Is Islam A Religion Of Truth, Peace And Love Or Not?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Pomak' date='11 December 2009 - 10:57 PM' timestamp='1260593876' post='2018859']
Erm not sure if you are familiar but our reformation is actually Al Qaida. Our traditional understanding was informed by a hadith that has a meaning of "If someone mistreats a dhimmi(non muslim in a muslim state), I shall advocate on his behalf in front of God." and it was rather tolerant in its context.

All legitimate Muslim scholars(in the eyes of Muslims) advocate a revival of that spirit while rejecting any claims of "reformation". Largely because a reformation can not happen when you do not have a church.
[/quote]
Al Qaida is your reformation? Can you explain that further?

[Pomak]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='12 December 2009 - 06:15 PM' timestamp='1260602131' post='2018964']
Al Qaida is your reformation? Can you explain that further?
[/quote]

They seek to overturn 1400 years of scholarship and tradition. And after 1400 years to come up with their own version of what the salaf( first 3 generations) believed in.

[mortify]

[quote name='Pomak' date='12 December 2009 - 02:23 AM' timestamp='1260602616' post='2018971']
They seek to overturn 1400 years of scholarship and tradition. And after 1400 years to come up with their own version of what the salaf( first 3 generations) believed in.
[/quote]

Glad you realize the threat of the neo-salafis.

[Winchester]

Our reformation banned women from education, as well.

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Socrates' date='11 December 2009 - 05:37 PM' timestamp='1260571028' post='2018677']
I honestly really don't give a rat's butt what Teilhard De Chardin wrote. His (often bizarre) theories are not authoritative teaching, and don't hold water with me.
And I seriously doubt men today are any more virtuous or "spiritually evolved" (whatever the heck that means) than they were in ages past. The tangible evidence sure points against it.
[/quote]

Considering the Holy Office issued a warning against his works I doubt any member of Phatmass gives a rat's butt about Chardin.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='12 December 2009 - 06:47 AM' timestamp='1260618423' post='2019018']
Considering the Holy Office issued a warning against his works I doubt any member of Phatmass gives a rat's butt about Chardin.
[/quote]

[i]Humani Generis[/i] also condemned some of the things De Chardin taught.

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='11 December 2009 - 12:33 PM' timestamp='1260552791' post='2018457']
Or perhaps Sacredheart did not know how to make the voting public. As it is the poll has little value because there is no way to determine how Catholic Phatmassers are voting, which was the whole purpose of the suggestion for a poll.
[/quote]

What a disgusting and invasive attitude. Let's check how Catholic my fellow forum members are and too bad the poll isn't public as now there's no way to hold "them accountable".

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='11 December 2009 - 06:03 PM' timestamp='1260569007' post='2018661']
I agree. In fact, Christ is the Church, for the head and the body together form one mystical man.

Thus, when a person is baptized he is assimilated to Christ, and becomes a member of His body; and that is why the Church - according to the Holy Fathers - is the perpetual extension of the incarnation through space and time. Now to call the Church - the body of Christ - sinful, is the same as calling Christ sinful, which is contrary to both scripture and tradition. The Holy Fathers always distinguished between the members of the Church, who can and often do fall into sins, and the Church herself, which is and always will be the spotless bride of Christ.
[/quote]

But when a person sins, the sin outside the body of Christ and hence, must be reconciled through the sacrament of penance, before receiving the sacraments.

Thats all fine and dandy, that we as Catholics have this understanding.

However, the world does not. When we sin, as the priest sex abuse scandal, or allow the use of torture on heretics and such, although these are the acts of individuals, it still reflects on the institutional Church and the Church suffers for it.

When a Pope issued a bull, allowing the use of torture, it reflected the institutional policy of the Church down through the ages.

So, to say the Church does not sin is true, but when we members sin, and we cause great damage to the Church, no two ways about it.

The Church was responsible for the sins its members of the hierarchy committed through their policies.

Jim

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='12 December 2009 - 09:02 AM' timestamp='1260626572' post='2019052']
When a Pope issued a bull, allowing the use of torture, it reflected the institutional policy of the Church down through the ages.
[/quote]

Give me the name of such a bull and the name of the Pope who wrote it.

Good luck.

[JimR-OCDS]

Socrates

[quote]
However, I sincerely doubt there's any less sin in the Church now than in the "bad old days" before the Church "evolved," but I'll admit my knowledge of such things is limited.
[/quote]

Sins against humanity approved and committed by the Church(its members), were worse in the past than those today. Punishment for
crimes was like nothing we have today. During the 1500's in Spain during the time of the Inquisition, the crime for stealing a sheep,
was disembowelment. We don't see that in our world today. We have evolved, thanks to Christian understanding.

