Christians To Seek Converts At Mosques’ Doorsteps

[carrdero]

[quote]Catholic Anonymous writes: Again, your attempts at being controversial are getting increasingly weak.[/quote]
And in your desparate efforts to discredit me, you miss the point entirely.

[quote]Catholic Anonymous writes: I felt quite offended when I came out of Mass once to discover some Jehovah's Witnesses parked right in front of our steps, handing out tracts to the people who were leaving the church. Catholic, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, Methodist no matter what people are, no matter how much you disagree with them theologically, you should respect their space.[/quote]

You seem to have some disregard over other religions displaying their beliefs at the foot of the church but you do not seem to have a problem following the teachings or honoring a man who took forceful, unlawful measures at performing the very thing that offends you. (Matthew 21.12,13)

[quote]Catholic Anonymous writes:After so long on PM I thought you might have picked up some basic knowledge about Catholicism.[/quote]

I also have a basic understanding about Jehovah’s Witnesses.

[color="#000080"]Mark 16:15 And he said to them: “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16 He that believes and is baptized will be saved, but he that does not believe will be condemned. [/color]

This is their objective. This is their goal. This is their mission. This is what they do. This means that whether they are preaching to a homeowner on Christmas Day, to someone who just walked out of a public restroom or through the window to a resident who is crouched in a darkened house. If you inhabit this earth, chances are, you are going to encounter a Jehovah’s Witness. Would you have been more impressed or respectful of their mission and message had they entered the church and disrupted and destroyed the interior?

Edited August 13, 2007 by carrdero

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Budge' post='1357989' date='Aug 13 2007, 06:07 AM']As for sex slaves what do you think of how women are treated in Islam?

Im sorry but the female circumcison {more practiced in African countries}, the arranged marriages, the banning to home, and treatment of women in Islam, Sharia law in less moderated countries and how the Koran speaks of them really is pretty close to sex slavery.

Women in many Muslim countries basically have no rights whatsoever. I have read several memroirs {secular} and if we are to believe the women who have managed to escape, then sex slavery is very real, though it goes under a different name. I read one book by a lady from Saudia Arabia who went through horrible things. I have read very bad things about what has happened to women in Islam--just shows the BONDAGE of this religion. Ive read more then these two books, the experiences are HEART-BREAKING.
[img]http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51J59V2399L._SS500_.jpg[/img]

I read this book by a Muslim lady who escaped to the West, very recently. I wanted to cry because I had realized she rejected all religion--including Christianity, because of the false view of "god" given to her via Islam. She went through horrible suffering, and essentially in the arranged marriages and lack of rights, would have been essentially a sex slave if she had not gotten to the Netherlands.


Am I not to believe writers like the above? Did she exaggerate when she described the brutal surgery given to her and her sister at a young age? When she saw women beaten and experienced beating herself including a severe brain injury by an home teaching imman?
[b]
Perhaps you think all these women who write books, are LYING, to Americans. Please tell me. What do you think?
[/b]
Is she a liar too? {by the way she doesnt support the actions of a certain very notorious relative} I read this book too, in it she describes HONOR KILLINGS. Are those a myth as well?

[img]http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/518QGQDMTAL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg[/img]
Perhaps she was wealthier--which means more education and contact with the west and came from a more moderate country....but to think that the above things dont go on because of you friends experience discounts what many have talked about.
Again I ask you, are the books above lies?

I know there are moderate Islams, every religion has its moderate, liberal and more conservative wings. So thats not my point...

why deny some of the above. By the way these aren't limited sects, there are entire countries under Sharia law like in Saudia Arabia.[/quote]
You're doing the same thing you do when you point out "catholics" who don't follow proper belief. Every issue has it's radical side. However, I'm going to trust someone who has lived in a Muslim country, rather than some books. No one is saying these women are lying, but these are just isolated cases by radical muslims. This is not the norm.

