How many Muslims convert to Catholicism all around the world?greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
And how many in US? We here in Europe, and in Italy too, see that a lot of people convert to Islam, leaving our Holy Catholic Church (and, worst of all, Jesus). But are there muslims who do the reverse path? God bless America.Pier
-- P. L. Miglioli (migliolipl@yahoo.it), December 12, 2003
Pier (Luigi?):There are converts from Islam to Catholicism in many countries of the world, but I doubt that anyone keeps track of the numbers and publishes them. That would be insensitive and could even incite violence.
Giovanni Francesco Antonio
-- GFA (GFA@asdf.com), December 12, 2003.
The best indication I suppose would be to keep track of church populations over time in different parts of the world. In the US the Catholic Church is increasing in adherents. Europe is turning away from Christianity and embracing atheism, some are disenchanted with atheism and embracing Islam. However another strong influence on religion in Europe is immigration. Immigrants from the Middle East and northern Africa are coming into countries like France that had colonies there and many of these people are Islamic. Another element causing an increase in Islam in Europe is the fact that immigrants tend to have more off spring than indigenous Europeans.In Christ, Bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 12, 2003.
Hello. I'm sure there are conversions both ways. I would have thought that it would be possible to know the numbers who convert to Catholicism from the baptism records. There is no official record kept that I know of in Europe anyway for the numbers who convert to Islam. Anecdotally, I can tell you that I regularly meet new converts to Islam who were Catholic before. I converted to Islam eight years ago from Catholicism. I can assure you that by becoming Muslim, one does not leave Jesus (peace be upon him). We as Muslims love him and hold him in high esteem, but we reserve our worship for God alone, may He be praised and glorified.
-- Um Danyaal (UmDanyaal@surfy.net), December 13, 2003.
If you actually were Catholic, then you must know that we as Catholics reserve our worship for God alone. Jesus IS God. That is the profound truth you have rejected along with the One True Church founded by God for all men, in your acceptance of manmade religion.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 13, 2003.
Um Danyaal, Baptismal records would show someone joined the Church, but not that they were Muslem, I don't think.Bill Nelson
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 13, 2003.
some interesting stats:Growth of Islam: North America (1989-1998) 25% Africa 2.5% Asia 12.57% Europe 142.35% Latin America -4.73% Australia 257.01%
Among every four humans in the world, one of them is Muslim. Muslims have increased by over 235 percent in the last fifty years up to nearly 1.6 billion. By comparison, Christians have increased by only 47 percent, Hinduism, 117 percent, and Buddhism by 63 percent. Islam is the second largest religious group in France, Great Britain and USA (Muslims in USA are 10 millions and Jews are 6 millions). http://islamicweb.com/begin/religions_changes.htm
For a list of all Muslim countries and where the total number of Muslims came from, please click here. http://islamicweb.com/begin/population.htm
The numbers of the growth rates have been taken from here http://islamicweb.com/begin/religions_changes.htm
The number of the total population has been taken from The CIA World's Facts Book.
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 13, 2003.
I can assure you that by becoming Muslim, one does not leave Jesus (peace be upon him).Don't insult us and Jesus by wishing that "peace be upon him." He is the Prince of Peace. Peace will never be upon you until you come back to the Catholic Church
Among every four humans in the world, one of them is Muslim. No. Closer to 1 in 5 -- if numbers are accurate (which is very doubtful, since censuses are rare or non-existent in some Moslem nations).
Do not trust the Moslems' numbers. Only very exceptional Moslems are honest. Always remember that they are unbaptized. They lack sanctifying grace. Their intellects are extremely darkened, and their wills are extremely weak.
Muslims have increased by over 235 percent in the last fifty years up to nearly 1.6 billion.
Make that 1.3 billion at most, only a little more than the number of Catholics and far less than the total of all Christians -- but catching up through forced conversions and irresponsible family size.
Muslims in USA are 10 millions ...
Nonsense. They were saying 7 million a year ago, and even that was a huge lie or bad guess. They blow up the number to make themselves look good.
GFAntonio
-- GFA (GFA@asdf.com), December 14, 2003.
Um Danyaal wrote: "I converted to Islam eight years ago from Catholicism.Hi, Um Danyaal. What reason(s) convinced you to leave Catholicism?
Um Danyaal wrote: "I can assure you that by becoming Muslim, one does not leave Jesus (peace be upon him). We as Muslims love him and hold him in high esteem, but we reserve our worship for God alone"
But, Um Danyaal, God the Father, Himself, declared that Jesus Christ was/is His Son. (When Christ was baptized by John the Baptist.) Just as a human has a human son, and a porcupine has a porcupine offspring, the Son of God is exactly that: the Son of God, i.e., God.
This is because God is not simply a person but is a Divine Nature unto Himself. God's Son can not shed or escape the Divine Nature. This is also why we, as children of God, understand that we are not Gods but we share in God's Nature when we are in the state of sanctifying grace, which is the life of God in the soul.
Knowing these facts, can you explain to me, please, why you (and all Islamics) do not believe Jesus Christ is God?
-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), December 15, 2003.
It sounds like Um Danyaal is saying that Jesus is simply a man, no better than any of us because we are all of 'Gods Nature'. That would include Saddam Hussein I suppose as well.In Christ, Bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 15, 2003.
"But, Um Danyaal, God the Father, Himself, declared that Jesus Christ was/is His Son. (When Christ was baptized by John the Baptist.) "Hi Psyche, God earlier declared Jacob (peace be upon him)to be His son according to the book of Exodus:4:22 "And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israel is my son, my firstborn." And Solomon (peace be upon him) also: II Samuel 7:13-14" He shall build a house to my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son: " These people were obviously not divine. 'Son of God' is an expression that should not be taken literally, and does not signify divinity.
"Knowing these facts, can you explain to me, please, why you (and all Islamics) do not believe Jesus Christ is God? "
Psyche, I am not an Islamic, I am a Muslim. Islam is the religion, a Muslim is a person who practices the religion.
We believe that Jesus (peace be upon him) is not God because God has told us so in the Quran:
'O people of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion, nor utter anything concerning God save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of God, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers, and do not say 'Three'. Desist, it will be better for you. God is only One God. . . . The Messiah would never have scorned to be a slave of God.' (Quran 4:171-2)
"Don't insult us and Jesus by wishing that "peace be upon him." He is the Prince of Peace. " GF Antonio.
I would hate to knowingly insult Jesus (peace be upon him) just as I would hate to be thrown into a blazing fire. I say 'peace be upon him' out of respect and love. I have no desire to insult you either. If the use of the phrase is unacceptable in this forum, then I can simply leave.
-- Um Danyaal (UmDanyaal@surfy.net), December 15, 2003.
Hey Um Danyaal, I would rather put my faith in the what the apostles have to say about Jesus rather than a guy who came on to the scene about 600 years later. After all, they were actually WITNESSES to His many miracles and heard from His very mouth what He had to say about who He was. The Apostles then passed on their written and oral traditions to their successors.May God guide you back to His true Church.
-- D Joseph (nufiedufie@msn.com), December 16, 2003.
Um Danyaal, What is it you are asking for from this forum? Don't get caught in an arguement between what is in the Quran and what is in the New Testament since they contradict each other on Jesus being God and there being a Trinity, and a number of other items. If you wish to through out the teachings of Jesus (and I don't see how you can accept them and not Him), then it is at the peril of your own immortal soul. But again, why post here? What is it you want from us?In Christ, Bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 16, 2003.
" . . . because God has told us so in the Quran . . ."But God did not write the Quran. Mohammed did. And if you say the Quran is the inspired word of God, then how can you say that about the Quran and not believe the same thing about the New Testament? It is obvious from the New Testament that Jesus Christ is the Divine Son of God, who shares in His Godly Nature, because Christ says so Himself. So Christ, whom you think is merely a prophet, LIED constantly during his life?
Oh, and how many people did Mohammed raise from the dead? Did Mohammed raise himself from the dead after being in the grave over the weekend? Did Mohammed ascend bodily to Heaven, under his own power? And yet Muslims believe that Christ is merely a prophet and that Mohammed is also a prophet, the greatest of all prophets, and is therefore greater than Christ?
Please explain this.
-- Psyche +AMDG+ (psychicquill@yahoo.com), December 16, 2003.
'But God did not write the Quran. Mohammed did.' (Psyche)It was completely beyond the ability of Muhammad (peace be upon him) to write the Quran. He was illiterate, could not even write his own name.
'And if you say the Quran is the inspired word of God, then how can you say that about the Quran and not believe the same thing about the New Testament?' (Psyche)
I say the Quran is the direct speech of God, unchanged since its revelation, contains no errors, refers to scientific facts which have only recently been proven by modern science. It challenges mankind to produce something like it - no-one has ever been able to.
