Why Is The Vatican So Accepting Of Islam?

[Norseman82]

"I wear my sunglasses at night...."

[Quietfire]

[quote]QUOTE (JeffCR07 @ Jun 22 2004, 12:03 AM)
If I tell you that 2+2=5 you'll tell me I'm nuts, and wrong, and deny. To tell someone that the God that they worship is actually 3 persons IN that One God is even more difficult to deal with. 


Actually that works in clock arithmetic.

If you look around in nature there's a few examples of synergie like this..[/quote]
[quote]3 persons IN that One God[/quote]
its three persons in one nature.


[quote]Morph, the problem with your line of thinking is that, for you, people either get ALL of the truth, or they get NONE of it. So you argue that Buddhists, Pagans, Muslims, etc, don't have any of the Truth.

Now I'm about to make a drastic, scary, and perhaps sickening comment, so brace yourself:

Some aspect of the Truth can be found in ALL religions. Does this mean Muslims too? Yes. Does this mean Buddhists too? Yes. Does this mean Pagans too? Yes. Does this mean High Mass Satanists? Yes it does.

For no matter how twisted the religion, no matter how terrible, no matter how EVIL some shred of Truth must exist.

Remember, only God has the power to create something out of nothing. Satan can only corrupt that which has already been made, and all that is made by God is Good. Even the most corrupted religions still acknowledge a power beyond mankind. The question is, just how much of the Truth do they have?

Now, with regards to your issue about the Muslims:

There are plenty of us who HAVE gone out and learned about Islam: Do not be so quick to establish yourself as the only authority on the matter, you may, one day, find in your midst an Islamic scholar and subsequently be humbled.

YES they deny the Trinity. "Say not, 'Three' when you speak of Allah." YES this is wrong. But this does not mean that they are wrong in all things, nor does it mean that they worship a different God.

If God declares "White" to be "White" and "Black" to be "Black" then this is the Truth, unalterable by society. But what if you live in a society that tells you, from birth, that "White" is "Black" and "Black" is "White?" Moreover, what if that society tells you that anyone who says otherwise is not only wrong, but a blasphemer, because God himself declared White to be Black and Black to be White?

Truly, Morph, let me give you another example:

Lets imagine my cousin is 11 years old. He has learned elementary mathematics, and the beginnings of algebra, and he has just come to an understanding of the term "infinite." Now, I have finished calculus, and understand how integrals work, and I know that you can get a definite number that is the sum of an infinite number of points.

Now, I tell my cousin that such a thing is possible, and he doesn't believe me, because he knows "infinite" to be "uncountable" "never ending" and "forever."

So when I tell him the truth, that you can, using an integral, achieve a definite number that corresponds to infinite points, what does he do? He goes back and asks his parents:

Well neither of his parents finished High School, and they are bitter because I know more than they do. So they reassert his belief and tell him that I am lying to him, and that I shouldn't listen. So he doesn't, and like them, he never finishes High School.

Just because the boy never learned calculus doesn't mean my "math" is fundamentally different from his "math."

In the same way, someone who has been raised Muslim does not pray to a fundamentally different God.

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff[/quote]

So true! Excellent point Jeff. I failed to post that point because I knew I would screw it up. Your way was quite eloquent.
I cant believe after (what) 3 pages, when all this starts to make sense (in other words...an answer that is true) then suddenly some are too tired.
Now I understand when someone says that once a point is made and is true the subject is suddenly changed or dropped.
Sunglasses.


Peace :peace:

Amazing.

