Why do Muslims have their own religion?

[thistle]

These specific beliefs, which Pope Paul Vl attributed to Muslims, and are found in the Koran, the authorship of which you attribute to Satan. I am asking if you believe Pope Paul held the same belief you do about the origins of these beliefs:

I guess you don’t know much about Satan. He is the great Deceiver. He mixes truths with lies to confuse and manipulate people and take them away from Christ. It is not relevant that there are some truths in the Koran. That’s how Satan works.

 

[nonsumd]

The Catholic faith is the true Faith. Obviously that means all others are false. The can’t be more than one true faith.
The Church clearly teaches there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

CCC 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

Let’s consider what the bolded sentence is saying.

In order to be damned, a person must know (accept as true) the idea that “the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ” and yet still reject the Catholic Church. That person must willfully reject what he acknowledges to be God’s will.

Does this definition actually apply in the case of the vast majority of non-Catholics?

Muslims and other non-Catholics may have heard the claim that the Catholic Church is the one true faith, but that does not mean that they accept this claim to be true and yet persist in rejecting the Church. They simply do not know the Church to be what it claims to be. They sincerely believe that they are following God’s will by rejecting the Church. This is perhaps what is meant by the term “invincible ignorance,” and the Church teaches that God will show mercy to those who suffer from invincible ignorance.

Now, if rejecting the Church were motivated by an attachment to sin, that would be another matter altogether.

Faith is a gift.

We Catholics should be grateful for this grace. We should not forget that doctrines such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, Christ’s Redemptive Sacrifice, etc. are exceedingly difficult for humans equipped solely with reason to accept.

In the case of the Muslims and Jews, the belief in the complete otherness of God (an idea which Christians also accept) is actually a barrier to accepting the revealed truth that God became man. For Muslims and Jews, the claims Jesus makes for himself in the Gospels are blasphemous and for that reason the Muslims cannot imagine that Jesus, a figure they esteem so highly, could have ever made such claims – hence their conviction that Christians distorted the scriptures entrusted to them.

How then to convert Muslims? Not by insulting their faith by condemning it as nothing but a Satanic machination, but by preaching to them* through the manner in which we live*.

I am afraid that through history Muslims have been no more impressed with the holiness of Christians than Christians have been impressed with the holiness of Muslims. And those outside the Abrahamic inheritance, watching the spectacle of Christians and Muslims hating and killing each other, have been moved away from monotheism rather than been drawn to it.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Let’s consider what the bolded sentence is saying.

In order to be damned, a person must know (accept as true) the idea that “the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ” and yet still reject the Catholic Church. That person must willfully reject what he acknowledges to be God’s will.

Where does it state they have to absolute know the Church is the truth? You’re forgetting one important thing, all people having heard of Christ and his Church are bound by moral obligation to investigate the truth, if they fail to do so they are not invincibly ignorant. And if they do investigate and fail to accept the Church, they are not invincibly ignorant.

Your definition of who’s to be damned seems as though a majority of people goto heaven, which contradicts what our Lord said in saying most people will be on the path of destruction and few will find the path of life.

 

[nonsumd]

Where does it state they have to absolute know the Church is the truth? You’re forgetting one important thing, all people having heard of Christ and his Church are bound by moral obligation to investigate the truth, if they fail to do so they are not invincibly ignorant. And if they do investigate and fail to accept the Church, they are not invincibly ignorant.

Your definition of who’s to be damned seems as though a majority of people goto heaven, which contradicts what our Lord said in saying most people will be on the path of destruction and few will find the path of life.

I am just interpreting what the Catechism is saying with this sentence. Damnation applies to those who know the Church to be what she claims to be and yet still reject her. An appropriate analogy would be the Devil: he knows God is God, and yet in his pride he refuses to obey God’s will.

In the passage under question, there is no mention of there being a moral obligation for those who have heard the Church’s claim to investigate that claim.

First of all, what about those who never get the chance to hear that claim in the first place? Who never get the choice to investigate it or not? Would a just and merciful God exclude such people from salvation? I think we can agree can that this is a case of invincible ignorance.

