Jesus Inspires Me...

[Jesus_lol]

[color="#CC0000"]not appropiate for a catholic board - cmom[/color]




[size=7]Ha Ha! no one expects the Spanish inquisition!![/size]


but seriously now, what do you chaps think of this new cult gaining popularty, Islam?

[Hascal]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' post='1135387' date='Dec 4 2006, 10:52 PM']

[size=7]Ha Ha! no one expects the Spanish inquisition!![/size]
but seriously now, what do you chaps think of this new cult gaining popularty, Islam?
[/quote]

cult?
...

[Jesus_lol]

yes actually i was reading an old book on cults and buddhism and islam were in there. i thought it was pretty funny myself

i was wondering because this seems predominantly roman catholic, what your view on islam is? personally i think it is just another name for the same god and new rules because it originates in a different culture

Edited December 5, 2006 by Jesus_lol

[cmotherofpirl]

Kindly use regular font size - thank you.

I think it will depend on how you define cult.
How do you define it?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Technically, a cult means "a religious following." That's from the Latin.

So all religions could be called cults (and in theological terms, sometimes are referred to as cults).

[Jesus_lol]

^ i suppose that makes sense. that would apply (technically) to roman catholicism, too yes?not to be offensive, but thats an interesting way to put it

[Momma's Boy]

Christianity = Islam with different rules? Don't think so. We do all have a desire for the same God in our hearts, but all religions are definitely not the same. Nor do I think that all religions come from God. As Christians, we believe that God sent his only Son to save us. In doing so, all who accept that salvation become sons or dausghters of God! It's a huge thing that absulutely revolves around Jesus. Islam, on the other hand, holds firmly that God has no Son. Since Allah has no son, there is no adoption into sonship for the rest of us. There is no such term as the "family of God". God is not Father. God is master for the Muslem. Everyone is a slave under Allah.
The difference between a love-based family relationship and a obedience-based servant relationship has obvious ramifications. Why do you think Muslems treat their wives like slaves? I don't think that the same God would reveal himself in such opposite ways. There are so many other differences as well. It's always interesting to me when people say that all religions are the same or something. Our God is a God of order. Why in the world would he reveal himself as the One True God in one place and then many gods in another place (Hindu). Or say that He is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" and that "noone comes to the Father but by me" in one faith, and that Allah is God and he has no son in another? That would make no sense.
No, there is a God, he revealed himself to Abraham and became one of us in Jesus to show us how to get to know him and spend eternity with him. All other religions reflect him to a certain degree in whatever good that they might display so God allows them. But the Christian religion contains the Fullness of Truth because it directly revolves around The Truth.
But, if you really want to know, ask him yourself. He's dying for people to ask him and get to know him.

[suuran]

"Well, I sure wasn't expecting that!"

[Aloysius]

kinda reminds me of Tashlan from Narnia's The Last Battle the way many people treat Allah of Islam and the Trinitarian God of Christianity.

that's why in other threads I have been arguing an understanding of how muslims can be directing their worship towards the true God (verifying the statement in Nostra Aetate that they worship the same God) but, at the same time, the Allah of Islam is not substantially the same as the God of Christianity

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=61110"]The Muslims and the Blessed Trinity[/url]
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=57520&"]Islam as Pagan Monotheism[/url]

Basically there are two points which make me say that they are substantially different. The first is theological from a Catholic perspective: they will against worshipping what we know, from a Catholic perspective, to be substantially Almighty God (the outright will not to worship the Son, the Holy Spirit, or God as the Son's Father or their own Father)

The second is a more objective anthropological view; their God is a God of will. Anthropology sees radical-monotheistic-revolution not only in reducing the gods to One God, but as completely inverting all the old attitudes about the gods such that this One God is not treated as if He had temperments which govern his actions (all the old pagan gods are governed by temperments to be appeased) but rather as a God of absolute essential reason. Islam puts Allah as transcendent over reason not substantially the same as reason; meaning everything is governed by his temperments and will, to be appeased and harnessed and utilized. Radical Monotheistic Revolution makes God one to be reasoned with, because He is by nature reason itself and governs all things according to logic and reason.