[Quietfire]

[quote]It's like this, in the fall we were all thrown into the darkness, and the world's out there searchin for the Light. The Light contacted a people in the darkness, the Jewish people, and the Jewish people thus recognized Who the Light Is. Then the Light came into the darkness, but the Jewish People didn't recognize Him. you know what they did? they put sunglasses on! Jesus didn't do what they expected (make them a powerful nation as an earthly kingdom) so they continued to look at the light the way it was most comfortable to them. that is WRONG, for this light doesn't damage your eyes and all men should stare strait at it, but they did it anyway. they're still looking at the same light. as Christians we now stand in the light and look at it completely, no sunglasses (well, protestants have some sunglasses that are lower calliber than the ones Jews and Muslims have, cuz they also find staring strait at the light too uncomfortable. also some Catholics put on different degrees of sunglasses). Mohammed studied Christianity and Islam, recognized that the Light was there and true, but it was too uncomfortable for him to accept all of it, he fashioned a special brand of sunglasses and handed them out to all his buddies, and that's what Muslims do. They look at the light with sunglasses. God will break those sunglasses in time if they allow Him to, but they are looking at God, they're just clouding their vision of Him.

pAx[/quote]

This should be in the Reference Section under Phatmasser comments.
Great analogy.

Peace :peace:

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='Jun 26 2004, 10:20 PM']
Now I understand when someone says that once a point is made and is true the subject is suddenly changed or dropped.
[/quote]
Funny isn't it?

[MorphRC]

It is a good analogy I must admit. One problem, your speaking of them as if they're ignorant and stupid of Christianity. They know our doctrine of God, they know why its so, and they deny it everytime they read the Quran. And the Jews are different, since God didnt reveal Himself as 3 to them, so trying to use the same tactic for Jews isnt plausible.

[MorphRC]

Cut that our* out, force of habit. Sry

[amarkich]

Interestingly enough, there is a Creed of the Church which is very relevant in this matter. It not only explains the Trinity but also explains the necessity of believing in the Trinity for salvation (along with the entire Catholic Faith). It is the Athanasian Creed and is as follows:

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Etneral and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Uncomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity is Trinity, and the Trinity is Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting Salvation, that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man.

God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the substance of His mother, born into the world. Perfect God and Perfect Man, of a reasonable Soul and human Flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood. Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but One Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by Unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one Man, so God and Man is one Christ. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into Hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into Heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

See the Catholic Encyclopedia for orthodox commentary:
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm[/url]

This Creed beautifully expresses the truth of the Trinity and the understanding that we have of the Blessed Trinity. Likewise, it asserts (as some have denied) the necessity of belief in the Trinity for salvation and the necessity of the Catholic Faith for salvation, for "Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly." For anyone who claims that belief in the Trinity (or the entire Catholic Faith in general) is not necessary for salvation, please explain why the Athansian Creed (not to mention various other Church documents) say very clearly that these things are necessary without ever giving qualification to the statements. God bless.

[amarkich]

Just for further support, I offer the last paragraph of the Catholic Encyclopedia's commentary (the part which is pertinent to this discussion):

The "damnatory", or "minatory clauses", are the pronouncements contained in the symbol, of the penalties which follow the rejection of what is there proposed for our belief. It opens with one of them: "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith". The same is expressed in the verses beginning: "Furthermore, it is necessary" etc., and "For the right Faith is" etc., and finally in the concluding verse: "This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved". Just as the Creed states in a very plain and precise way what the Catholic Faith is concerning the important doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, so it asserts with equal plainness and precision what will happen to those who do not faithfully and steadfastly believe in these revealed truths. They are but the credal equivalent of Our Lord's words: "He that believeth not shall be condemned", and apply, as is evident, only to the culpable and wilful rejection of Christ's words and teachings. The absolute necessity of accepting the revealed word of God, under the stern penalties here threatened, is so intolerable to a powerful class in the Anglican church, that frequent attempts have been made to eliminate the Creed from the public services of that Church. The Upper House of Convocation of Canterbury has already affirmed that these clauses, in their prima facie meaning, go beyond what is warranted by Holy Scripture. In view of the words of Our Lord quoted above, there should be nothing startling in the statement of our duty to believe what we know is the testimony and teaching of Christ, nor in the serious sin we commit in wilfully refusing to accept it, nor, finally, in the punishments that will be inflicted on those who culpably persist in their sin. It is just this last that the damnatory clauses proclaim. From a dogmatic standpoint, the merely historical question of the authorship of the Creed, or of the time it made its appearance, is of secondary consideration. The fact alone that it is approved by the Church as expressing its mind on the fundament truths with which it deals, is all we need to know.