Now, what if they do investigate the claim and yet still reject the Church? Whether they are damned, I believe, depends on their motive for rejecting the Church’s claim about herself.

There are indeed those who reject the Church because they wish to evade the Church’s moral demands upon them.

But there are also those who reject the Church’s claim because they simply cannot intellectually accept it. The Church’s claim simply does not make sense to them. These same people sincerely seek to lead a moral life, to follow God’s will as they understand it, so their motive for rejecting the Church’s claim is not because they wish to persist in immorality, not because they wish to remain in rebellion to God.

There are even those who reject the Church because of the bad example of Christians. They reject it sincerely because of this reason and are not merely using Christian hypocrisy as an excuse when what they actually want to do is to persist in immorality.

As I said faith is a gift. No one comes to the Son who has not been called by the Father.

I make no presumptions about whether the number of those saved is many or few (though I seem to have just heard in the new translation of the Mass that “many” are saved).

I would venture that the majority of non-Catholics who find themselves damned are so because they broke natural moral law (God has given them the grace to know right from wrong), not because they did not give intellectual assent to the Church’s claim about herself.

Conversely, there are many non-Catholics who lead moral lives in conformity to God’s will as they understand it and do a better job of this than many Catholics do. As the Gospel says, it does not matter ultimately whether you say “Yes” to God; what matters is whether you actually do His will.

 

[thistle]

Where does it state they have to absolute know the Church is the truth? You’re forgetting one important thing, all people having heard of Christ and his Church are bound by moral obligation to investigate the truth, if they fail to do so they are not invincibly ignorant. And if they do investigate and fail to accept the Church, they are not invincibly ignorant.

Your definition of who’s to be damned seems as though a majority of people goto heaven, which contradicts what our Lord said in saying most people will be on the path of destruction and few will find the path of life.

Exactly.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

I am just interpreting what the Catechism is saying with this sentence. Damnation applies to those who know the Church to be what she claims to be and yet still reject her. An appropriate analogy would be the Devil: he knows God is God, and yet in his pride he refuses to obey God’s will.

You make it sound like a person has to have complete knowledge of what the Church teaches and who Christ is and reject it all in order to be damned. One, where does it state that? Two, no one (human) rejects the Church and Christ if they had full knowledge of everything what she teaches and who He is, unless this person wants to go to Hell.

“There are not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions of people who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course, quite a different thing.”
Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

In the passage under question, there is no mention of there being a moral obligation for those who have heard the Church’s claim to investigate that claim.

newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm

First of all, what about those who never get the chance to hear that claim in the first place? Who never get the choice to investigate it or not? Would a just and merciful God exclude such people from salvation? I think we can agree can that this is a case of invincible ignorance.

Agreed.

Now, what if they do investigate the claim and yet still reject the Church? Whether they are damned, I believe, depends on their motive for rejecting the Church’s claim about herself.

There are indeed those who reject the Church because they wish to evade the Church’s moral demands upon them.

But there are also those who reject the Church’s claim because they simply cannot intellectually accept it. The Church’s claim simply does not make sense to them. These same people sincerely seek to lead a moral life, to follow God’s will as they understand it, so their motive for rejecting the Church’s claim is not because they wish to persist in immorality, not because they wish to remain in rebellion to God.

They can have all the reasons in the world; once they investigate they are no long invincibly ignorant of the truth.

There are even those who reject the Church because of the bad example of Christians. They reject it sincerely because of this reason and are not merely using Christian hypocrisy as an excuse when what they actually want to do is to persist in immorality.

Denying Christ because of Judas… this will not suffice as reason when one is before Him.

As I said faith is a gift. No one comes to the Son who has not been called by the Father.

I don’t see how this applies to the debate.

I make no presumptions about whether the number of those saved is many or few (though I seem to have just heard in the new translation of the Mass that “many” are saved).