[Farsight one]

[quote name='Budge' post='1357989' date='Aug 13 2007, 08:07 AM']...just shows the BONDAGE of this religion.[/quote]NO. It does NOT show the "bondage of this religion" It does show the "bondage" of a few people who just so happen to be "of this religion". Bad people in a religion does not, by default, make the religion bad. What is your particular denomination again? I would be willing to bet money that I can find a corrupt/bad/evil member of your denomination. If you apply the logic that you are using universally(to all denominations, including your own), then your own denomination is bad as well.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[i]Am I not to believe writers like the above? Did she exaggerate when she described the brutal surgery given to her and her sister at a young age? When she saw women beaten and experienced beating herself including a severe brain injury by an home teaching imman?[/i]

It's ironic that you chose a book by Hirsi Ali, Budge, because the answer is...no. You shouldn't believe her. She has been widely exposed as a fraud. She joins Norma Khouri and one or two other peddlars of fictional horror stories who have capitalised on the fascination with Muslim women and life 'in the East'. Her real name is Hirshi Magan - she changed her name to make it sound more 'Islamic' - and far from being a persecution victim in Somalia, she actually led a comfortable life in Kenya before emigrating to the Netherlands.

You can read more about [url="http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005639.html"]the Hirsi Ali fraud here[/url].

I don't mean to belittle the women who have suffered - because there [i]are[/i] women who have been put through unimaginable hell out in the Middle East, as well as much closer to home. But it is liars and opportunists like Hirsi Ali and Norma Khouri who do them the greatest disservice by making up stories and capitalising on their anguish and grief. The president of the principal women's rights group in the Jordan was furious about the spate of 'fake' autobiographies that sprang up like a rash a few years ago, as she said that it put the work of her organisation back ten years. Now women who really are in danger of their lives are being left in a 'boy who cried wolf' situation.

As for Carmen bin Laden, she lived in Saudi Arabia back when Riyadh was practically rural and camels were more common than cars. She also lived in the [b]bin Laden family[/b]. You can't hold one family as representative of typical Saudis.

[quote]Im sorry but the female circumcison {more practiced in African countries}, the arranged marriages, the banning to home, and treatment of women in Islam, Sharia law in less moderated countries and how the Koran speaks of them really is pretty close to sex slavery.[/quote]

Male circumcision is an Islamic practice and happens to all baby boys. Female circumcision is [i]not[/i] Islamic and never has been. It is not prescribed in the Qur'an and has been explicitly forbidden by various eminent Islamic scholars, such as ibn Qudamah, who argued that it interfered with a woman's sexual pleasure and was therefore wrong. 'Banning to home' is another myth. Have you never seen Muslim women out at work? I have. Many of them. Muslims do believe that motherhood is a female's most sacred duty, but there's nothing to stop her from doing other jobs as well, providing it doesn't hurt the children.

Some people do say that this is a sexist viewpoint. I disagree. If I had children, I would be the same. Children need their mothers and there is nothing shameful about being one. I don't see this as being far from the Christian perspective.

As for arranged marriages, they are an Islamic practice. Unquestionably. But they are not unique to Islam. In Nepal, where I was teaching over the summer, arranged marriages happened in the Christian community too. That's what Nepali culture is like. In fact, the Western idea of dating and going out with people prior to marriage is very unfamiliar in many cultures of the world, no matter whether they're Muslim or not. In fact, parents had a great deal more say in their children's marriages in our own culture until comparatively recently.

Personally I am very uncomfortable with the whole idea of arranged marriages, but this is because my parents always taught me that choosing your own partner is the best way. If I were a Christian in India, would I still think like this? It's doubtful.

[quote]Perhaps she was wealthier--which means more education and contact with the west and came from a more moderate country....but to think that the above things dont go on because of you friends experience discounts what many have talked about.[/quote]

Budge, it is very arrogant to think that education and being in contact with 'the West' are tantamount to the same thing. Fatin is a Saudi, a citizen of a country not renowned for being 'moderate'. She's also not the only female Muslim I know - she is just one specific example I gave. I could talk about many others.

And no, their experiences don't discount the experiences of women who have suffered. But that also works in reverse. The experiences of women who have suffered don't discount the experiences of the many, many women like Fatin.