God bless.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Amarkich and Morph, I would like to respond:

First, Amarkich:

In no way shape or form am I disagreeing with the Creed set out by Saint Athanasius, nor am I contesting in pride that my knowledge is greater than that of the Magisterium. However, as all of the laity should, I try must best to follow what the Magisterium teaches, and that is the following: All writings of the Magisterium should be taken in the context with which they were written and, ultimately, it is for the Magisterium herself to decide what that context is. Now, with regards to St. Athanasius, and many of the documents with which you refer to, we must remember that these were written as a response to growing incidents in which not only the laypeople, but the [i]clergy[/i] were teaching heretical doctrines. This is why, if you look at the dates on the documents and texts that say things similar to thist, they all date to specific times corresponding to explosions in heretical teachings: Arianism, Gnosticism, Pelagianism, Protestantism, etc. These things are addressed to those people who have grown up in the catholic faith, been formed, been taught, [i]become teachers themselves[/i] and yet persist in espousing heretical doctrines.

For these, the words of St. Athanasius are true. (and in my opinion, like yours, I think that not only is his a beautiful Creed, but it is one that all catholics should be taught as the grow up because it addresses the Trinity so absolutely).

Now, if you are interested in my response to the islamic issue, feel free to read on

Now, Morph:

Just to clarify the issue I'm addressing, it is the following quote of yours.

[quote]It is a good analogy I must admit. One problem, your speaking of them as if they're ignorant and stupid of Christianity. They know our doctrine of God, they know why its so, and they deny it everytime they read the Quran.[/quote]

Now Morph, I know that you are a staunch republican (as am I, save issues like the death penalty, but thats neither here nor there, I just want to let you know that this isn't some liberal attacking your political beliefs), so I will try to illustrate my point using another metaphor.

I don't know where you are from, but think of the most liberal newspaper you know. Now imagine that a boy is taught to read that newspaper, with its drastic liberal tilt, its biased appraisal of Republican politics, and its leftist editorials. His parents tell him that this newspaper is the truth, and he believes them. Moreover, his entire town supports the newspaper, and they all reinforce his faith in it. Every once in a while, his parents will get a Republican newspaper, and they will show it to him, pointing out all the places where it is "wrong" and "terrible" and "awful." Then they will throw it out.

To say that Muslims [quote]know our doctrine of God[/quote] is to say that the boy "knows our doctrine on politics" because he has "read" a republican newspaper.

I would argue, however, that if a child is formed and molded to have a liberal bias, then no amount of reading of conservative press will change his mind, because he has been trained to search out the "conservative bias" and the "republican propoganda" in the paper. Something else has to happen before he can truly "know" the republican viewpoint.

Now the [quote]vast[/quote] majority of Muslims are like the person described above. Very few Muslims have deeply studied the Bible and the Christian Tradition, very few. And of those who have, even fewer still have done so with an open mind, for most have read the Bible like the liberal parents have "read" the conservative newspaper - simply trying to find certain things to focus in on and tear to shreds, which is, ultimately, a result of the bias that was trained into them.

Truly Morph, there are so very few Muslims who really know our doctrine of God. Reading the letters of the book, or having them read to you, does not make you know the doctrine any more than quoting a movie makes you an actor.

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff

[Guest JeffCR07]

woah, there were a lot of typo's in there. I appologize about the "vast" thing, it shouldnt be in quotes, and there were just a lot of mispellings in general. It is muchos grande early and I'm still kind of out of it, so I appologize

[MorphRC]

I know what your saying mate, but what Im saying, Yes, they get a tilted view as you put it, obviously, muhammad wasnt exactly a learned man, but the Christian doctrine, God the father etc etc, is in their. Its clearly stated, then clearly refuted by Muhammad. For example.

St.Peter was the first Pope, died in Rome in 67AD, 'Muhammad style': Oh Catholics, do not believe such vague things, that do not exist.