Can you show me, please? Christ said few find the path that leads to life and if a translation in mass says different, we have a serious problem. But I seriously doubt this is the case and will not dwell on it until evidence is shown.

I would venture that the majority of non-Catholics who find themselves damned are so because they broke natural moral law (God has given them the grace to know right from wrong), not because they did not give intellectual assent to the Church’s claim about herself.

Agreed. Those invincibly ignorant are still bound by radical conditions, and one of which is what you identified.

Conversely, there are many non-Catholics who lead moral lives in conformity to God’s will as they understand it and do a better job of this than many Catholics do. As the Gospel says, it does not matter ultimately whether you say “Yes” to God; what matters is whether you actually do His will.

Catholics are held to a higher standard as they hold the fullness of truth and yet many do not do what is necessary of them. Example, 75% of all Catholics do not attend mass (violating the first precept of the Church and the third commandment of ten). But there are not “many” non-Catholics who lead moral lives, if that were the case secular society would be a semi-utopia. You’re going to have a hard time defending that claim when murders of the unborn continue to sky rocket, lust is more rampant than ever, do I have to list all te seven deadly sins?

 

[thistle]

In case anyone really thinks Islam is anything like Christianity look at some of their teachings:

Why is it hard for Muslims to covert to Christianity or other religions?

Mohammed said, “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.” (Hadith Al Buhkari vol. 9:57).

This is not an idle threat. This command is practiced in almost all Islamic Fundamentalist countries today.

Jews and Christians.

Sura 5:51: “O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he among you that turns to them for friendship is of them.”

Sura3 3:64: “Verily Allah has cursed the Unbelievers (whom he defined as Christians in the 5th surah “Believers, take not Jews and Christians for your friends.) and has prepared for them a Blazing Fire to dwell in forever. No protector will they find, nor savior. That Day their faces will be turned upside down in the Fire. They will say: ‘Woe to us! We should have obeyed Allah and obeyed the Messenger!’ ‘Our Lord! Give them double torment and curse them with a very great Curse!’”

**Hadith, the body of traditions relating to Mohammed and now supplemental to the Koran: He (Abu Hurayah) reported the messenger of Allah as saying: The last hour will not come before the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims kill them, so that Jews will hide behind stones and trees and the Stone and the tree will say, O Muslim, O servant of God! There is a Jew behind me; come and kill him. The only exception will be the box-thorn for it is one of the trees of the Jews. **(Sahih of Muslim, quoted by Israel and the Prophecies of Al Quran by Ali Akbar, Bismi Publishers 1992, p.44)

**Of the Unbelievers (Christians): Sura 4:89 “seize them and slay them wherever you find them: and in any case take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”

Slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush. (Sura 9:5)**

Sura 2:187-189 “And kill them wherever ye shall find them, and eject them from whatever place they have ejected you; for civil discord is worse than carnage: yet attack them not at the sacred Mosque, unless they attack you therein; but if they attack you, slay them. Such the reward of the infidels…Fight therefore against them until there be no more civil discord, and the only worship be that of God: but if they desist, then let there be no hostility, save against the wicked.”

Sura 9:123: “Believers! wage war against such of the infidels as are your neighbours, and let them find you rigorous: and know that God is with those who fear him.”

Infidels are all who are not Muslim.

Mohammed said: “No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir (infidel).”(Hadith vol.
9:50)

In case anyone wonders if these teachings and commands applied only in the time of Mohammed that is a mistake. They are still applicable today.
We should not be surprised that the majority of terrorists in the world are Muslim. Their religion commands them to kill non-believers (anyone who is not a Muslim).

 

[Hokomai]

We should not be surprised that the majority of terrorists in the world are Muslim.

Are they? Who says?

 

[thistle]

Are they? Who says?

If you are American then your government says so.
Check out the U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Almost all are Islamic Groups, followed by some communist groups, then nationalist and separatist groups.

I wonder why you focused on this (digressing maybe??) when the main point I have been making all along is that Islam is a false and violent religion.