[quote]You seem to have some disregard over other religions displaying their beliefs at the foot of the church but you do not seem to have a problem following the teachings or honoring a man who took forceful, unlawful measures at performing the very thing that offends you. (Matthew 21.12,13)[/quote]

Jesus was a Jew. Not just any Jew, but a rabbi. A teacher. This rabbi went into the Jewish temple - His own place of worship and the place where He was often invited to teach - and objected strenuously to the fact that His fellow Jews had turned the temple into a marketplace. Something that it was not supposed to be. He was a Jew amongst other Jews, restoring Judaism to the Jews.

If the Jehovah's Witnesses had gone to a Kingdom Hall belong to [i]other JWs[/i] to protest at malpractice that was taking place inside the [i]JW place of worship[/i], I wouldn't have a problem with it. That's their place. That's their business. Then their behaviour would have been consistent with Jesus' example.

You are being very illogical if you think that the parallel holds.

Edited August 13, 2007 by Cathoholic Anonymous

[abercius24]

Catholic Anonymous: I do appreciate your zeal in helping others respectfully evangelize Moslims. I think you have been and will continue to be very valuable in this work. I do have a problem with the way you approach this topic, though. You speak as though you are an expert, ready to cast heavy judgements on individuals who do not agree with your position. You do not have an education specific to Catholic evangelization (or a related field), you are not part of a wide network of evangelists, nor are you experienced in working with Moslims outside of the area of Saudi Arabia you grew up in. You claim that your part of the Islamic world is representative of the greater whole, but I think you are offering personal grandstanding more than you are offering letigimate statistics or a widely held scholastic opinion (which explains why you have already practically offered the entirety of your "evangelization resume" in your previous posts). And seeing how you may be speaking down to some of us who are part of a wider evangelization network, your remarks come off as extremely rude and boastful. I hope we can tone down some of the rhetoric so we can address the issue as equals.

Why is it that 20/20 Reports, Time Magazine news articles, and practically every other Western form of journalism have a completely different opinion than you on the abusive treatment women receive in the Middle East? You obviously came from a wealthy family. Is it that your higher status has shielded you from the terrible pain many of your Islamic sisters have suffered? Sudan has a fully functional slave trade. Have you visited Sudan to witness this reality as has Barbara Walters and her 20/20 colleagues? Your statement to quickly obscure the writings of another Islamic woman as "sensationalistic" is quite disturbing, as well. You should be addressing specific points from her books that you disagree with (and subsequently providing evidence to the contrary), not attacking her credibility because she changed her name. I am VERY uncomfortable the methods of argumentation you are employing. We really do need more substance and scholastic reference from your arguments, and less of your opinions and isolated anecdotes. We cannot judge the whole picture of Islamic morality simply by your individual perspective when we have so much testimony to the contrary from others with a more scholastic approach. Please stop elevating your life experiences as though they hold the same weight as a Barbara Walters report. We are definitely interested in hearing about your experiences and how they fill in some of the blanks in the big picture. But please stop acting like an expert in this field. Offer your humble opinion to us and we will take it along with everything else we have to consider.

Okay, now back to Mohammed and Sex Slaves. I agree with you that bringing up such a point with someone you are trying to evangelize would be very dangerous at the early points of a discussion. You are right, it would lead that person to suspect that you had other agendas besides helping them along their path to realize God's plan for them. But as they begin to understand the value your offer as a representative of the Catholic Church, is there no point whatsoever you would want this issue addressed? Mohammed is the greatest prophet of the Islamic world, is he not? All Moslims hold his example and teachings as the Word of God, do they not? How can you as an evangelist properly do your job in revealing God's plan if at some point you don't help the Moslim listener to understand that Mohammed spoke and acted in ways they should reject in good conscience? We're not simply slandering a member of the Islamic faith, we are questioning the credibility of Islam's source of faith -- which happens to be Mohammed, the man. The entirety of Islam's credibility lies in the credibility of Mohammed. If Mohammed spoke and acted in ways that are clearly reprehensible to the natural law that is written in the hearts of men, then that fact should be recognized and responded to. Do you deny that Mohammed taught that having sex slaves was acceptable behavior? If not, do you not believe that (among other reprehensible teachings) should call into question Mohammed's motives and credibility? Mohammed is not just a man who happened to represent the Islamic faith -- to Moslims, HE IS the Islamic faith. You cannot properly help a Moslim cut his/her ties from the evils Mohammed preached if you do not allow them to see Mohammed for who he really was. If Jesus preached such reprehensible behaviors as acceptable, I as a Catholic would want to know this for my own well-being. Why should I not offer the same consideration to my Moslim brethren? And we know that the American slave owners twisted the Bible to wrench out interpretations to justify their behaviors. They did not employ honest methods of interpretation. Honest interpretations of the Koran, though, show that it teaches sex slavery as legitimate, particularly because it is fairly blatant on the topic.