"If you are in doubt concerning that which We have sent down onto Our servant (Muhammad), then produce a chapter of the like thereof, and call your witnesses, supporters, who are apart from God, if you are truthful." (Quran 2:23)
A further challenge for those who say the Quran is not the word of God:
"Will they not then ponder on the Holy Book? If it had been from other than God they would have found therein much contradiction and incongruity (Quran 4:82)
The New Testament is a collection of writings by several different authors, and it contains contradictions. If a text contains errors it cannot be the word of God.
Luke begins his Gospel saying that he was not himself an eyewitness, and the knowledge he gathered was from eye witnesses and says nothing about his words being inspired by God.
"Oh, and how many people did Mohammed raise from the dead? Did Mohammed raise himself from the dead after being in the grave over the weekend? "(Psyche)
No. Neither did Moses (peace be upon him) raise anyone from the dead. Both of them lie in their graves. This does not mean they were not prophets. Prophet Elisha (peace be upon him) raised people from the dead. This does not make him God.
"Did Mohammed ascend bodily to Heaven, under his own power? " (Psyche)
You are suggesting that Jesus (peace be upon him) did this under his own power even afer he has testified 'I can of my own self do nothing' (John 5:30)
-- Um Danyaal (UmDanyaal@surfy.net), December 16, 2003.
Um Danyaal,Remember Jesus said He was God and could forgive sins. He said He and the Father were one. That is what makes Jesus different from Mohammad. Mohammad was a profit, and said as much. Jesus was and is God, and said as much. As a man, Mohammad can make mistakes in interpretation of what God said to Him. Jesus, as God, makes no such mistakes. Either Jesus was the worse liar and heretic ever to walk the planet, or He is, indeed, God. You can't say He was simply another good profit, for if He was simply that, His own words would condemn Him. No, Jesus must be God. You can’t have it both ways.
If Jesus is God, than the Islamic writings are wrong when they say He was only a profit.
In Christ, Bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 17, 2003.
It was completely beyond the ability of Muhammad ... to write the Quran. He was illiterate, could not even write his own name.I have read that some scholars dispute this, claiming that he was actually able to write. (Shortly after he became famous, he could write, having "learned" the skill suspiciously quickly.) But it really doesn't matter whether he was illiterate or not. He could easily have composed the Koran, little by little, and had some literate friend write down the words. Another definite possibility is that he received the Koran, as written by satan.
The point is that there is no evidence whatsoever -- except the self-serving claim of Big Mo himself -- that God (or the angel Gabriel) wrote the book. And what sensible person could believe the bare testimony of Big Mo -- a murderer and child molester (with a pre-teen for a wife)? Not me, pal! But "Um Danyaal" fell for it like a gullible teenager.
I say the Quran is the direct speech of God, unchanged since its revelation, contains no errors, refers to scientific facts which have only recently been proven by modern science. It challenges mankind to produce something like it -- no-one has ever been able to.
Nonsense, Danny.
1. You weren't alive when the Koran was jotted down, so you have no idea whether or not it "is the direct speech of God." Admit it (and don't try to muddy the conversation by saying something about the Bible). Stay on point: the Koran only.
2. You haven't been alive throughout the existence of the Koran, so you have no idea whether or not it "contains no errors." Admit it.
3. It does not refer "to scientific facts which have only recently been" proved "by modern science." We have heard that error before. When given the supposed "facts," a normal person can easily see that this claim is false. Danny, where does that leave you?
4. Who cares if it "challenges mankind to produce something like it?" That proves nothing. Besides, maybe the Mormons would say that their man-made fake "scripture" is even better than yours. I have read parts of the Koran and found it incredibly boring. Every Agatha Christie mystery I have ever read is more interesting. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is immeasurably better than the Koran. Too bad you didn't read it and stick with your Catholic faith, instead of becoming a heretic.A further challenge for those who say the Quran is not the word of God: 'Will they not then ponder on the Holy Book? If it had been from other than God they would have found therein much contradiction and incongruity (Quran 4:82)'"
Oh, I'm sure that much of "contradiction and incongruity" has been found within the Koran. More importantly, though, there is much of "contradiction and incongruity" between the Koran and the Bible, which all Jews, Christians, and Moslems know is the Word of God. Since the Koran contradicts the Bible in some ways, we can easily tell that it is untrustworthy -- and definitely not from God. (And don't give us any rubbish about the Bible's text being corrupted in "convenient" ways, because you have no proof of this at all. The corruption claim is just an afterthought -- an invention that was necessary to make the Koran seem plausible.)
Contrary to what you claimed, Danny, the New Testament does not contain "contradictions." There are Internet sites devoted to proving to objectors like you that supposed contradictions are just misunderstandings by non-Christians.
If a text contains errors it cannot be the word of God.
Finally you said something right, Danny! And that is how we can know that the Koran is NOT "the word of God." It contains errors!
Luke ... says nothing about his words being inspired by God."
So what? I could write a short book this afternoon and put a claim inside it that it was "inspired by God." Would that claim make it so? Of course not. Therefore, we must ignore any claim within the Koran that it is inspired by God. Instead, there must be an infallible, authoritative voice OUTSIDE a writing that can certify that the writing is "inspired by God." Since the time of Jesus, the only such infallible, authoritative voice appointed by God is the Catholic Church. The Church declares that the 73 books of the Bible are "inspired by God," and the Church declares that the Koran is NOT "inspired by God." Islam has no voice -- no teaching authority (magisterium) -- that is capable of discerning whether or not a writing is inspired by God. You Mozzies are doing pure guesswork.
"'Did Mohammed ascend bodily to Heaven, under his own power?' You are suggesting that Jesus ... did this under his own power even afer he has testified 'I can of my own self do nothing' (John 5:30)'"
Amazing! Even though you claim to have been Catholic, your words belie your ignorance that Jesus is both God and Man, both divine and human. As man, he said things (such as the words you quoted) with reference to his human nature -- but through the power of his divine nature, he could and did rise from the dead."
Bill, you repeatedly referred to the word, "profit," when you meant "prophet." One time, it was humorous:
"Mohammad was a profit ..."
I'm not sure if he was a "profit" in his own time, but he is definitely "profitable" now to some scalawags inside Islam.But, you were right, Bill, to tell Danny that Jesus could not merely be a prophet.
Since he clearly claimed to be divine, he could only have been a Liar, a Lunatic, or the Lord (God).If he was not divine and knew that he wasn't, he was a Liar.
If he was not divine but was deluded into thinking that he was divine, then he was a Lunatic.
But if he WAS divine, then he is the Lord.
There is no fourth option -- "prophet." That's why Moslems cannot call him one of their prophets.GFA
-- GFA (GFA@asdf.com), December 17, 2003.
It was completely beyond the ability of Muhammad ... to write the Quran. He was illiterate, could not even write his own name.I have read that some scholars dispute this, claiming that he was actually able to write. (Shortly after he became famous, he could write, having "learned" the skill suspiciously quickly.) But it really doesn't matter whether he was illiterate or not. He could easily have composed the Koran, little by little, and had some literate friend write down the words. Another definite possibility is that he received the Koran, as written by satan.
The point is that there is no evidence whatsoever -- except the self-serving claim of Big Mo himself -- that God (or the angel Gabriel) wrote the book. And what sensible person could believe the bare testimony of Big Mo -- a murderer and child molester (with a pre-teen for a wife)? Not me, pal! But "Um Danyaal" fell for it like a gullible teenager.
I say the Quran is the direct speech of God, unchanged since its revelation, contains no errors, refers to scientific facts which have only recently been proven by modern science. It challenges mankind to produce something like it -- no-one has ever been able to.
Nonsense, Danny.
1. You weren't alive when the Koran was jotted down, so you have no idea whether or not it "is the direct speech of God." Admit it (and don't try to muddy the conversation by saying something about the Bible). Stay on point: the Koran only.
2. You haven't been alive throughout the existence of the Koran, so you have no idea whether or not it "contains no errors." Admit it.
3. It does not refer "to scientific facts which have only recently been" proved "by modern science." We have heard that error before. When given the supposed "facts," a normal person can easily see that this claim is false. Danny, where does that leave you?
4. Who cares if it "challenges mankind to produce something like it?" That proves nothing. Besides, maybe the Mormons would say that their man-made fake "scripture" is even better than yours. I have read parts of the Koran and found it incredibly boring. Every Agatha Christie mystery I have ever read is more interesting. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is immeasurably better than the Koran. Too bad you didn't read it and stick with your Catholic faith, instead of becoming a heretic.A further challenge for those who say the Quran is not the word of God: 'Will they not then ponder on the Holy Book? If it had been from other than God they would have found therein much contradiction and incongruity (Quran 4:82)'"
Oh, I'm sure that much of "contradiction and incongruity" has been found within the Koran. More importantly, though, there is much of "contradiction and incongruity" between the Koran and the Bible, which all Jews, Christians, and Moslems know is the Word of God. Since the Koran contradicts the Bible in some ways, we can easily tell that it is untrustworthy -- and definitely not from God. (And don't give us any rubbish about the Bible's text being corrupted in "convenient" ways, because you have no proof of this at all. The corruption claim is just an afterthought -- an invention that was necessary to make the Koran seem plausible.)