 

[nonsumd]

You make it sound like a person has to have complete knowledge of what the Church teaches and who Christ is and reject it all in order to be damned. One, where does it state that? Two, no one (human) rejects the Church and Christ if they had full knowledge of everything what she teaches and who He is, unless this person wants to go to Hell.

No, I said (repeating the plain sense of the quoted sentence): if a person knows the Church to be what she claims to be and still rejects her, that person cannot be saved.

How does a person know that a proposition is true? Some propositions are in themselves self-evident (e.g. 1 + 1 = 2). Other propositions are not: a person needs to be presented compelling evidence that they are true.

A non-Catholic who has not been presented compelling evidence for the Church’s claims, whose idea of the Church is based largely on the spectacle of the wickedness of individual Church members, can such a person be blamed for rejecting the Church?

“There are not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions of people who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course, quite a different thing.”
Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

If people have been misled about what the Church is, is it their fault if they reject it? What they are rejecting is what they mistakenly believe to be the Church, not what the Church actually is. How could our Lord not show mercy to them?

Denying Christ because of Judas… this will not suffice as reason when one is before Him.

I really hate to drag in this example, but consider the Catholic who leaves the Church because he or she has been sexually abused by a priest. Because of his personal experience of being raped by an individual whom the Church teaches has been ordained to act in persona Christi, the victim cannot but doubt the authority of the Church (many such go as far as doubting the goodness or even the existence of God Himself).

Do you really think our Lord would not show mercy to such a person?

I do believe that many who have never been abused themselves invoke priestly abuse as an excuse to reject the Church when their real motive is to evade the Church’s moral teachings. I think that is inexcusable.

Can you show me, please? Christ said few find the path that leads to life and if a translation in mass says different, we have a serious problem. But I seriously doubt this is the case and will not dwell on it until evidence is shown.

Go to mass and listen to the words of consecration, drawn directly from Matthew 26:28: “This is the chalice of my blood which been poured out for you and for many.”

Catholics are held to a higher standard as they hold the fullness of truth and yet many do not do what is necessary of them. Example, 75% of all Catholics do not attend mass (violating the first precept of the Church and the third commandment of ten). But there are not “many” non-Catholics who lead moral lives, if that were the case secular society would be a semi-utopia. You’re going to have a hard time defending that claim when murders of the unborn continue to sky rocket, lust is more rampant than ever, do I have to list all te seven deadly sins?

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree about what constitutes “many.”

Of course, secular society is anything but a utopia. I never said it was.

Nonetheless, many non-Catholics do manage to lead moral lives while still rejecting the Church’s claims for herself. I personally know many examples.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

No, I said (repeating the plain sense of the quoted sentence): if a person knows the Church to be what she claims to be and still rejects her, that person cannot be saved.

How does a person know that a proposition is true? Some propositions are in themselves self-evident (e.g. 1 + 1 = 2). Other propositions are not: a person needs to be presented compelling evidence that they are true.

That conclusion can be drawn from that paragraph alone, but when taking the entire context of the Church’s position on this subject it doesn’t add up. Your definition of this paragraph doesn’t flow with what our Lord said and what infallible decrees have been made on this subject.

Our Lord spoke: “Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!”

(this is one decree of an inexhaustible amount) Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215): “One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful outside which no one at all is saved…”

A non-Catholic who has not been presented compelling evidence for the Church’s claims, whose idea of the Church is based largely on the spectacle of the wickedness of individual Church members, can such a person be blamed for rejecting the Church?

If people have been misled about what the Church is, is it their fault if they reject it? What they are rejecting is what they mistakenly believe to be the Church, not what the Church actually is. How could our Lord not show mercy to them?

You draw an example of poor evangelization, something the Church is suffering greatly right now. How much damage has/is being done to the Church and to the world of poorly catechized Catholics, half trained evangelists whom are easily defeated when faced with a knowledged opponent, and poor and heretical examples of bishops and priests. It’s hard to think about that the general message has been proclaimed to many and yet left open for attack because not many within the Church know how to defend it as good as they should. But, people have to take the path themselves and walk it and not be spoon fed the entire way. I was converted by my own research, thanks be to God, but I was not invincibly ignorant at all for I knew the basic claims, as does everyone who has an ear to the ground in mainstream society.