Edited August 13, 2007 by abercius24

[jeffpugh]

IMHO, I don't find Cathaholic arrogant in her approach at all. I find her posts very informative and insightful. Just one thing I want to point out about the end of your post, abercius, is that you're putting Mohommad on the same level as Jesus. Mohommad was just a man who founded a religion and pretty much pointed away from himself. You know, Muslims hate being called Mohommadans (as was the trend up until recently) because Mohommad (despite his vices), pointed to Allah. Anywho, that's my Canadian $0.02. Take it easy, you two.

[abercius24]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1358510' date='Aug 13 2007, 10:53 PM']IMHO, I don't find Cathaholic arrogant in her approach at all. I find her posts very informative and insightful. Just one thing I want to point out about the end of your post, abercius, is that you're putting Mohommad on the same level as Jesus. Mohommad was just a man who founded a religion and pretty much pointed away from himself. You know, Muslims hate being called Mohommadans (as was the trend up until recently) because Mohommad (despite his vices), pointed to Allah. Anywho, that's my Canadian $0.02. Take it easy, you two.

[/quote]


My friend Sacred, I will take your Canadian $0.02 anyday of the week! I can use the money to buy inexpensive pharmaceuticals next time I cross the border!

I agree that Cathaholic is very insightful in understanding Moslims from Saudia Arabia. I don't think she is qualified to speak as an expert on evangelization, though, nor on the Moslim faith worldwide. I particularly do not find her representing the opinions of any faithful network of Catholic evangelists. Though she tends to approach evangelization similar to what you will find with liberal Catholics, even they would not so readily deal out the term "Islamaphobe" or "Anti-Moslim" to someone they did not know well.

I don't think Moslims would see Mohammed in as lesser of a light as you might think. Mohammed to Moslims is essentially the equivalent of Moses to the Hebrews. He is the lawgiver, the prophet, the representative of God's holiness. And I believe his allowance of sex slaves consistitutes less than a personal vice and more of a grave social injustice. I'm not critizing him for having numerous wives. I'm critizing him for keeping the women of conquered people as sex slaves against their will and encouraging his followers to do the same via the words of the Koran.

I do hope your appreciation of Cathoholic's insight does not extend to her pronouncement of me being anti-Moslim, though. In all fairness, I should be given room to disagree with her without being given such an ugly label.

At your request, I'll tone down my involvement in this matter. I figure we are WAY off topic anyways.

Edited August 14, 2007 by abercius24

[cathoholic_anonymous]

The interesting thing about Saudi Arabia is that it is an extremely eclectic place with a vast expatriate population, meaning that many of the Muslims I know are from countries other than Saudi. There were nine languages spoken in my class alone at school, a place where most of the students were Muslim. Furthermore, Saudi is also not the only predominantly Muslim country I've been in, although it is definitely the one I know the best.

You are making assumptions about me that aren't true. You have decided that I am wealthy and therefore can't speak for Muslim women who live in poverty. But where did I ever make a claim to being rich? My family isn't rich. Comfortably off, yes. Rich, no. As for the 'poor' Muslim women - some of the happiest people I've ever met were the Bedouin, the nomads. They live in tents in the desert and by our standards and by the standards of city-dwelling Saudis they don't have many possessions at all. (The word Bedouin comes from the Arabic word [i]biddun[/i], which means 'without'.) Their lifestyle is a very primitive and simple one, out in the middle of nowhere with their sheep and goats, but it is extremely difficult to find an unhappy Bedu, male or female. They don't care much for material possessions. They see them as a waste of space.