Contrary to what you claimed, Danny, the New Testament does not contain "contradictions." There are Internet sites devoted to proving to objectors like you that supposed contradictions are just misunderstandings by non-Christians.
If a text contains errors it cannot be the word of God.
Finally you said something right, Danny! And that is how we can know that the Koran is NOT "the word of God." It contains errors!
Luke ... says nothing about his words being inspired by God."
So what? I could write a short book this afternoon and put a claim inside it that it was "inspired by God." Would that claim make it so? Of course not. Therefore, we must ignore any claim within the Koran that it is inspired by God. Instead, there must be an infallible, authoritative voice OUTSIDE a writing that can certify that the writing is "inspired by God." Since the time of Jesus, the only such infallible, authoritative voice appointed by God is the Catholic Church. The Church declares that the 73 books of the Bible are "inspired by God," and the Church declares that the Koran is NOT "inspired by God." Islam has no voice -- no teaching authority (magisterium) -- that is capable of discerning whether or not a writing is inspired by God. You Mozzies are doing pure guesswork.
"'Did Mohammed ascend bodily to Heaven, under his own power?' You are suggesting that Jesus ... did this under his own power even afer he has testified 'I can of my own self do nothing' (John 5:30)'"
Amazing! Even though you claim to have been Catholic, your words belie your ignorance that Jesus is both God and Man, both divine and human. As man, he said things (such as the words you quoted) with reference to his human nature -- but through the power of his divine nature, he could and did rise from the dead."
Bill, you repeatedly referred to the word, "profit," when you meant "prophet." One time, it was humorous:
Mohammad was a profit ...
I'm not sure if he was a "profit" in his own time, but he is definitely "profitable" now to some scalawags inside Islam.But, you were right, Bill, to tell Danny that Jesus could not merely be a prophet.
Since he clearly claimed to be divine, he could only have been a Liar, a Lunatic, or the Lord (God).If he was not divine and knew that he wasn't, he was a Liar.
If he was not divine but was deluded into thinking that he was divine, then he was a Lunatic.
But if he WAS divine, then he is the Lord.
There is no fourth option -- "prophet." That's why Moslems cannot call him one of their prophets.GFA
-- GFA (GFA@asdf.com), December 17, 2003.
I want to clarify one thing I wrote for you, Danny. It was this:
2. You haven't been alive throughout the existence of the Koran, so you have no idea whether or not it "contains no errors." Admit it.What I meant was that you have no idea if the current Koran is exactly as Big Mo wrote (or received) it. No one has the original manuscript. It could have been edited, with some of Mo's errors removed. But being a human writing (unless it is satanic) with fallible, human editors, even the edited version retains some errors. Perhaps it has some factual errors, but it certainly has several great spiritual/theological errors. So the infallible Catholic Church assures us.
-- GFA (GFA@asdf.com), December 17, 2003.
Thanks for the correction-bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 17, 2003.
GFA, That you resort to rudeness and ridicule tells me all I need to know about the quality of your arguement.You mention an idea though, which is usually attributed to C.S. Lewis (Was he Catholic?)
"If he was not divine and knew that he wasn't, he was a Liar. If he was not divine but was deluded into thinking that he was divine, then he was a Lunatic. But if he WAS divine, then he is the Lord. There is no fourth option -- "
Of course there is a fourth option. Jesus (peace be upon him) was not a liar; it was the men who attributed divinity to him who were the liars.
-- Um Danyaal (UmDanyaal@surfy.net), December 17, 2003.
Hi Everyone:Here's an interesting fact for our Muslim friend (and by the way, you are welcome here).
Did you know that Christ fullfilled some 48 prophecies from the Old Testament?
When Peter Stoner, statistical mathmatician, was asked what the odds of any one person fullfilling every single Old Testament prophecy made concerning Messiah, he said "that the probability of any one person fulfilling forty-eight messianic prophesies is one chance in a TRILLION, TRILLION, TRILLION . . . AND SEVEN MORE TRILLIONS!" That is a STAGGERING statistic!!!
Jesus said, "When you have seen me, you have seen the Father." He said, "I and the Father are one." Colossians says "All the fullness of diety is found in Christ." The New Testament is replete with references to Christ's divinity.
There were hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw Christ resurrected after his tortuous death, most of whom were martyred for their testimony. Islam would have us believe that hundreds and hundreds of people, (of whom there is historical account) died for what they KNEW to be false!! That's incredible!! To think that first generation Christians allowed themselves to be flung into the fire, fed to lions, beheaded, boiled alive, etc., etc., all for a lie they hoped to perpetuate.
We do not have blind faith that Christ is alive, and that He is God the Son. We have historical evidence, testimony, statistical data that is irrefutable. We have the testimony of 12 apostles. We have the continued testimony of the Fathers of the faith.
Jesus is Alive,
Gail
P.S. For a great read on the historical and documentary evidence concerning Christ, check out "The Case for Christ" by Lee Stroebel.
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 17, 2003.
Hey Um Danyaal,You say that it was the men around him that claimed His Divinity thereby making them liars.
Why would such men die for their lies if they did not believe them? The reality is they were not lying, believed all they had witnessed and heard and in the end became martyrs for their religious beliefs.
-- D Joseph (nufiedufie@msn.com), December 18, 2003.
Sorry Gail,I missed your response at first. Alot more passionate than mine and a far better answer.
-- Des Joseph (nufiedufie@msn.com), December 18, 2003.
It seems that many of the so called catholics on this board are acting in a very un-christian like manner toward our Muslim Brother.You all speak without any scientific evidence, historical evidence or rationale.
Instead of bickering about minutia why don't you all find a way to get along and realize that your are merely taking different paths (Islam and Catholicism)(and respect this) to arrive at the same end - The Truth.
-- The One (jesus@hotmail.com), December 18, 2003.
Um Danyaal,C.S. Lewis was an Anglican. I have no idea if he used the same arguement that I have for Christ's divinity.
With all do respect, you are saying that Jesus is simply one of an infinite number of prophets (I think the number used in Islam is 12,420 prophets). Also, you place Mohammed as a greater prophet than Jesus. Adding the two together, that doesn't make Him all that special does it?
Jesus Himself said He had the power to forgive sin (it wasn't His followers). That is a Divine act. Only God or someone God directly gives the power can forgive sin.
In John 5:18 we are told that Jesus’ opponents sought to kill him because he "called God his Father, making himself equal with God."
In John 8:58, when quizzed about how he has special knowledge of Abraham, Jesus replies, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I Am"—invoking and applying to himself the personal name of God— "I Am" or "Yahweh." His audience understood exactly what he was claiming about himself. "So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple" (John 8:59).
'Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age." John 28:18
No, Jesus claims to be God, not a prophet. We know Jesus was not crazy or a liar, therefore He must be God.
In Christ, Bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 18, 2003.
Instead of bickering about minutia why don't you all find a way to get along and realize that your are merely taking different paths (Islam and Catholicism)(and respect this) to arrive at the same end - The Truth.The Truth that we are stating is that Jesus is God.
In Christ, Bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 18, 2003.
This seems pertanent to the discussion so I will post it in this thread. It is one of the major reasons why knowing that Christ is God is so fundamentally important:The Pope notes That "God Took the Initiative to Come to Meet Us"
VATICAN CITY, DEC. 17, 2003 (Zenit.org).- John Paul II says the mystery of Christmas reminds us that God became man to be by our side, so "we must never feel alone."
The Pope dedicated today's general audience, the last of the year, to reflect on the closing days of Advent, "a powerful proclamation of hope, which touches profoundly our personal and communal experience." "Every man dreams of a more just and solidaristic world, where dignified conditions of life and peaceful coexistence render relations harmonious between individuals and peoples," the Holy Father told the pilgrims gathered in Paul VI Hall.
"Often, however, it is not like this. Obstacles, contrasts and difficulties of various kinds weigh down our existence and at times almost oppress it," he said.
"The forces and courage of being committed to the good, risk yielding to evil which at times seems to have the upper hand. It is especially in these moments that hope comes to our help," the Pope continued.
"The mystery of Christmas, which we will relive in a few days, assures us that God is Emmanuel -- God with us. For this reason, we must never feel alone," he said.
"He is close to us, he became one of us being born in the virginal womb of Mary. He shared our pilgrimage on earth, enabling us to attain that joy and peace, to which we aspire from the depth of our being," the Pontiff explained.
