Us Catholic Leadership Invites Hindu Leader

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Kitty' post='1516321' date='May 1 2008, 07:39 PM']I do not believe that people must believe in God to go to heaven. I have known relatives, who were the kindest, most generous, loving and humble people I have known, and they did not believe in God/go to church/read the bible. One of these people was my grandmother who died several years ago. She was not a religious person at all, but respected our religion and attended church for baptisms or funerals. She was extremely loving and kind to her entire family and there was nothing more that she wanted then to spend time with them. I simply cannot believe that her, and people like her, go straight to hell. It doesn't make any sense.[/quote]


I have known people like this, too. Just beautiful, loving, wonderful people who show a profound respect for other peoples' religious beliefs and customs. I do believe that in their hearts they know and love God in their own way. Their actions prove it. I just can't explain it and I can't explain what the break is there where they cannot or will not accept God openly. The great news is that God is all Merciful and all Loving, and he knows the deepest insides of people. He understands everything.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1515780' date='May 1 2008, 07:04 AM']Mme Vengier, what you write about Islamic belief here is false. Muhammad never had a six-year-old wife. I presume you're referring to Aisha, whom he married when she was nine but did not live with until she was twelve - which was a normal age for marriage in many countries across the world in the seventh century.[/quote]

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Aisha was 6 when he took her as his wife, and 9 when he consummated his marriage to her. This is Islam 101.

And even if she was 12, please don't make excuses for child rape. "Other were doing it, too" is not a valid excuse.

[url="http://www.prophetofdoom.net/Prophet_of_Doom_13_The_Pedophile_Pirate.slam"]http://www.prophetofdoom.net/Prophet_of_Do...le_Pirate.Islam[/url]

I'm not going to read or respond to the rest of your comment to me. Sorry, if someone says "what you wrote is false" on the first line, and it's not false, then I don't need to proceed any further.

[Madame Vengier]

Those of you interested in a quick overview of Islamic history and teachings, you may find this link useful and enlightening:

[url="http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam101/"]http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam101/[/url]

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1515754' date='May 1 2008, 06:29 AM']"Jews don't worship the same God as Christians".

Not only not solid, but insulting and heretical.[/quote]

Okay. Taken at face value I tend to believe that quote is correct. The Church teaches that the Old Testament does teach a Trinity and that the Jews have no excuse for not believing in the Trinity. But it's a very complicated and intricate doctrine and you have to be very careful in throwing around the word heresy as if it was not a serious claim. It is and every claim must be able to be backed up by an authoritative text. Which one do you have that says that the Jews worship the true God? thanks

Edited May 2, 2008 by goldenchild17

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1515794' date='May 1 2008, 08:19 AM']for your own sake, it would be wise on your part to be polite.[/quote]

Micah, and I have told you already that you are free to do as you wish. I meant it. I won't abide by threats from you or anyone else--and remarks such as "for your own sake" are rude, chauvanistic, and inappropriate. Stop making threats and go ahead and do what you want to do. You should especially not make threats that you then turn around and admit that you can't follow through on.

I'll repeat: you may ban, edit, censor...I don't care. I will remove myself willingly before I put on a false face because of threats. I will not be something I am not. I have done nothing to hurt anyone here--unless you count having your pride hurt.

It seems that the running theme of everyone's complaints against me are that you all don't like my "tone". What, are we children here?? You are hurt and offended over a "tone"? You all have tried in numerous ways to over-dramatize my "tone" by making accusations of me being impolite, uncharitable, insulting your wife, rude, angry, capitalizing words (GASP! Oh no, not THAT!), etc. But you can never, ever point out where I have purposely hurt someone with my words, such as name-calling, vulgarity, false accusations, off-color or offensive remarks, etc. And you would never be able to find such comments because I am not that kind of person.

Unlike some people at this forum I do not insult people. I am sarcastic, yes. But last time I checked no one ever had their lives destroyed over sarcastic comments. I suggest that you and your friends grow a thicker skin or put my comments on ignore. Failing these two options, you can always ban me as you have so much enjoyed threatening to do.

It does strike me as amazing that you are so willing to edit and ban over my "tone" but when Deb, repeatedly and unapologetically, referred to Americans as "greedy selfish pigs" she was allowed to continue her disgusting diatribe without so much as a peep from the moderators at this forum. Not even when she was reported for her offensive remarks.