[quote]
See Winchester's response - these were the actions of secular authorities.
[/quote]

Pope Innocent IV issued the Papal Bull, [url="/wiki/Ad_exstirpanda"][i]Ad exstirpanda[/i][/url], allowing the use of torture on heretics. The Bull also placed limits
on how much torture could be used, but it did allow for it, and of course, it was abused to the hilt.


[quote]
Church courts were usually much more fair and just than the secular courts of the time, which would put people to death on flimsy evidence. Church courts cleared most of the accused of heresy. And witch hunts and such were actually a largely Protestant activity.
It's not so much the Church changed as outside society and political structures.
[/quote]

Yes they were more fair, in fact, our courts today, and based on the ecclesiastical courts of the Inquisition. However, just as our courts today are sometimes abused, so to were the ecclesiastical courts of the Inquisition.

[quote]
I honestly really don't give a rat's butt what Teilhard De Chardin wrote. His (often bizarre) theories are not authoritative teaching, and don't hold water with me.
[/quote]

Actually, much of what he wrote is accepted by the Church today. Through better understanding of what he wrote, it became clear, he was right.

[quote]
And I seriously doubt men today are any more virtuous or "spiritually evolved" (whatever the heck that means) than they were in ages past. The tangible evidence sure points against it.
[/quote]


The Church as a whole, is more spiritually evolved than in the past, I have no doubt about it. The average Catholic is able to understand and participate in the deeper spiritual riches of the Church, such as Contemplation.
In the 1500,s during the time of St Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross, contemplation was forbidden. Heck, St. John was thrown in prison by his own order, for his teachings on spirituality. St. Teresa was also brought before the Inquisition. Remember, it was only in 1970, that she was made a Doctor of the Church, and average Catholics began to have her writings taught to them without reservation.

[quote]
God forbid Catholics take the Catechism or Church teachings literally at face value!!
[/quote]

I've seen fundamentalist Catholics take a teaching from the Catechism literally, and misinterpret it. One is a friend of mine,
who showed me how he learned from the Catechism, that the soul of a person existed before conception. He even got into
a heated argument on retreat with the monk, who is a theologian. Finally, God got through to him and he began to understand
that his interpretation was wrong. But he's not unique. I've seen it time and time again throughout Catholic web forums.

[quote]
All us smurt people know they're highly cryptic and obscure documents that can only be properly interpreted by really, really clever liberal Jesuits who write for [i]America[/i] magazine.
[/quote]

Well I'll trust the Jesuits at American Magazine, before most people who participate in Catholic Web forums. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/P.gif[/img]

[quote]
Yes, we must all harken to the infallible word of Pastor Rick Warren!
[/quote]

You're sarcasm merely helps to prove his statement to be true.

Jim

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='12 December 2009 - 10:05 AM' timestamp='1260626703' post='2019053']
Give me the name of such a bull and the name of the Pope who wrote it.

Good luck.
[/quote]


Ad exstirpanda


Hope this helps. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif[/img]

Jim

[Akalyte]

watch out, someone might fly a plane into phatmass..

[Varg]

[quote name='Akalyte' date='12 December 2009 - 09:42 AM' timestamp='1260628975' post='2019066']
watch out, someone might fly a plane into phatmass..
[/quote]
Because all Muslims are terrorists, right?

No.

[MIKolbe]

stay classy, bro!!!

[Antigonos]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='11 December 2009 - 07:30 AM' timestamp='1260505845' post='2018160']
Mohammad was not a prophet of God, for his doctrines contradict those of Jesus Christ, Who is the supreme Prophet and absolute Teacher of all humanity.

Islam is not a religion of truth or a religion of peace, for it rejects Jesus, Who is "the Way, and the Truth, and the Life" and "the Prince of Peace".

The Koran is not an inspired book, for it claims to supersede and surpass the teachings of Christ, who is the "Fullness of all God's revelation".
[/quote]


There are several billion people in the world -- to wit, any Moslem [of course], Hindu, Buddhist, animist, atheist, Jew -- in fact, anyone who is not a Christian -- who would dispute that with you. It seems a very arrogant attitude. I don't doubt for an instant that there is a God, but I wouldn't have the hubris to maintain that there is only one way to acknowledge Him, however He may be or how we can perceive him.