He continued: "Advent and especially Christmas are a reminder to man, who rises from daily affairs and seeks communion with God, that God took the initiative to come to meet us. Becoming a baby, Jesus assumed our nature and established his covenant with the whole of humanity forever. … He came to Bethlehem to stay with us forever."
In Christ, Bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 18, 2003.
"Here's an interesting fact for our Muslim friend (and by the way, you are welcome here). " (Gail)Hi Gail, and thank you for your welcome. I wholeheartedly rejoice with you at the fulfilment of the prophecies concerning the Messiah! How great our God is who has done these wonderful things! Every Muslim believes that Jesus (peace be upon him) was the Messiah to the Jews. The prophecies foretelling the Messiah have been fulfilled by Jesus (peace be upon him), but there are other prophecies which were only fulfilled by Muhammad (peace be upon him).
"our Muslim Brother. " (theone)
just as a by-the-way, I'm a sister, actually! (*smile*)
"In John 8:58, when quizzed about how he has special knowledge of Abraham, Jesus replies, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I Am"—invoking and applying to himself the personal name of God— "I Am" or "Yahweh." " (Bill)
No he does not say Yahweh, or even the 'I am' of Yahweh. The Greek transliteration of Yahweh is Kurios or Kurios Theos. The phrase 'before Abraham was, I am' transliterates to 'prin Abraam genesthai egoo eimi'. egoo eimi - I am.
The 'I Am' of Yahweh from the book of Exodus: 'I Am hath sent me unto you' is 'ho oon apestalken metros umas' 'ho oon - I Am.
It's clear that the expression used in the Gospel is different from that used in Exodus and has different meaning.
"With all do respect, you are saying that Jesus is simply one of an infinite number of prophets (I think the number used in Islam is 12,420 prophets). Also, you place Mohammed as a greater prophet than Jesus. Adding the two together, that doesn't make Him all that special does it? " (Bill)
No I am not saying there are is an infinite number of Prophets. Their number is limited and they make up a tiny and very select portion of humanity. Jesus the Prophet (peace be upon him) is VERY special, not just another Joe Soap. The Quran expounds his virtues better than I ever could: "Then will God say: ‘O Jesus the son of Mary! recount My favor to you and to your mother. Behold! I strengthened you with the Holy Spirit (the angel Gabriel) so that you did speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. Behold! I taught you the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel. And behold: you make out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, by My leave, and you breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by My leave, and you heal those born blind, and the lepers by My leave. And behold! you bring forth the dead by My leave. And behold! I did restrain the children of Israel from (violence to you) when you did show them the Clear Signs, and the unbelievers among them said: ‘This is nothing but evident magic' (Quran 5:110).
-- Um Danyaal (UmDanyaal@surfy.net), December 19, 2003.
Hi Um, (the Gal),I am interested to know what prophesies of the O.T. were fullfilled by Mohammed and NOT by Christ.
Yes, you are right, Christ is the Savior of the Jews, but not only the Jews, but gentiles as well. He is the Savior of the whole world. He is the Lamb of God, slain for the whole world.
I have a personal relationship with Christ. He is nearer to me than a brother (or sister). He is the gentle shepherd who tends to His flock -- black, white, oriental, Jews, Greeks, gentiles, male or female. All are one in Christ.
Christ is the atoner. He bore our sins. He bore our sin-sickness. By his stripes we are healed of our spiritual disease. I am reconciled to God through Christ. What sacrifice does Islam offer for sin?
Love,
Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 19, 2003.
Danny, they have been pulling your leg at your Islamic indoctrination classes (or at the Moslem Internet site) that you frequent. I assume that's were you got this error =====>"In John 8:58, when quizzed about how he has special knowledge of Abraham, Jesus replies, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I Am" —- invoking and applying to himself the personal name of God —- "I Am" or "Yahweh." (Bill)
No, he does not say 'Yahweh,' or even the 'I am' of Yahweh. The Greek transliteration of Yahweh is Kurios or Kurios Theos. The phrase 'before Abraham was, I am' transliterates to 'prin Abraam genesthai egoo eimi'. egoo eimi - I am.
The 'I Am' of Yahweh from the book of Exodus: 'I Am hath sent me unto you' is 'ho oon apestalken metros umas'. 'ho oon - I Am.You just can't mix languages and translations and expect to get a right result, Danny. As I will now explain to you, the visible difference between "ho oon" and "egoo eimi" is irrelevant.
What God said to Moses (Exodus 3:14) is a Hebrew phrase in which a form of the verb "hayah" (to be) is repeated. It can be transliterated as "Ehyeh asher Ehyeh." Later in 3:14, we see, "Ehyeh has sent me to you." [Notice: EHYEH three times.] God did not speak Greek to Moses, telling him "egoo eimi" and/or "ho oon." You (or your misguided mentors) copied those transliterations from a Greek (Septuagint) translation of the Hebrew scripture, which says: "Egoo eimi ho oon" and "ho oon apestalken ...".
Now, since the Hebrew has the same word three times ("Ehyeh"), it follows that the two Greek phrases, "Egoo eimi" and "ho oon," are functionally equivalent. The Septuagint translators, following Greek grammar, simply used "Egoo eimi ho oon" (instead of "Egoo eimi Egoo eimi") and "ho oon apestalken" (instead of "egoo eimi apestalken").
Danny, you lack the ability to say that Jesus did not tell the group of Jews, "Ehyeh" (I am) -- thereby claiming to be divine. Don't confuse yourself by thinking that Jesus would have spoken Greek ("Egoo eimi") to his fellow Jews in the Temple. Instead, St. John, in writing his gospel, used those Greek words as his translation of the Hebrew word that Jesus actually must have spoken: "Ehyeh."What you need to realize is this: The Catholic Church, via Apostolic Tradition, has always infallibly taught her members -- even for 600 years before Mohammed was born -- that Jesus revealed his divinity to the Jews by saying "I am." But this Sacred (Oral) Tradition is not even required in this case, because what Jesus said to the Jews -- and his meaning -- are so obvious from the context =====>
Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." So they took up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.
They were so incredibly angry at his "blasphemy" (calling himself God -- "Ehyeh" "I am") that, even though they were not allowed to execute someone (under Roman rule), they were going to do it anyway by stoning. If he had used some Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek words that did not imply divinity, they would never had thought of stoning him!
Another use by Jesus of "I am" ("Ehyeh" = "Egoo eimi" in St. John) also shows his divinity. He makes a prediction, using the most dramatic language possible to indicate that his prophecy will show that he is God: "I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I AM." (John 13:19). Note: "I AM" -- not "I am a great prophet," but "I AM" ... your God!
As you can see, you have been horribly misled by people in your manmade religion, Danny. I join you in praying for the grace you need to return to Christianity.
Giovanni Francesco Antonio
-- GFA (GFA@asdf.com), December 20, 2003.
How do explain this?:Sura 5:51 commands Muslims not to take Jews and Christians as friends.
Sura 2:65-66 and Sura 5:60 contain references to Jews as "apes and swine to be despised and rejected."(Think of that. You can be sure such a statement did not come from the true God of the Universe who selected the Jews to be His chosen people.)
-- - (David@excite.com), December 21, 2003.
The Koran contains many scientific errors. A crude example is found in Sura 18:8-86 where it says that Alexander the Great followed the seeing of the sun and discovered that it went down into the waters of a muddy spring!Yes, this is sad, but true!
-- - (Dvid@excite.com), December 21, 2003.
"I am interested to know what prophesies of the O.T. were fullfilled by Mohammed and NOT by Christ." One example is Isaiah 42. You can see an interesting explanation of how this refers to Muhammad (peace be upon him) here: http://www.jews-for-allah.org/Muhammad-and-Judaism/the-Jewish- Bible/Muhammad-in-Isaiah42.htm"What sacrifice does Islam offer for sin? "
God is All-Powerful and Most Merciful. There is no need for a cruel and unjust sacrifice when God can forgive sins as He wills.
"God forgives not (the sin of) joining other gods with Him, but He forgives, whom He pleases, other sins than this...." (Qur’an 4:16).
"And no bearer of burdens shall bear another's burden, and if one heavily laden calls another to (bear) his load, nothing of it will be lifted even though he be near of kin. You (O Muhammad) can warn only those who fear their Lord unseen, and perform As-Salât. And he who purifies himself (from all kinds of sins), then he purifies only for the benefit of his ownself. And to Allâh is the (final) Return (of all)." (Quran 35:18)
"God did not speak Greek to Moses" "Don't confuse yourself by thinking that Jesus would have spoken Greek " GFA
I agree God did not speak Greek to Moses (peace be upon him) and Jesus (peace be upon him) did not speak Greek either! So let us go back and look at the original Aramaic manuscripts to see what words Jesus (peace be upon him) really used. But they do not exist! All you have is the Greek translations. You can never know the exact words that came from the mouth of Jesus(peace be upon him), because you are reliant on the interpretation of the unknown translators.