But when I capitalize the word "WRONG", you start in at me with rude threats that I should "watch myself", "fix myself", "for your own sake", "it would be wise". Frankly, it's appalling. I have never threatened anyone here. But you have, over and over.

Whatever. I'm tired of this. Do whatever makes you feel good, Micah. I can only tell you that I am not going to stop being myself.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1515799' date='May 1 2008, 08:50 AM']Unfortunately, I get the feeling Madame Vengier takes her view of Muslims, as well as her theology, from popular conservative media,[/quote]

As opposed to popular liberal media? Is that where you get your views of Muslims?

And BTW, I do not read/watch Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Anne Coulter, or any of those. I don't even watch Fox. You seriously should not stereotype, Micah. I learn about Islam from scholarly sources and some commentary--you have to have commentary to explore Islam and Koranic texts.

Sorry to ruin the stereotype you already created for me in your mind which you were all-too-happy to share with the readers of this thread, regardless of how false that creation is. Thanks for giving them a false impression of me and an excuse to ignore everything I say about Islam on the grounds that I'm just a robot spouting scripted nonsense from one-sided conservative media.

Would you say the same to Phatmass poster, Socrates, who regularly posts intelligent and succinct comments about Muslims and Islam? Would you discount him, too, on the stereotype that he's a conservative lackey?

Edited May 2, 2008 by Madame Vengier

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1516552' date='May 2 2008, 05:10 AM']Okay.[/quote]

The Jews worship the same God as Christians. Saying otherwise is a lie. If you want to know more about what I think regarding that, go backwards and read my comments. I have already expained it and I'm not going to repeat it for you.

You all can cry that you don't like my tone, but there is NO REASON why I should have to repeat what I have already written.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='StColette' post='1516015' date='May 1 2008, 01:40 PM']The only time I have addressed you in any way was to remind you to be charitable, which is the duty of every phatmasser. I would have reminded any other phatmasser of the same if they were posting in a way that was not in line with the guidelines of phatmass rules regarding charity to one another.[/quote]

Like when Deb repeatedly stated that "Americans are greedy selfish pigs"? And when she repeatedly made rude and offensive comments about America, our government, and our citizens? There were no "reminders" about charity when that war was raging. Not from one single moderator. Not even when her repulsive comments were reported to the moderators.

It's the outright hypocrisy that boils my blood.

And if I attributed comments to you that you did not make, I do apologize for that.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1516555' date='May 2 2008, 04:55 AM']The Jews worship the same God as Christians. . . .[/quote]
It is true that the followers of Rabbinic Judaism accept the Old Testament revelation, but the Church Fathers did not believe they offered true worship to the Father, because true worship can only be offered to the Father through the Son in the power of the Holy Spirit (cf 1 John 2:22-25).

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1516135' date='May 1 2008, 02:51 PM'][quote]Now as far as the monotheism of Islam is concerned, I do not agree that the monotheistic views of Muslims, which involve making God the cause of both good and evil, while also denying truths explicitly revealed by God through the Incarnation of the Logos, make them any closer to the truth than the followers of other religions. In point of fact, many false religions accept the idea that the divine principle is one; Hinduism for example, which looks to many people like a form of polytheism, can also be viewed as monotheistic, because the divine principle behind each of the so-called deities is one and the same.[/quote]
Very well, point taken. [b]However, if there is a religion that does not see the divine principle as one, but as a plurality, then I think you would have to agree that Muslims are closer to the truth in regard to this matter.[/b][/quote]
No, I do not agree, because the Church Fathers (cf. St. Gregory of Nyssa, [i]The Great Catechism[/i], chapter 1) held that the monotheism of the Judaizers, which involved the rejection of real distinctions within the Godhead, was just as absurd as the polytheistic views of the Greeks. The polytheists, according to the ancient Fathers, were evil because they rejected the unity of God's nature, while the Judaizing monotheists were iniquitous because they denied God's tri-hypostatic existence.

Thus, it is clear to me that those who subscribe to the nefarious doctrine invented by Mohammed, seeing that he denied the subsistent reality of the Logos and the Spirit, are no closer to the true faith than the Judaizers, or the Greek pagan polytheists of ancient times.