if you want to see "the same religion just different cultures/ different rules" you need to look at the Sui Juris Churches which are in union with the Catholic Church. Many different cultures interpret Christianity in their own rites and customs, rules and regulations, but have essentially the same God. There is a substantial difference, however, between the God of Chrisitanity and the Allah of Islam both from our theological (not merely cultural, this is our philosophical belief) perspective and from an objective anthropological perspective.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1135608' date='Dec 5 2006, 01:28 PM']

The second is a more objective anthropological view; their God is a God of will. Anthropology sees radical-monotheistic-revolution not only in reducing the gods to One God, but as completely inverting all the old attitudes about the gods such that this One God is not treated as if He had temperments which govern his actions (all the old pagan gods are governed by temperments to be appeased) but rather as a God of absolute essential reason. [/quote]

good point, but when i last read the old testament, i definitely got the impression, theat you either appeased god, or you died the horrible, painful death in fire.
ya i know, dont take the old testament literally, but that is where many of the mdern conservative christian beliefs come from. so what am i supposed to think? (sorry for going off on a tangent) the best way i think is to not listen to the old testament at all, except as stories with a moral to them and take your beliefs from the god of the new testament. jesus's "golden rule" teachings are really the basis for all the rules that should govern you, imo.

[Aloysius]

I believe I breifly addressed that in the Islam as Pagan Monotheism thread: I argued that the whole point of all the stories in the Old Testament was in fact to teach that God was not a God of will to be appeased or harnessed and controlled like the pagan gods.

That He was not a God of will to be harnessed and controlled is obvious in the Second Commandment and throughout the scriptures. The ancient pagans used a name to basically control their gods; if they named their people after a god then that god's honor was specifically tied to that people and he had to help them or be a laughing stock. if they invoked his name it automatically invoked his honor.

That He was not to be appeased is very apparent throughout the Psalms.

I'll focus on one example where God looks like a God of will and not transcendent reason in the Old Testament: when God wishes to smite the Israelites but Moses convinces Him not to. The explanation for this comes from Jews and Christians as something like this: 1) that it is anthropomorphic to speak of God as changing His mind and 2) more direct to this issue that the logic of perfect justice would demand punishment, but this was a logic of perfect mercy. neither are merely acts of will of a God who just decides what He wants to do based upon His personality. His personality, will, and actions are all primarily driven by His nature which is reason.

but in the paradigm of Islam, they do not apply such explanations. God's will is God's will. If God wants to smite people one minute and not smite them the next, it is His perogative. It is a force of personality.

I know I wrote a lot of long posts in that thread so there's my synopsis.

[Era Might]

[quote]As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!

For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

So it depends not upon man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy.

For the scripture says to Pharaoh, "I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth."

So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills.

You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"

[b]But who are you, a man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me thus?"[/b]

Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use?

--Romans 9:13-21[/quote]
Declining to speculate on the inner will of God does not in itself make the object of worship a false God. It can, however, lead to problems, if one is mistaken about what God has in fact willed. There is a legitimate sense in which we must reflect on the work of God, in light of natural and moral law, to reconcile the two; but failure to do so is a theological and philosophical failure, not a substantial error about what God is, which is a separate question entirely. St. Paul speaks of a humble silence in the face of God's will; his teaching does not absolutely forbid rational inquiry, but it does require a deference to mystery and the sovereign will of God, into which no man can truly peer.

Even granting that Muslims do not peer into the reason behind God's will and action (and I admit this only for discussion at the moment), it does not make the God they worship substantially different from the God we worship, the God who is known by reason, the one God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It does, however, present a difficulty and a potential for serious moral error, if they will not deduce an objective law from God.