David, God willing, I will address your points later today.
-- Um Danyaal (UmDanyaal@surfy.net), December 21, 2003.
Um,The holy book of Islam is riddles with contradictions. In one place it asserts that Allah created everything in "the twinkling of an eye"(Sura 54:49-50).
Now Um, elsewhere it says that the time period of the creation was two days(Sura 41:9, 12); four days (Sura 41:10);six days (Suras 7:54,10:4, and 32:4); in "a day equaling 1,000 years" (Suras 32:5): and also in "50,000 years"(Sura 70:4). This is a total of 6 different time periods!
Whats up with this? :-)
-- - (David@excite.com), December 21, 2003.
Hi Um, (I know this is lengthy but please read)You stated that there is no need for a sacrifice, yet the Old Testament is replete with blood sacrifices. Surely you know that. I thought the Quran contained the O.T. (?)
Well, anyway, the first passover in Exodus 12:23, states: "For the Lord will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when He sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts; the Lord will pass over the door and will not allow the destroyer to come in to your houses to smite you," is a foreshadowing of the Messiah's blood atonement to come. The lamb was slaughtered, the blood applied to the doorposts so that the destroyer would pass by when he saw the blood. Gentiles were also spared by applying the blood of the lamb to their doorposts. Hence, our salvation was bought by the precious blood of the Lamb . . . Jesus Christ, the only Savior of mankind!
(For further reading on blood sacrifices, read Leviticus wherein the Law of God was given concerning these sacrifices and their various meanings.)
Of note, it has always been fascinating to me that the Jews stopped offering blood atonement through the sacrifice of animals around 70 AD when the temple of Jerusalem was destroyed. They never reinstituted the sacrifice. Why? After 6,000 years of sacrifice, following the Law of Atonement to the tee, did they stop? Because the supreme sacrifice had been met, "and there remains no further need for sacrifice." (Heb) Yet if you ask a practicing Orthodox Jew today why they no longer practice what was commanded in the Law, they can't answer!
Let's see what Hebrews Chapter 9 vs. 11-15 says about the "sacrifice."
But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained ETERNAL REDEMPTION.
For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled, sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, HOW MUCH MORE WILL THE BLOOD OF CHRIST, WHO THROUGH THE ETERNAL SPIRIT OFFERED HIMSELF WITHOUT BLEMISH TO GOD, CLEANSE YOUR CONSCIENCE FROM DEAD WORKS TO SERVE THE LIVING GOD.
And for this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, in order that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Um, we Christians worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God who chose, for His own reasons, to institute the sacrifice. Then that same God chose to send His son to be the perfect and spotless Lamb, the sacrifice-of-all-sacrifices; Our REDEEMER!
Glory Be to God through Christ Jesus our Lord,
Gail
P.S. Oh I can't resist adding this. Christ was crucified during the Passover, not just during the feast, but more specifically . . . because as the soldiers were nailing Him to cross, while His blood was pouring from His body, and His life on this earth was ebbing away, on the other side of town, at the precise moment of Christ's final breath, there was another sacrifice being held. A lamb was brought to the altar, spotless and pure, innocent and humble, and just as this poor humble animal was about to become yet another "sin offering," the Christ, Our Messiah was breathing His last breath upon this earth, to become once for all, The Lamb of God.
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 21, 2003.
Thanks, Danny, for (in effect) admitting that your whole previous argument (egoo eimi versus ho oon) was worthless, since God in the O.T. and Jesus in the N.T. did not speak Greek to Moses in the O.T. and the Jews in the N.T.Your attempt to come back at me, though, is equally as worthless as your previous argument =====>
So let us go back and look at the original Aramaic manuscripts to see what words Jesus ... really used. But they do not exist! All you have is the Greek translations. You can never know the exact words that came from the mouth of Jesus ... because you are reliant on the interpretation of the unknown translators.
The Greek translation? That is not "all" I have! I already pointed out TWO other things that I have. What's wrong? Can't you read? Or were you so shocked at being proved wrong that you were too flustered to come up with a better invention?
First, I told you that we have the Sacred, Apostolic, Oral Tradition -- the truth about Jesus passed down by his Apostles and their successors. This helps us properly to understand what happened and what was said and meant by Jesus. You have no valid reply to this.
Second, I proved to you, by putting Jesus's words in context, that he hed claimed that he was divine and was nearly stoned to death for it.Forget it, hon'. Your adopted, manmade religion will not stand up to scrutiny. Look at how David is ripping it to shreds by quoting the Koran that Mohammed apparently slapped together pretty sloppily.
By the way, since this is a Catholic site, I must ask you to stop insulting me (a Catholic) and God himself by putting that "peace be upon him" garbage after the name of MY LORD AND GOD, Jesus. The Second Person of the Holy Trinity doesn't need your worthless "peace" to "be upon him." YOU need HIS DIVINE peace to be upon YOU! If you want to say that garbage in private e-mail or at other sites, that's your business -- but NOT HERE, Miss Fallen-Away! If you do that again here, I will start putting something nice and juicy in parentheses after the name "Mohammed."
Giovanni Francesco Antonio
-- GFA (GFA@asdf.org), December 21, 2003.
Hi Gail,Your post was not too lengthy at all and interesting! I want to respond to you and to David also, but having just read GFA's post, I'm going to choose my words carefully so as not to cause gratuitous offence, and then I will bid you farewell! (*smile*)
"the Old Testament is replete with blood sacrifices"
Yes. But not human sacrifices. Muslims still sacrifice animals in memory of the sacrifice of Abraham (peace be upon him). The fact that Abraham (peace be upon him) substituted the ram for his son I believe shows that God does not require or accept human sacrifice.
"Sura 5:51 commands Muslims not to take Jews and Christians as friends". (David)
'O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust. '(Quran 5:51)
The word 'friends' here is translated from Auliya, meaning protector or helper. It implies not a relationship of equals, but where one has more power than the other, or acts as a patron. Muslims are still required to maintain good relations with Jews and Christians and to treat them with kindness and fairness.
"Sura 2:65-66 and Sura 5:60 contain references to Jews as "apes and swine to be despised and rejected." (David)
"And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected. So We made it an example to their own time and to their posterity, and a lesson to those who fear Allah. (Quran 2:65-66)
"Say: "Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path!" (Quran 5:60)
These verses are not applied to Jews in general as a group. This was a terrible punishment for SOME of the Jews who had disobeyed God and turned to worship false deities. Muhammad (peace be upon him) has warned us that the same punishment also faces those Muslims who disbelieve in the Divine Decree. He has said this punishment will come to pass before the Judgement day. We should seek refuge with God from such a fate.
"Sura 18:8-86 where it says that Alexander the Great followed the seeing of the sun and discovered that it went down into the waters of a muddy spring!" (David)
"Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul- qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness." (Quran 18:86
The person named here is Zul Qurnain, not Alexander the Great. Some commentators have speculated that it is Alexander but it is not proven and he does not fit the description of Zul Qurnain given in the Quran. The meaning of the verse is that Zul Qurnain travelled until he reached the furthest point in the direction of the sun's setting, i.e. west. If I say that I saw the sun set behind the mountains, am I making a scientific statement? No, it is my observation from my viewpoint. The Quran is describing what Zul Qurnain saw, note 'he found it'. It is not speaking about the rotation of the earth.
David, your question about time periods in the Quran I do not have time to post about right now. Here is a website you can check out if you are really interested in what the Quran says. http://www.nzmuslim.net/article110.html
Goodbye everyone, Um Danyaal.
-- Um Danyaal (UmDanyaal@surfy.net), December 21, 2003.
The Koran gives 4 conflicting accounts of Muhammad's call to be a prophet.[Sura means chapter](1) (Suras 53 and 81)- God, or Allah as he is called in Arabic, personally appeared to Muhammad.
(2)(Suras 16 and 26)- The call was from the Holy Spirit
(3)(Sura 15)-Angels issued the call
(4)-(Sura 2)- Gabriel was the one who appeared to him.
Uh, Whats up with this? Sounds like Muhammad can't keep track of what went on.
-- - (David@excite.com), December 21, 2003.
Danny, we are not gullible. We cannot be fooled as you have been fooled. Don't feed us the explanations you are copying from pro-Islam sites designed to water down the hate-filled language and internal errors of the Koran and make them seem more palatable. We are too smart here to fall for that junk. Here is an example.To show that the Koran (i.e., Mohammed, its author) is full of hatred and religious prejudice, David told you, "Sura 5:51 commands Muslims not to take Jews and Christians as friends."