I really hate to drag in this example, but consider the Catholic who leaves the Church because he or she has been sexually abused by a priest. Because of his personal experience of being raped by an individual whom the Church teaches has been ordained to act in persona Christi, the victim cannot but doubt the authority of the Church (many such go as far as doubting the goodness or even the existence of God Himself).

Do you really think our Lord would not show mercy to such a person?

Some actually come back home, as our Lord has shown mercy to them in revealing truth to such special cases. Invincible ignorance can apply though in this situation given the severity of the crime and the mental traumatic affects it has on the victim. The trauma can be so harsh at times it has damaged the victim’s intellectual capacity, if this be the case then invincible ignorance definitely applies. When one’s ability to reason has been compromised, s/he is in God’s hands. To those that left knowing the Church to be the truth, having no mental compromises, and know the Church does not stand for such priests, s/he will not find salvation outside the Church.

Though I pray for infinite mercy on these victims and the full amount of justice done on these fake priests who do not have contrition of what they have done.

I do believe that many who have never been abused themselves invoke priestly abuse as an excuse to reject the Church when their real motive is to evade the Church’s moral teachings. I think that is inexcusable.

Agreed.

Go to mass and listen to the words of consecration, drawn directly from Matthew 26:28: “This is the chalice of my blood which been poured out for you and for many.”

The blood is the New Covenant, all (many) are called to enter into it though few do/will. How is “many are saved” extrapolated from this?

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree about what constitutes “many.”

Unfortunately we are plagued by a butchered language that fails to be precise when needed.

Of course, secular society is anything but a utopia. I never said it was.

Nonetheless, many non-Catholics do manage to lead moral lives while still rejecting the Church’s claims for herself. I personally know many examples.

This would evolve into a discussion of what constitutes “morality.” One of which would take pages to fill and I do not feel like discussing.

 

[Hokomai]

If you are American then your government says so.
Check out the U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Almost all are Islamic Groups, followed by some communist groups, then nationalist and separatist groups.

I wonder why you focused on this (digressing maybe??) when the main point I have been making all along is that Islam is a false and violent religion.

if you read the list, you will see you only get on that list by threatening American interests. as the US is involved in extensive military actions in Muslim countries, who would you expect to be on the list? Do you really wonder why I am focused on your claims about Islam? It’s because your claims lead (in my view) to conflict and threaten the peace. I support no religion, and think that religion is the cause of many terrorist events. But I try to avoid offensive and exaggerated descriptions of those who disagree with me. That is the road to peace, and I think successive Popes have done well in avoiding falling into this trap in relation to Islam.

 

[thistle]

if you read the list, you will see you only get on that list by threatening American interests. as the US is involved in extensive military actions in Muslim countries, who would you expect to be on the list? Do you really wonder why I am focused on your claims about Islam? It’s because your claims lead (in my view) to conflict and threaten the peace. I support no religion, and think that religion is the cause of many terrorist events. But I try to avoid offensive and exaggerated descriptions of those who disagree with me. That is the road to peace, and I think successive Popes have done well in avoiding falling into this trap in relation to Islam.

If you are an atheist then why do you care.

The bottom line is Islam is a false and violent religion and the teachings/commands I quoted in an earlier post are typical of what Muslim terrorists use to justify the murders they commit. They claim Islam demands they kill us.
Mohammed advocated oppressing and killing. Christ did not.

 

[Hokomai]

If you are an atheist then why do you care…

I care because I want peace. Inter-religious attacks based on stereotypes and exaggeration endanger peace. The question is why do you as a believer care? If you are killed by a Muslim because of your religion, you go to heaven. If you kill a Muslim, the Muslims think they to to heaven too. I don’t think I get to go anyplace. Religions have caused enough war, and enough innocent people’s deaths. I say all religious people need to acknowledge the harm their beliefs have done in the past (and present) and accept tolerance as a virtue, provided rights are upheld. Incidentally, I do not call myself an atheist. I do not define myself by your beliefs.