However, there is a difference between being poor in the way that the Bedouin are poor and poor as in living in squalor. Muslim women who live in squalor do suffer appallingly. I have an idea of what the sweatshops in Pakistan are like. I have also seen the way Ethiopian maids slave away in rich Saudi houses to scrape some money together to feed half a village back home. They're suffering acutely because of their poverty...but they're not the only ones. Poor Muslim men suffer from lack of housing and lack of food and lack of health care as well. And is it really their religion that's putting them through this, or the fact that they don't have enough to live on?

[quote]I think you are offering personal grandstanding more than you are offering letigimate statistics or a widely held scholastic opinion (which explains why you have already practically offered the entirety of your "evangelization resume" in your previous posts).[/quote]

I offered my experiences of evangelisation in an Islamic context only because you asked for them. What is this 'widely held scholastic opinion' that you talk of? Later on in your post you seem to suggest that it is the opinion of TV shows such as 20/20. As for 'legitimate statistics', what are they and who compiles them?

And no, I don't accept most Western journalism as reflective of life in the Middle East - in the same way that I don't accept features on 'the West' by the [i]Arab News[/i], the [i]Saudi Gazette[/i], and the al-Jazeera channel as being representative of the way the Western world lives. They often make it sound as though Western people are all callous consumerists who lead lives of decadence and debauchery - a perception that is informed by the Hollywood movie channel more than anything else. An Arab Muslim journalist will approach his or her material from an Arab Muslim paradigm, which makes it difficult to be impartial. It's no different when the matter concerns Western journalists looking the other way.

[quote]You should be addressing specific points from her books that you disagree with (and subsequently providing evidence to the contrary), not attacking her credibility because she changed her name.[/quote]

I didn't attack her credibility just because she changed her name. I gave a link to an article (not a Muslim-written article, incidentally) that addresses the errors and inconsistencies in her book point-by-point. Inserting a link seemed much tidier than copying and pasting the whole thing.

[quote]Please stop elevating your life experiences as though they hold the same weight as a Barbara Walters report.[/quote]

Barbara Walters reported on slavery and other inhumane conditions in the Sudan. But we are not talking solely about the plight of many poor Sudanese. We are talking about whether Islam the religion can be held [i]directly responsible[/i] for such a plight.

I may not be a TV personality, but I have read the original, untranslated Qur'an. I have studied the Islamic diyn in an Islamic madrasa for a great many years. Has Barbara Walters? If you are going to accept a segment on life in the Sudan as a definitive critique of Qur'anic exegesis the Muslim world over, then I am justified in going to the [i]Saudi Gazette[/i] for my information on the culture of the USA.

[quote]We are definitely interested in hearing about your experiences and how they fill in some of the blanks in the big picture. But please stop acting like an expert in this field. Offer your humble opinion to us and we will take it along with everything else we have to consider.[/quote]

Many people have asked me to talk about my life in the Middle East, but not all of them are interested in listening. Rather, they are more interested in co-opting my experiences and in trying to rewrite the story of my life to suit their own particular view of what it means to grow up in a Muslim country. The same is true of what you have done here, although I don't think you can see it. Rather than just accepting my story as it stands, you immediately started adding inaccurate qualifiers to it - I must be wealthy, I must enjoy a high status, I must only be familiar with Saudi Muslims, I must never have been trained in evangelism - because that is the only way you can make what I have actually said fit in with what you think I [i]ought[/i] to be saying.

[quote]Though she tends to approach evangelization similar to what you will find with liberal Catholics, even they would not so readily deal out the term "Islamaphobe" or "Anti-Moslim" to someone they did not know well.[/quote]

And I'm familiar with that as well.

Liberal Catholic.

I won't allow people to make blatantly false statements about (non-existent) public executions for proselytising in Makkah - I must be a liberal Catholic. I won't allow people to support their claims with books that have been shown to be untrue - I must be a liberal Catholic. I write that Jesus, rather than debates on violence/sex/veils/adultery, should be at the heart of our evangelism efforts with Muslims - I must be a liberal Catholic.

I am not a liberal Catholic. I am a Catholic Catholic. I declare myself faithful to everything that Holy Mother Church teaches and has taught for the past two thousand years.

[quote]Mohammed is the greatest prophet of the Islamic world, is he not? All Moslims hold his example and teachings as the Word of God, do they not?[/quote]

The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is no. The hadith (teachings and sayings of the prophet) are not considered to be divine.