You tried to water that down by saying this =====>
'O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.' (Quran 5:51)
The word 'friends' here is translated from Auliya, meaning protector or helper. It implies not a relationship of equals, but where one has more power than the other, or acts as a patron. Muslims are still required to maintain good relations with Jews and Christians and to treat them with kindness and fairness.If "protectors" or "helpers" is what "auliya" was intended by Mo to mean, then the Moslem translator would not have used the word "friends"! We can see that "auliya" does not mean what you were told it means -- i.e., people of unequal rank and power -- by noticing that the verse says that Jews and Christians are "auliya" of each other. That would not make sense if one is of greater power than the other. The obvious meaning of "auliya," then, is "friends" or "allies."
But regardless of the meaning you choose -- friends, allies, patrons -- it is pretty sickening that this supposedly holy book would forbid Moslems from having that kind of relationship with non-Moslems. In fact, that in itself proves that the Koran is not from God, because God would never command such an injustice.
Take a look at sura 9:23 (which has the same structure as 5:51) for further proof that "auliya" does not mean what your mentors have told you ("protector or helper ... not a relationship of equals, but where one has more power than the other"):
"O you who believe! Take not for 'auliya' your fathers and your brothers [i.e., parents and siblings], if they prefer disbelief to Belief. And whoever of you does so, then he is one of the wrong-doers."
This is telling Moslems to shun their own family members -- as though they were Jews or Christians -- if they fail to join the club or stay in it. Clearly "auliya" in 5:51 and 9:23 doesn't have anything to do with a relationship in which "one has more power than the other." You can't even have your own family members as friends and allies, unless they are Moslems.
Danny, you CLAIMED that Moslems "are still required to maintain good relations with Jews and Christians and to treat them with kindness and fairness." But talk is cheap. Let's see that in writing -- in the Koran. I don't think that you'll find it, because that idea is from a modern, watered down Islam -- found in some countries of the world, where your false religions is in a small minority. There is no way that Mohammed, in writing the Koran, had any such nice feelings toward Jews and Christians in mind. He and his followers were deeply involved in killing and forcibly converting Jews and Christians, not in "treating them with kindness and fairness."
Come back to Jesus the Son of God, Danny, to his Catholic Church, and to his real Bible. Get away from the lies and errors of your current religion and its fake "bible."
-- GFA (GFA@asdf.org), December 22, 2003.
No I am not saying there are is an infinite number of Prophets. Their number is limited and they make up a tiny and very select portion of humanity.This is incorrect. The number used is symbolic. It is meant to represent infinity. I suggest you look it up.
Agin, with all do respect, you are saying that Jesus is simply one of an infinite number of prophets (I think the number used in Islam is 12,420 prophets). Also, you place Mohammed as a greater prophet than Jesus. Adding the two together, that doesn't make Him all that special does it?
Followers of Christ are considered heretics in Islam. They are only allowed in truely Islamic countries if they pay a tax to Muslems. So it is written.
Islam regards itself, not as a subsequent faith to Judaism and Christianity, but as the primordial religion, the faith from which Judaism and Christianity are subsequent developments. In the Qur’an we read that Abraham ‘was not a Jew nor a Christian, but he was a monotheist, a Muslim’ (Âl 'Imran 3:66). So it is Muslims, and not Christians or Jews, who are the true representatives of the faith of Abraham to the world today. (Al-Baqarah 2:135) Christians and Jews have corrupted their scriptures. (Âl 'Imran 3:74-77, 113) Although Christians believe ‘Isa died on a cross, and Jews claim they killed him, in reality he was not killed or crucified, and those who said he was crucified lied (An-Nisa’ 4:157). ‘Isa did not die, but ascended to Allah. (An-Nisa’ 4:158) On the day of Resurrection ‘Isa himself will be a witness against Jews and Christians for believing in his death. (An-Nisa’ 4:159)
Christians (and Jews) could not be freed from their ignorance until Muhammad came bringing the Qur’an as clear evidence (Al- Bayyinah 98:1). Muhammad was Allah’s gift to Christians to correct misunderstandings. They should accept Muhammad as Allah’s Messenger, and the Qur’an as his final revelation. (Al-Ma’idah 5:15; Al-Hadid 57:28; An-Nisa’ 4:47)
Some Christians and Jews are faithful and believe truly. (Âl 'Imran 3:113,114) Any such true believers will submit to Allah by accepting Muhammad as the prophet of Islam, i.e. they will become Muslims. (Âl 'Imran 3:198)
Muslims should not take Christians or Jews for friends. (Al- Ma’idah 5:51) They must fight against Christians and Jews who refuse Islam until they surrender, pay the poll-tax and are humiliated. (At- Taubah 9:29) To this may be added hundreds of Qur’anic verses on the subject of jihad in the path of Allah, as well as the ‘Book of Jihad’ found in all Hadith collections.
Ibn Naqib states that when Jesus returns, he will rule ‘as a follower’ of Muhammad.
In Christ, Bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 22, 2003.
oops
-bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 22, 2003.
Hi Um,I see you have quite a lot on your plate, so I'll be brief.
Isaiah, Chapter 53, vs 1-12
Who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of the parched ground;
He has no stately form or majesty that we should look upon Him, Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him.
He was despised and forsaken of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and like one from whom men hid their face;
He was despised and we did not esteem Him.
Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted.
But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed.
All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him.
He was oppressed and He was afflicted, yet He did not open His mouth;
Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, and like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, so He did not open His mouth.
By opression and judgment He was taken away; and as for His generation, who considered that He was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of my people to whom the strike was due?
His grave was assigned with wicken med, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth.
But the Lord was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief.
If He WOULD RENDER HIMSELF AS A GUILTY OFFERING, He will see His offspring. He will prolong His days and the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand.
***
Therefore I will allot Him a portion with the great, and He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, and interceded for the transgressors.
Um, according to Isaiah, the Lord God Almighty did choose a human sacrifice, a perfect sacrifice for the remission of our sins -- once for all. Christ fullfilled every single jot and tittle of this prophecy, and many, many more.
Once again, I ask you, is the O.T. part of Islam's canon, or holy book? If so, why are the Messianic prophecies ignored?
Love,
Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 22, 2003.
The word 'friends' here is translated from Auliya, meaning protector or helper. It implies not a relationship of equals, but where one has more power than the other, or acts as a patron.If I am not mistaken, the Qur’an was written as a progression of inspirations. During the time of its writing, Muhammad was also progressing from being someone dependent on the benevolences of others to a leader of a 'protectorate' of united Arabs who promised to protect one another. As he changed from a purly religious person to someone in charge of a 'state'. If I am not mistaken this is Arabic history and possibly why we find a more militant form of Islam in the latter passages (the ones written after the battle of the trench, perhaps?).
At the Battle of the Trench in 627 AD, the last Jewish tribe in Medina, the Banu (Sons of) Qurayza had been neutral. On the day the Battle finished, Muhammad turned against them. After a siege they surrendered. Muhammad appointed Sa'd ibn Mu'adh, who had been wounded in the battle, as their judge. He gave a judgement which Muhammad said Allah approved of. The next day, at least 600 Jewish men were beheaded in public on the edge of trenches and their bodies thrown in. The women and children were sold. Muhammad took one of the women - Rayhana, newly widowed, as a concubine. The Qu'ran mentions this event in Sura 33:25-27:
25. And Allah turned back the unbelievers in their rage; they did not obtain any advantage, and Allah sufficed the believers in fighting; and Allah is Strong, Mighty.
26. And He drove down those of the followers of the Book who backed them from their fortresses and He cast awe into their hearts; some you killed and you took captive another part.
27. And He made you heirs to their land and their dwellings and their property, and to a land which you have not yet trodden, and Allah has power over all things.
In Christ, Bill
In Christ, Bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 22, 2003.
Sura(4:34) says, "Men are the managers of the affairs of women....Those women who are rebellious-admonish them, banish them to their couches, and beat them."What up with this? I wonder if Muhammad beat his 11 or 12 year old wife?(one of about 12)
-- - (David@excite.com), December 22, 2003.
Hi,Fifteen years after his marriage, at age 40, Muhammad had a visitation from a spirit.[Supposedly] this spirit told him that he was called of God to be a "prophet" and a "apostle."
But, I might add, that there was no tradition in Arabian relegions of prophets or apostles.
These terms were obviously used by Muhammad to appeal to Jews and Christians.[How could this not be true?]
What up with this? :-)
-- - (David@excite.com), December 22, 2003.
But, I might add, that there was no tradition in Arabian relegions of prophets or apostles.These terms were obviously used by Muhammad to appeal to Jews and Christians.[How could this not be true?]
I am not sure if your hypothesis is correct here. Yes, pre-Islamic Arabs did not use the terms, but Christians did. And Muhammad knew Christians and Christians influenced a lot of Arabs at the time. However, another hypothesis would be that Muhammad was creating a religion similar to the other two great covenants of God, this one for the Arabs, with similar prophets and apostles. Muhammad was and is seen as God's Messenger of the Covenant and seen as a consolidating messenger. His mission to purify and unify all existing religions into one: Islam (Submission).
