negative impact on society. It is the vehicle by which 52 million babies were killed by abortion [not to introduce an unrelated topic], and you’re accusing *** me*** of arguing semantics? So words have meaning, and saying that something bad “happened” is not the same as saying it was “caused”. “Happened” carries the connotation that it was an accident, whereas “caused” carries the connotation that someone was responsible, and heaven help us if we are so judgmental that we assign guilt to the guilty, especially if he is of the “Other”. Capisce?

 

[mdrummer5]

That there have been a lot of semantic gymnastics over the last 50 years or so, and this sounded like another one of them. Semantic gymnastics have had a tremendous negative impact on society. It is the vehicle by which 52 million babies were killed by abortion [not to introduce an unrelated topic], and you’re accusing *** me*** of arguing semantics? So words have meaning, and saying that something bad “happened” is not the same as saying it was “caused”. “Happened” carries the connotation that it was an accident, whereas “caused” carries the connotation that someone was responsible, and heaven help us if we are so judgmental that we assign guilt to the guilty, especially if he is of the “Other”. Capisce?

I know that words have meaning but seriously, you’re reading too much into this.

Cause leads to effect which leads to something happening. Everything that happens is caused and every cause makes something happen so yes… you’re arguing semantics. It all means the same thing, it happened as the effect of a cause. Everyone knows what 9/11 was and knows what the cause was so why would I bother mentioning it? The rest of it is implied. I said “it happened” I could’ve said “it happened because a bunch of extremists decided they hated America so much they decided to highjack a few airplanes and crash two of them into the twin towers” I didn’t because I would think it’s fairly common knowledge. If your perception of me saying it “happened” implies that it was an accident that’s an issue with your perception not my phrasing.

 

[sedonaman]

I know that words have meaning but seriously, you’re reading too much into this.
… If your perception of me saying it “happened” implies that it was an accident that’s an issue with your perception not my phrasing.

The dictionary has the same perception problem: “happen – to come to pass by chance; occur without apparent reason or design.”