Edited May 2, 2008 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1516135' date='May 1 2008, 02:51 PM'][b][i]Again, my point was that Muslims do worship the true God to the extent that they intend to, but intent alone can only be a human venture, a type of worship more like the veneration pagans give to their idols or Pythagorians gave to basic geometric shapes.[/i][/b] It is not in any way a relationship with the living God. The only way worship can be right worship, orthodoxa, is if it is through the means of the Incarnation and Paschal Mystery (an idea upon which many Church doctrines are contingent).[/quote]
I do not agree with your opening comments. It is impossible for Muslims to worship the true God while openly rejecting the doctrines of the Incarnation of the eternal and subsistent Logos and the Holy Trinity; because true worship is only given to the Father, through the Son, in the power of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, no "human venture" can transgress the diastemic boundary between the uncreated and the created, and that is why the Incarnation of the Logos is necessary, for as St. Athanasios said, "God became man, so that man might become God."

Edited May 2, 2008 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1516135' date='May 1 2008, 02:51 PM']It is not in any way a relationship with the living God.[/quote]
If it is not a "relationship with the living God," it follows that it is not true worship.

[Aloysius]

What you fail to recognize, Madame, is a basic truth of history and of the Christian Faith: The Catholic Church is the new Israel, Christians are the true continuation of the Hebrew Religion, and Rabbinic Judaism, founded in AD 90, is not a continuation of that.

As Apotheoun said, pre-Christian Judaism had an experiential relationship with the Triune God. Rabbinnic Judaism explicitly rejects the Triune God... the fact that He is triune is not some arbitrary little fact but an essential part of His nature.

it's amazingly self-contradictory that you could make excuses for one group that rejects the trinity because of their racial ties to the Chosen People of the Old Testament whilst insisting that another group who recognizes the God of the Old Testament have a completely different god. You can't have it both ways, Madame.

anyway, I have reworded nothing; I have stated that Jews do not believe in the same God because the God they believe in is based upon talmudic writings coupled with an incorrect interpretation of the Old Testament and a refusal to accept the Messiah and the Triune God. They direct their worship towards the God of Abraham, but have veils of misunderstanding placed up by talmudic teachings which contradict God's true revelation. Muslims have many more veils than Jews do, but they clearly direct their worship towards the true God. Apotheoun's wording is precise and correct: neither have right worship of God. they simply direct their worship towards Him. you are being absolutely unreasonable in calling these statements "incorrect theology" and spouting off as many inappropriate comments as you can think of.

as regards your fears of censorship... I have the power to completely delete every one of your posts at a whim and I have not done so despite your rudeness. calm your jets and cease in rudeness and you won't have to fear anything because we don't mind if you have a differing opinion so long as you're charitable and respectful.

[quote]Thus, it is clear to me that those who subscribe to the nefarious doctrine invented by Mohammed, seeing that he denied the subsistent reality of the Logos and the Spirit, are no closer to the true faith than the Judaizers, or the Greek pagan polytheists of ancient times.[/quote]
very well put... the point everyone must realize is that the fact that God is tri-une is not some arbitrary fact about God... it's not some little personality trait... it's not like we know God prefers the taste of pizza to the taste of kumquats... the Tri-une nature of God is an essential part of His nature. If He were not Triune, He would not be God.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1516573' date='May 2 2008, 08:58 AM']Very well, point taken. [b]However, if there is a religion that does not see the divine principle as one, but as a plurality, then I think you would have to agree that Muslims are closer to the truth in regard to this matter.[/b]
I disagree, because the Church Fathers (cf. St. Gregory of Nyssa, [i]The Great Catechism[/i], chapter 1) held that the monotheism of the Judaizers, which involved the rejection of real distinctions within the Godhead, was just as absurd as the polytheistic views of the Greeks. The polytheists, according to the ancient Fathers, were evil because they rejected the unity of God's nature, while the Judaizing monotheists were vile because they denied God's tri-hypostatic existence.

Thus, it is clear to me that those who subscribe to the nefarious doctrine invented by Mohammed, seeing that he denied the subsistent reality of the Logos and the Spirit, are no closer to the true faith than the Judaizers, or the Greek pagan polytheists of ancient times.[/quote]

Very well.