[quote]Mohammed is not just a man who happened to represent the Islamic faith -- to Moslims, HE IS the Islamic faith.[/quote]

Again, that's not quite correct. The Qur'an, and not Muhammad, is the Islamic faith. To quote from the Qur'an: "We have sent down the Qur'an in Truth, and in Truth it has come down, and We have not sent Muhammad except as a herald and a warner."

For Muslims, the Message clearly supersedes the Messenger. Muhammad is of secondary importance to the Qur'an - to Muslims, he is just an instrument of transmission.

Obviously, I don't believe that the Qur'an was really sent down by God or that Muhammad had no influence whatsoever. Like many people, I believe that Muhammad was a sincere monotheist who suffered from temporal lobe epilepsy. (This accounts for the odd sensations and lights that he described during his 'visions' - temporal lobe epileptics today describe similar experiences.) The Qur'an could easily be a product of his sincere desire to see monotheism established in Makkah, his fits and hallucinations, and what he had heard of the Christian and Jewish faiths. His illness can account for two interesting features of the Qur'an: its contradictions and its poetic beauty. Epilepsy has been linked to creativity (a number of musicians and writers have been known to suffer from it) so that explains the quality of the writing. While recovering from an epileptic fit or 'absence', Muhammad would probably have been confused and unable to remember what he had already said, so that explains the contradictions.

One of those contradictions occurs on the question of slavery. The Qur'an does permit soldiers who capture women in war to take them as concubines. However, it also says that all slaves of any description must be given their freedom as soon as they ask for it. It's obviously not an ethically consistent system. And again, it is not something that I would ever use in evangelism, this time for two reasons. A Muslim who is feeling defensive and is not very well educated about his faith would just grab the Old Testament and point out Biblical incidents where conquering kings and warriors sleep with slaves - and you are reduced to the tit-for-tat game again. A Muslim with better knowledge of the Qur'an and allegiance to a particular school of thought would probably argue that the old laws for warfare in Arabia (where there was often a shortage of men, necessitating polygamy in many of the Arab tribes) don't apply to the present day, as the conditions of living are completely different. Either way, it's an unproductive line to take.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1358556' date='Aug 14 2007, 12:55 AM']My friend Sacred, I will take your Canadian $0.02 anyday of the week! I can use the money to buy inexpensive pharmaceuticals next time I cross the border!

I agree that Cathaholic is very insightful in understanding Moslims from Saudia Arabia. I don't think she is qualified to speak as an expert on evangelization, though, nor on the Moslim faith worldwide. I particularly do not find her representing the opinions of any faithful network of Catholic evangelists. Though she tends to approach evangelization similar to what you will find with liberal Catholics, even they would not so readily deal out the term "Islamaphobe" or "Anti-Moslim" to someone they did not know well.

I don't think Moslims would see Mohammed in as lesser of a light as you might think. Mohammed to Moslims is essentially the equivalent of Moses to the Hebrews. He is the lawgiver, the prophet, the representative of God's holiness. And I believe his allowance of sex slaves consistitutes less than a personal vice and more of a grave social injustice. I'm not critizing him for having numerous wives. I'm critizing him for keeping the women of conquered people as sex slaves against their will and encouraging his followers to do the same via the words of the Koran.

I do hope your appreciation of Cathoholic's insight does not extend to her pronouncement of me being anti-Moslim, though. In all fairness, I should be given room to disagree with her without being given such an ugly label.

At your request, I'll tone down my involvement in this matter. I figure we are WAY off topic anyways.[/quote]
I'm glad your backing down a bit. Seriously, though, I don't know whether to be offended by the first line or not. The dollar has been rising quickly in the last while... Last I checked we were at .95 of the American dollar. Anywho, off topic. I still don't appreciate the labeling Cathoholic. Give us a break. I don't wanna hear any more. Jesus is enough for conversion, not shoving Qu'ranic verses that are "bad" down people's throats.