In Christ, Bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 23, 2003.
Hello everyone.I didn't expect to be posting a message here again, but since people are still addressing posts to me, I guess I was not clear enough in my last message that I was leaving the forum.
"By the way, since this is a Catholic site, I must ask you to stop insulting me (a Catholic) and God himself by putting that "peace be upon him" garbage after the name of MY LORD AND GOD, Jesus. The Second Person of the Holy Trinity doesn't need your worthless "peace" to "be upon him." YOU need HIS DIVINE peace to be upon YOU! If you want to say that garbage in private e-mail or at other sites, that's your business -- but NOT HERE, Miss Fallen-Away! If you do that again here, I will start putting something nice and juicy in parentheses after the name "Mohammed." GFA
Is this kind of threatening behaviour acceptable on this forum? If it is not, then why has it been tolerated? It has no place in civilized interaction. It puts me as a visitor to your forum in an untenable position. How can I continue to reply to people's questions in good faith according to my conscience and the practice of my religion, with all the while the threat looming from this person to abuse my beloved prophet if I write something he happens to disagree with!? That is entirely unacceptable and that is why I can no longer post on this forum. I am aware our discussion remains unfinished. I can be contacted at the email address below if anyone is serious about continuing our conversation. Only mails which adhere to basic civility and courtesy will be replied to.
Um Danyaal.
-- Um Danyaal (UmDanyaal@surfy.net), December 23, 2003.
Well play the wise man and empathy. Muslims intolerance is reknowned, and tho they preach so called tolerance, thats only when they are a minority.. in places when there is an islamic majority, they will show their true colours to minorities . Where there is muslims there is war and bloodshed. middle east, asia, europe,usa...The West may abandon christianity, but remember, Christians are the salt of the earth, not the soil. Take heart not from the conversions rather, focus our efforts to spread to Good news resolutely. Remember Rome was pagan...then they became Christian...What more of the lands of Muhammad that were once Christian lands, from Turkey to Syria. God has fufilled his promise when he restored Israel. Bible is true..in what it says..cuz it is the TURTH notgenocidal and placating lies that the Quran espouses.
they populate quick, via young marriages, polygamy,and all that...however let me reserve this, that Muhammad was a prophet to bring the sons of Ishmael (Arabs) to the God of Israel,to fufill the convenant with Abraham, to bring them back from paganism. unfortunately they went to the same road of laws and rigidity of the sadducees and pharsiees. they turned God is allah (the moon god in ancient arabia, predominant god to insatiate the masses just as Aaron carved a bull for the masses at Sinai....the word of God was polluted by Arab customs and love of violence and retainers who succeeded Muhammad and kept earthly cultures and way of life and gross misunderstanding of christian scriptures. al-quran was of man...not of God..
-- Michael Riazor (dazzyb21@yahoo.co.uk), December 24, 2003.
Hi, Bill"I'm not sure if your hypothesis is correct..."
I am not sure if my "hypothesis" is correct either, Bill.
But you have to admit, that some of the chapters in the Koran(that I have mentioned) are very odd. Would you not agree?
Didn't Muhammad marry a 6 year old girl before, and have sexual relations with her when she was only 9 years old?
According to the Koran, only the prophet could have unlimited number of wives. All other Muslim men are limited to four(Sura 4:3).
What would your "hypothesis" be with this be Bill? Do you think nine years old is a Lady?
-- - (David@excite.com), December 25, 2003.
Some wild Moslem just said, "there are no moslem converts to catholicism."He spoke from ignorance. There ARE Moslem converts to Catholicism, and there would be a lot more if the Moslem nations would legalize such conversion. In most Moslem nations, it is illegal to convert from Islam to anything. In some of these nations, conversions that are discovered result in the execution of the new Catholics -- so bloodthirsty and primitive are the Moslem governments in those countries. They excuse their crimes by turning for "permission" to the sick trio of the Koran, the Mohammedan "Traditions," and the Sharia (law).
There will always be tremendous death and chaos in the world until Islam disappears. Moslems are not baptized. The supernatural life of God (grace) is not in them.
-- GFA (GFA@asdf.org), December 25, 2003.
David, Yes, the Quran does have conflicting Suras, so does the Bible if looked upon by a non-believer. And yes, polygamy is allowed in the Quran, as it is allowed in the Old Testament, where there is no limitation on the number of wives a man can take. Polygamy was common at the time in Arabia and was practiced in the Old Testament by Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David and Solomon. In fact when David committed adultery with Bathsheeba, God said, "Did I not give you your many wives, why have you done this thing with Bathsheeba", (2 Samuel 12:7-9 paraphrased). Many of Muhammad's wives were for political reasons which was common in Arabia at the time.Aesha was nine years old when Muhammad took her to his bed. According to Hadith, the collected sayings of Muhammad, she was still playing with her dolls. Aisha herself testified to these facts: “The messenger of God betrothed me when I was six years old and then married me when I was nine years old.” Source: Sahih Muslim (by Imam al-Mawawy), vol. 3, p. 577. [Book 008, Verse 3309] This is distressing to many Muslims. Keep in mind that the Jewish Talmud also allows the marriage of an 8 or 9 year old girl and it may not have been that unusual in seventh century Arabia. Instances of such arranged young age marriages can be found in Africa today. Early betrothal in those days may be different from pedophilia, which is a pathological deviancy.
Not trying to 'defend' or 'attack' anyone, just stating historical facts.
In Christ, Bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 25, 2003.
World Population (These numbers tend toward the high end of reasonable worldwide estimates): 33% Christian 22% Muslem 15% Hindu 14% Non-religious 6% Buddhist 4% Chinese-Traditional 3% Primal-indigenous 3% Other (includes Sikhm, Jewish, Juche, Spiritism, etc.)http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html#MainList
North America trends: (North America, defined by the United Nations to include Bermuda, Canada, Greenland, St. Pierre & Miquelon and the United States. This region’s population is growing at an average rate of 0.9%, adding 2.6 million people each year.) I don't see much change coming anytime soon.
Faith, 2000%, 2025% est. Christians 84.9%, 83.3% Nonreligious 8.7%, 10.0% Jews 1.9%, 1.8% Muslims 1.4%, 1.7% Buddhists 0.8%, 0.9% Atheists 0.5%, 0.5% Hindus 0.4%, 0.5%
Trends in North America are listed here: http://www.gem-werc.org/mmrc/mmrc9805.htm
Roman Catholics are growing both through births and conversions, thus increasing their share of the population.
In Christ, Bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 25, 2003.
oops, forgot the tags: World Population (These numbers tend toward the high end of reasonable worldwide estimates):33% Christian
22% Muslem
15% Hindu
14% Non-religious
6% Buddhist
4% Chinese-Traditional
3% Primal-indigenous
3% Other (includes Sikhm, Jewish, Juche, Spiritism, etc.)
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html#MainList
North America trends: (North America, defined by the United Nations to include Bermuda, Canada, Greenland, St. Pierre & Miquelon and the United States. This region’s population is growing at an average rate of 0.9%, adding 2.6 million people each year.) I don't see much change coming anytime soon.
Faith, 2000%, 2025% est.
Christians 84.9%, 83.3%
Nonreligious 8.7%, 10.0%
Jews 1.9%, 1.8%
Muslims 1.4%, 1.7%
Buddhists 0.8%, 0.9%
Atheists 0.5%, 0.5%
Hindus 0.4%, 0.5%
Trends in North America are listed here: http://www.gem-werc.org/mmrc/mmrc9805.htm
Roman Catholics are growing both through births and conversions, thus increasing their share of the population.
In Christ,
Bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 25, 2003.
Bill," Early bethrothal in those days may be different from pedophillia....."
Bill, for a older man to have sexual relations with a nine year old girl is very sad, and perverted.
Its not different. Its NOT like a nine year old is going to be built like a woman. This is a girl that is in the third or fourth grade for goodness sake.
If a old man has sex with a 9 year old this is a child molestor no matter how you try and word it.
-- - (David@excite.com), December 26, 2003.
Bill, for a older man to have sexual relations with a nine year old girl is very sad, and perverted.Its not different. Its NOT like a nine year old is going to be built like a woman. This is a girl that is in the third or fourth grade for goodness sake.
If a old man has sex with a 9 year old this is a child molestor no matter how you try and word it.
Again, Jews at the time were doing the same thing. So were other Arabs. This was not that unusual for those days, especially among chiefs who married daughters of other chiefs to keep the peace amongst tribes. Yes, we were not approve of it today, but to say Muhammad was somehow a more deviant man of his time would be incorrect. However, he was not godlike. He definately strikes a much smaller figure than Christ did, who should be our model of how to behave as a man, not Muhammad.
In Christ,
Bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 26, 2003.
Bill,There are plenty of people having abortions , but this doesn't make it right does it?