[Aloysius]

it is a much more fundamental difference than that, Era. the Allah of Islam is driven by personality; the God of Judeo-Christianity driven by Reason. the personality of the Allah of Islam dictates what is reasonable and what is not; whereas the God of Judeo-Christianity is by nature reason, He does not merely decide what is reasonable but is bound up in His own nature.

this is indeed substantially not the same neither in belief nor in practice. God is either transcendent of reason and thus can be reasonable or unreasonable, motivated by His own personality as Allah is; or God is Reason itself. this is the fundamental and only real difference which ever set Judaism apart from the religions of the world. to say that there is only one God... okay, it's a hard thing to sell to a polytheistic mindset that thinks there are many... but if that one god can be treated the way they used to treat all their gods then great! now they have a more powerful god to harness, to appease, to gain the favor of, et cetera. reducing the pantheon to the number 1 does not monotheism make (well, by the technical definition of the word it does, but it does not make radical monotheistic revolution). judaism completely inverted all the old ways of viewing God. I have seen no evidence that Islam ever inverted those ways in their view of Allah.

muslims direct their worship towards the true God in identifying the God of Abraham, but this is a substantial error by which the practice of their religion has constructed a different God; one in number but not because of a radical monotheistic revolution changing their view of the nature of a god; their view of the nature of a god holds more similarities with the pagan view of the nature of a god.

it is the same with Hinduism. modern Hinduism, at least among its intellectuals, admits to monotheism; that there is a one transcendent God and that all their gods are merely manifestations of that god. but Vishnu is still motivated by Vishnu's personality; Shiva by Shiva's personality; et cetera; this is not monotheistic in the revolutionary sense of the word: it is reducing the pantheon to one-in-number in a technical monotheism but not a revolutionary one.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' post='1135781' date='Dec 5 2006, 06:43 PM']
good point, but when i last read the old testament, i definitely got the impression, theat you either appeased god, or you died the horrible, painful death in fire.
ya i know, dont take the old testament literally, but that is where many of the mdern conservative christian beliefs come from. so what am i supposed to think? (sorry for going off on a tangent) the best way i think is to not listen to the old testament at all, except as stories with a moral to them and take your beliefs from the god of the new testament. jesus's "golden rule" teachings are really the basis for all the rules that should govern you, imo.
[/quote]
Actually, the Old Testament and the New Testament are both about if you accept God's gift of love, it will bear fruit in you, but if you reject it, you will be left to your own devices. It follows naturally, quite frankly. If we have an inclination toward evil (though we are ourselves good), then if we don't accept the help God offers us to do good, we will do evil and that evil will catch up with us and hurt us. If we accept the help God offers us to do good, we will be able to do good and will reap good benefits. It has nothing to do with God punishing; it has everything to do with us punishing ourselves. If someone gives you a gun for your birthday so that you can go hunting, but you shoot yourself in the foot instead, you can't blame the person who gave you the gift; it's your fault. If, however, you catch lots of animals and eat well and maybe even start a good business, you can thank the person who gave you the gift. It depends on what you do, good or evil, with what God gives you. You make the choice, not God.

The Old Testament is filled with wonderful things that can cast light on the meaning of the New Testament (and vice-versa). That is why the Church says, "the New is foreshadowed in the Old; the Old is fulfilled in the New." It's really quite beautiful. For instance, when Christ tells Peter to forgive 77 times, He was actually reversing the curse of Lamech, who said he would seek vengeance 77 times. When Christ was suffering in the Garden in agony, sweating blood and toiling in prayer to bring about an abundant harvest of Christians, and when He was later crowned with thorns, He was fulfilling the prophecy of God to Adam, "you will toil by the sweat of your brow and bring forth thistles." Moses forgot to circumcize his son before going back into Egypt to free the slaves and God insisted on it; Moses later neglected to circumcize all the Israelites for 40 years in the desert; then the prophets talked about a circumcision of the heart, then Christ's own heart was pierced, and then on Pentecost, Peter got up and spoke and those who heard him "were cut to the heart." Or how about the fact that the Temple has imagery of every previous covenant, thus being a sign of all God's covenants with man, and then it was destroyed; then Christ referenced His Body by talking about the Temple; then Christ offered His Body to the Apostles at the Last Supper so that they could be included in the covenant He was about to offer on the Cross; then the Christian faithful were called the Body of Christ and also called living stones of the new temple; then John saw the New Jerusalem and the New Temple coming down out of heaven...

You see, it's all interconnected. You can't leave the Old Testament behind...you need it to see what the New Testament really means.

As for the Golden Rule and all other laws...yes, all civil law should be based on natural law and thus in turn on divine law.

[ardillacid]