[abercius24]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1358885' date='Aug 14 2007, 08:32 PM']I'm glad your backing down a bit. Seriously, though, I don't know whether to be offended by the first line or not. The dollar has been rising quickly in the last while... Last I checked we were at .95 of the American dollar. Anywho, off topic. I still don't appreciate the labeling Cathoholic. Give us a break. I don't wanna hear any more. Jesus is enough for conversion, not shoving Qu'ranic verses that are "bad" down people's throats.[/quote]

Sacred, please don't be offended by my first statement. I was commenting on the incredibly high pharmaceutical prices we have here in the United States compared to the much more resonably priced pharmaceuticals in Canada. Apparently you are not familiar with this situation. Sorry to have offended you.

Well, it appears I may be doing more harm than good continuing in this discussion given how sensitive everybody is being. Me and my 12 years experience as a Catholic evangelist will go quietly with the ugly label of "Islamaphobe" hanging at my heals. God bless you folks!

[Winchester]

I think it's a great idea.

[Sojourner]

For what it's worth, Cathoholic Anonymous is on target with her comments about evangelizing Muslims and the kinds of difficulties and misunderstandings that arise. Although I personally would claim no expertise, I have good friends who have lived in Syria and Jordan and when we've talked about their experiences with evangelization they mention many of the same things Cathoholic has.

Funny story: My friend Mark's parents were (Protestant) missionaries in Jordan there under the guise of some other form of work. This was something like 30 years ago. Anywho, Mark, a youngster, was in school with the daughter of the King of Jordan and they got into a discussion one day about Jesus being God. She went home that evening and told her parents she wanted to become a Christian. Needless to say, Mark and his family were asked to leave.

[HS_Dad]

I've started a bible study at work with two Christians from Nigeria who were raised Muslims and have met many missionaries to Muslim lands. The one young woman is a real inspiration to me. She has befriended a Muslim woman at work who has eight children. The Christian woman looks for opportunities to share the faith. Think of the impact she could have on many for generations! She also does weekly evangelization in her poorer neighborhood of St. Paul, MN. A true inspiration.

Anyways, in many respects Muslims are closer to orthodox Christians than many secularized Christians in the west.... But, obviously the "who is Christ" and "who is Mohammed" questions are massive dividers. Still I think Muslims understand sin and holiness far better than your average young person who is taught to tolerate all and question nothing.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1359097' date='Aug 15 2007, 03:49 AM']Sacred, please don't be offended by my first statement. I was commenting on the incredibly high pharmaceutical prices we have here in the United States compared to the much more resonably priced pharmaceuticals in Canada. Apparently you are not familiar with this situation. Sorry to have offended you.

Well, it appears I may be doing more harm than good continuing in this discussion given how sensitive everybody is being. Me and my 12 years experience as a Catholic evangelist will go quietly with the ugly label of "Islamaphobe" hanging at my heals. God bless you folks![/quote]
Doh, sorry. I am aware of how the medical system works in the US... I'm sorry, I was just being slightly sensitive then. Forgive me.

[abercius24]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1359701' date='Aug 15 2007, 10:37 PM']Doh, sorry. I am aware of how the medical system works in the US... I'm sorry, I was just being slightly sensitive then. Forgive me. [/quote]

Just one more thing put as humble as I can before I go. From my experience, conversion is a much longer process than most people really understand. Tim Staples once told me that it takes an average of 21 thought paradigms before a devout person of another faith finds themselves truly convincted to come into the Catholic Church. Most evangelists may cover 1 - 3 paradigms, which means that potential convert must meet at least 7 other good Catholics who equally convict them. As incredible as it is, I have found Tim's average to be right on the money (give or take a paradigm).

I've also found that each paradigm becomes harder with time, requiring more conviction to keep the prospective convert on the right track. You take the chance of a person loosing their faith completely if they don't stay on task, as well. This is why liberal Catholics do not bother to convict people to come into the Church, but tell them to stay where they are. They find the confrontation unsettling and uncontrollable. It does take a sensitive evangelist to stay patient amidst the average person's stubbornous. But those last few paradigms do require a much stricter approach, nonetheless. This is why I find Cathoholics approach limited. Her approach is useful in beginning a discussion, but I cannot see it being effective enough to really lead someone completely into the Church. Apart from trying to defend myself, that was really the point I was trying to make. I hope this at least helps calm things here. I apologize if I let things become uncomfortable for anybody. God bless!

Steve S. -- Abercius24
CatholicQandA.com