The thing is, they have the info, and its denied, so they cant claim ignorance, since ignorance is 'uneducated, not knowledgable of certain things'. However to further my point, and show you that ignorance and all that 'loophole' stuff I dont really like here:

...Next Post...Gotta get 'em

[Guest JeffCR07]

Morph, it may very well be that our argument is a semantical misunderstanding. I am not, in any way shape or form, saying that [i]no[/i] muslims are heritics. Far from it. People like Mohammed and other leaders who [i]have[/i] been formed, [i]have[/i] truly learned and [i]do[/i] know the teachings, yet still deny, are most certainly in the category denounced by St. Athanasius as Amarkich so eloquently posted. However, I am merely saying that there are very very many who are not culpable for their ignorance (whether that ignorance comes from bias or from lack of exposure) and that the people in those categories are praising God as best as they know how, just like the "misled liberal" in the analogy is trying to be as good a citizen as he possibly can, within the confines within which he lives.

This does not alter the truth, nor does it allow for a "relativism" (i hate relativism) with regards to religion, but rather, it incorporates the notion of culpability which the church has always taught.

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff

[MorphRC]

[b]- Comparative Religion by Muslims -[/b]

[url="http://www.al-islam.org/links.asp?CatId=96"]List of Islamic-Christian Articles[/url]

[url="http://www.al-islam.org/i_click_thru.asp?LinkId=168"]Islam in the Bible[/url]

[i]Site Hits 110 per minute.[/i]

[url="http://www.islamworld.net/"]Islam World - Massive List of Anti-Christian Tracts with Sources[/url]

These are the main two, that first appear on Yahoo!. This is just these, there are literally millions of sites like these, then there are schools, universities, colleges that teach this material.

Either way, they know the Christian God, dont make excuses like 'they have different sunnies' or stuff like that. If you know Christians worship God as God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and reject it, then thats that. But then you bring in all this loophole stuff and complicate the matter to be 'ecumenical'.

[MorphRC]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 28 2004, 11:32 PM'] Morph, it may very well be that our argument is a semantical misunderstanding. I am not, in any way shape or form, saying that [i]no[/i] muslims are heritics. Far from it. People like Mohammed and other leaders who [i]have[/i] been formed, [i]have[/i] truly learned and [i]do[/i] know the teachings, yet still deny, are most certainly in the category denounced by St. Athanasius as Amarkich so eloquently posted. However, I am merely saying that there are very very many who are not culpable for their ignorance (whether that ignorance comes from bias or from lack of exposure) and that the people in those categories are praising God as best as they know how, just like the "misled liberal" in the analogy is trying to be as good a citizen as he possibly can, within the confines within which he lives.

This does not alter the truth, nor does it allow for a "relativism" (i hate relativism) with regards to religion, but rather, it incorporates the notion of culpability which the church has always taught.

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff [/quote]
Yes there are some that are totally ignorant to God as god the father etc etc, and for whatever reasons they shouldnt be punished, thats obvious.

[XIX]

[quote name='MorphRC' date='Jun 27 2004, 12:32 AM'] It is a good analogy I must admit. One problem, your speaking of them as if they're ignorant and stupid of Christianity. They know our doctrine of God, they know why its so, and they deny it everytime they read the Quran. And the Jews are different, since God didnt reveal Himself as 3 to them, so trying to use the same tactic for Jews isnt plausible. [/quote]
What are you talking about?!?!

I'm a cradle Catholic, albeit a cradle Cafeteria Catholic who was converted away from the cafeteria, I suppose. Still, there are a lot of basic fundamentals about my faith that I can't grasp, that I struggle with. Imagine what it's like for somebody raised by devout Muslims?

And amarkich, lemme put what you are saying into perspective here. If what you say is true, then the Pope's ecumenical quest is the greatest heresy in the history of the Church (guess it would be the Modernist heresy?) and therefore, he's not really the Pope. It should be interesting to see how future popes react to ecumenism and such. I'm inclined to agree with JeffCr07