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1516574' date='May 2 2008, 09:11 AM']I do not agree with your opening comments. It is impossible for Muslims to worship the true God while openly rejecting the doctrines of the Incarnation of the eternal and subsistent Logos and the Holy Trinity; because true worship is only given to the Father, through the Son, in the power of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, no "human venture" can transgress the diastemic boundary between the uncreated and the created, and that is why the Incarnation of the Logos is necessary, for as St. Athanasios said, "God became man, so that man might become God."[/quote]

This is exactly the problem. I agree that "true worship is only given to the Father, through the Son, in the power of the Holy Spirit." That's exactly why I emphatically stated that the Muslims can only "worship" God in the way heathens "worship," i.e. they go through the motions, but it's not a true, fruitful, spiritual exercise of the soul because it is not done through the Incarnation, as must be the case. Dr. Hildebrand would say, for instance, that...oh, gosh...what was the name of that French anthropologist he made us read from...anyway, the book was in Sacraments, he made us read it to show that sacramentality was a universal trait of various human cultures, even though only Christian sacraments actually take that human need for sacramental living and put it in a truly sacramental way of worship. Similarly, all I'm saying is that in as much as we all have a human need to worship, we all "worship" something, but it's not truly worship in the sense of orthodoxa.

I thought that by explaining this, it was obvious that I agreed that "no 'human venture' can transgress the diastemic bountry..." Perhaps you're not understanding me; perhaps you're not reading what I'm saying, but I have yet to disagree with any of your distinctions.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1516550' date='May 2 2008, 06:05 AM']And even if she was 12, please don't make excuses for child rape. "Other were doing it, too" is not a valid excuse.[/quote]

The Blessed Virgin Mary was about 13 when she was already betrothed to Joseph. Are you implying that if it had been a normal marriage and they had consummated it, that Joseph would be a child rapist? Church law allows women to marry at 14 (men at 16), are you saying that the Church promotes child rape?

Now, I don't know about the specific actions of Mohommed with his wife, and perhaps rape was involved, but to claim that it was rape simply because of her age is nothing short of anachronistic.


[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1516553' date='May 2 2008, 06:43 AM']Micah, and I have told you already that you are free to do as you wish. I meant it. I won't abide by threats from you or anyone else--and remarks such as "for your own sake" are rude, chauvanistic, and inappropriate.[/quote]

Ah, so now I'm being rude for trying to ask you not to be? Give me a break. I was not being rude, chauvanistic, or inappropriate. I said "for your own sake" because you're making a big target of yourself with your rude comments.

[quote]Stop making threats and go ahead and do what you want to do. You should especially not make threats that you then turn around and admit that you can't follow through on.[/quote]

I didn't say I couldn't; I said if I did, it likely wouldn't be me doing the dirty work.

[quote]I'll repeat: you may ban, edit, censor...I don't care. I will remove myself willingly before I put on a false face because of threats. I will not be something I am not. I have done nothing to hurt anyone here--unless you count having your pride hurt.[/quote]

You've said offensive things to numerous people and I'm not the only one who says so. As for hurt pride, why should I have that? You have yet to prove me wrong on anything, let alone to quote any sort of authoritative source on this matter. All you do is piggy-back on others who you think agree with you (Apotheuon does not agree with you, by the way, despite your attempts to make it seem so...he says NEITHER Jews nor Muslims worship God, which is exactly what got you so angry at Aloysius for apparently saying).

[quote]It seems that the running theme of everyone's complaints against me are that you all don't like my "tone". What, are we children here??[/quote]

Evidently you are a child. All you've done is scream about how everyone who opposes you is wrong. When we offer proof to the contrary, you reply by saying, "no, you're wrong!" Ever try arguing with a small child? You ask them why they believe something that you know is ridiculous and they say, "because." It's childish to use that sort of faulty logic, and it's also childish to insult those who don't agree with you.

[quote]Failing these two options, you can always ban me as you have so much enjoyed threatening to do.[/quote]

With extremely rare exception, we don't ban people here. As such, I have never threatened it. This is further proof that you are accusing me of threatening you with things I've never even mentioned.

[quote]It does strike me as amazing that you are so willing to edit and ban over my "tone" but when Deb, repeatedly and unapologetically, referred to Americans as "greedy selfish pigs" she was allowed to continue her disgusting diatribe without so much as a peep from the moderators at this forum. Not even when she was reported for her offensive remarks.[/quote]

To be honest, I didn't take a look at this thread until someone complained about your rude response to Aloysius, at which point I looked into it. I haven't read Deb's posts. If you object to them, I suggest you click the report button.