 

[thistle]

I care because I want peace. Inter-religious attacks based on stereotypes and exaggeration endanger peace. The question is why do you as a believer care? If you are killed by a Muslim because of your religion, you go to heaven. If you kill a Muslim, the Muslims think they to to heaven too. I don’t think I get to go anyplace. Religions have caused enough war, and enough innocent people’s deaths. I say all religious people need to acknowledge the harm their beliefs have done in the past (and present) and accept tolerance as a virtue, provided rights are upheld. Incidentally, I do not call myself an atheist. I do not define myself by your beliefs.

If you deny the existence of God that makes you an atheist.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

I care because I want peace. Inter-religious attacks based on stereotypes and exaggeration endanger peace. The question is why do you as a believer care? If you are killed by a Muslim because of your religion, you go to heaven. If you kill a Muslim, the Muslims think they to to heaven too. I don’t think I get to go anyplace. Religions have caused enough war, and enough innocent people’s deaths. I say all religious people need to acknowledge the harm their beliefs have done in the past (and present) and accept tolerance as a virtue, provided rights are upheld. Incidentally, I do not call myself an atheist. I do not define myself by your beliefs.

And true atheism kills everyone who does not conform to the authority of the state, Communism. Within a hundred years, atheism managed to murder 150 million people, most of which were innocent. Want to pile on all the abortions to In the last hundred years? Because planned parenthood was started by atheistic eugenicists for population control to support the authority of the state. Based on this evidence, belief in God and judgment is more logical for societal stability then non-belief that encourages subjective morality and totalitarianism.

 

[Hokomai]

If you deny the existence of God that makes you an atheist.

Thistle, I also have concluded that fairies do not exist. What does that make me? I call you what you call yourself. It helps in debate if the same courtesy is extended in response.

 

[Hokomai]

And true atheism kills everyone who does not conform to the authority of the state, Communism. Within a hundred years, atheism managed to murder 150 million people, most of which were innocent. Want to pile on all the abortions to In the last hundred years? Because planned parenthood was started by atheistic eugenicists for population control to support the authority of the state. Based on this evidence, belief in God and judgment is more logical for societal stability then non-belief that encourages subjective morality and totalitarianism.

I agree that people who do not believe in God have killed many other people, and that there is an issue for non-believers in this. in general this is overcome by agreeing that people have rights. This is the great achievement of the Enlightenment. It provides common ground between non-believers, and between us and religious people. My dispute with Thistle is over the language thistle uses to express religious disagreement. I would argue as strongly against a non-believer using such terms. I think there is good evidence that such frameworks of belief lead to conflict, and even to war.

 

[thistle]

Thistle, I also have concluded that fairies do not exist. What does that make me? I call you what you call yourself. It helps in debate if the same courtesy is extended in response.

What is discourteous about calling you an atheist? That is the proper and polite term for someone who denies the existence of God.
Why are you so sensitive and defensive?

 

[Hokomai]

What is discourteous about calling you an atheist? That is the proper and polite term for someone who denies the existence of God.
Why are you so sensitive and defensive?

I do not deny the existence of God. I have simply not concluded that there is a God. The polite and proper term for someone is what they call themselves. If I meet a Cardinal, I call them ‘Cardinal’ or ‘our Eminence’. If I meet the Pope I call him “Your Holiness”. If I am talking to a Muslim, I refer to their founder as “The Prophet”. If meet a Christian, that is what I call them, even though I do not believe anyone is a Christ, and therefore one cannot be a follower of Christ. I don’t believe that the Cardinal is eminent, or that the Pope id holy, or that the founder of Islam is a prophet. But I respect others’ beliefs, and call them what they call themselves. I predict that my approach leads to me having more influence on others than yours. And you believe you are called by God to influence others. I just like talking with people.