Its' a unnatural and perverted for a old man to have sex with a eight year old girl.
Any man that looks at a 2nd or 3rd grade girl and is attracted to this is a pervert. It doesn't matter what year we are in!
Did you ever find yourself attracted to a 8 year old little girl, Bill? Its SICK!
-- - (David@excite.com), December 26, 2003.
Hi, BillWhen speaking of Muhammad having sexual relations with his 8 or 9 year old wife you said,
"This was not that unusual for those days."
Than why did Muhammad marry a wealthy 40 year old when he was 25? How does a normal man go from being attracted to a 40 year old, than go from (baby) raping a 8 or 9 year old child?
Bill, I'm sure you agree there is a BIG difference here in a 8 years old baby, and a 40 year old Lady? Do you agree?
"..Especially among chiefs who married daughters of other chiefs to keep peace..."
Bill, again, we are not talking about wives who where kept safe until they matured. We are talking of having sex with 2nd or 3rd graders here?
How can Muhammad go from his 40(something) year old wife to having sex with a 8 or 9 year old? Am I suppose to believe this was for "to keep peace" like you said?
Maybe its time for you to wake up and smell the coffee Bill?
Couldn't the BIG M. have had sex with who ever(adult) he wanted......?
It's not like he didn't have(many) other wives(that where matured) to have sexual relations with.
It is a sick, perverted [I won't say man] person to abuse a young lady that is sooooooooooo young.
May God bless our children.
-- - (David@excite.com), December 28, 2003.
"...She was still playing with her dolls...... [When Muhammad took her to bed according to what Bill posted above]Isn't this abnormal Bill? Are normal men attracted to girls that are still playing with(her) dolls?
Sounds like a Mike J. except its young girls(instead of boys) here? Did he have milk and cookies too?
-- - (David@excite.com), December 28, 2003.
David, Are you becoming fixated on this?Muhammad followed an Arab custom in marrying a child who had her first menstrual cycle. If I am not mistaken it is still the Muslem custom that female puberty begins when the menses is started. See: Bukhari, volume 3, Book of Witnesses, chapter 18, page 513.
Yes, it is injurious to the child. I agree with you, is a very bad custom.
In Christ, Bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 28, 2003.
I am disgusted by the comments and reactions of the 'Catholics' on this site towards a follower of Islam and towards men and women of their own faith. Catholocism teaches tolerance and compasssion and the Vatican is encouraging more Catholic-Muslim dialogue.Instead of trying to incite hatred and intolerance why not create interfaith dialogue????????
-- Anne (razberrycordial@yahoo.com), December 29, 2003.
Q:and the Vatican is encouraging more Catholic-Muslim dialogue.A: True, the Vatican is trying to find a way to peacefully co-exist (not merge our faiths... there is only one true Church and that is the Catholic Chruch. Muhammad, whether you like him or not, was in error.)
Q: Instead of trying to incite hatred and intolerance why not create interfaith dialogue????????
Yes! Even if we know we hold the Truth, we should not encite hatred. Not sure what you mean by intolerance.. personally, I avoid the word.
In Christ,
Bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 29, 2003.
Openness to dialoguue with manmade religions who hold false beliefs may bear some good fruit, and it already exists in many formats. However, tolerance of untruth is certainly NOT something Jesus preached, nor is it something that can be found in the Bible. There is ONE truth which sets men free, and anything else is untruth. Openness to dialoge is fine, but it doesn't negate the false beliefs of those you are dialoguing with. the Catholic Church can never enter into dialogue with other churches "as equals", for that in itself would be false. The One True Church founded by Jesus Christ for all men has no equal.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 29, 2003.
Good post as usual, Paul. I would like to add that even though there is a lot of good in Islam (most copied from Jewish and Christian tradition), much in Islamic morality is, well, very inferior to Christian morality in a number of ways. Embracing or even tolerating such sinful morality would be tolerating many sins. That is what we were talking about here.For more information on Islam, the old Catholic encyclopedia does have a pretty good article. Morality is mentioned towards the end:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10424a.htmHow Muslems treat Christians can be found here:
http://213.92.16.98/ESW_articolo/0,2393,41931,00.htmlFrom Civilta Cattolica a magazine edited by Italian members of the Jesuit order. Founded in 1849, the magazine carries a uniquely authoritative status because-- although it is not an official organ of the Vatican-- all of the articles published in the magazine are approved in advance by the Vatican Secretariat of State (responsible for external and internal affairs of state at the Vatican, like a Prime Minister).
In Christ,
Bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 29, 2003.
When I spoke of tolerance towards others of different religions I do not mean to tolerate what you may consider an untruth (their religion) I think that most followers of a religion want others to see their point of view and what they consider the 'truth' It is our duty as followers of God to spread His message and help others see the truth for themselves.We should not be intolerant toward them and their beliefs. This will not help anyone see the truth it will only push them away from your religion and subsequently from God. We should tolerate everyone- their good qualities and their faults. We should discuss our similarities and our differences (politely and with respect). We should never demean the beliefs of another for this is insulting them personally. Pointing out the beauty and truth of a religion is the only way to help someone see the truth. Bashing their religion or holy book will not do any good.
I am a teacher who deals with interfaith dialogue between Muslims and Christians. I have a lot of experience discussing the two faiths and I know that I would do no good if I belittled anyones religous beliefs.
Anne
-- Anne (razberrycordial@yahoo.com), December 30, 2003.
Annne said:When I spoke of tolerance towards others of different religions I do not mean to tolerate what you may consider an untruth (their religion) I think that most followers of a religion want others to see their point of view and what they consider the 'truth' It is our duty as followers of God to spread His message and help others see the truth for themselves.
This is a confusing paragraph to me. I can read into it that you are saying there can be more than one truth, and it depends on how you look at things, that different religions have different views of the truth and that is OK. Well according to Christ, it isn’t. He said He was the Truth and the Life and *no one* goes to the father except through him. That all salvation is through the Catholic Church is Catholic dogma.
We should not be intolerant toward them and their beliefs. This will not help anyone see the truth it will only push them away from your religion and subsequently from God. We should tolerate everyone- their good qualities and their faults. We should discuss our similarities and our differences (politely and with respect). We should never demean the beliefs of another for this is insulting them personally. Pointing out the beauty and truth of a religion is the only way to help someone see the truth. Bashing their religion or holy book will not do any good.
Where there is common ground, I will be very supportive. Where they are in error, if that area is bring brought forward in discussion, I will point out. To allow any moral error to go unchallenged is to condone it. Look at what ‘tolerance’ in moral areas has done to Western society. We are asked by Christ to witness, sometimes you get bashed for witnessing to the Truth, especially in moral areas.
I am a teacher who deals with interfaith dialogue between Muslims and Christians. I have a lot of experience discussing the two faiths and I know that I would do no good if I belittled anyone’s religious beliefs.
Again you use words that lead one to say that immoral beliefs are OK. If that is what you are saying, you are in error here. I guess it depends on what your goals are. If your goal is to encourage Muslims to be Muslims that is a different goal than to preach the truth. I am against belittling anyone, personally. People should not be placed into a position of loosing face, if possible. As far as stating that a belief is wrong, that is your Christian duty: it is called witnessing. How you go about doing it will depend on your personality I suppose. St. Paul preached very differently from St. James.
In Christ,
Bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 30, 2003.
Anne,
I saw this and thought of your last answer. Maybe it is an 'American' thing to want everyone to 'just get along'...The National Creed
By DAVID BROOKS, NY Times
Published: December 30, 2003
George W. Bush was born into an Episcopal family and raised as a Presbyterian, but he is now a Methodist. Howard Dean was baptized Catholic, and raised as an Episcopalian. He left the church after it opposed a bike trail he was championing, and now he is a Congregationalist, though his kids consider themselves Jewish.
Wesley Clark's father was Jewish. As a boy he was Methodist, then decided to become a Baptist. In adulthood he converted to Catholicism, but he recently told Beliefnet.com, "I'm a Catholic, but I go to a Presbyterian church."
What other country on earth would have three national political figures with such peripatetic religious backgrounds? In most of the world, faith-hopping of this sort is simply unheard of. Yet in the United States, we simply take it for granted that people will move through different phases in the course of their personal spiritual journeys, and we always have.
Nearly 200 years ago, Alexis de Tocqueville was bewildered by the mixture of devout religiosity he found in the U.S. combined with the relative absence of denominational strife, at least among Protestants. Americans, he observed, don't seem to care that their neighbors hold to false versions of the faith.
That's because many Americans have tended to assume that all these differences are temporary. In the final days, the distinctions will fade away, and we will all be united in God's embrace. This happy assumption has meant that millions feel free to try on different denominations at different points in their lives, and many Americans have had trouble taking religious doctrines altogether seriously. As the historian Henry Steele Commager once wrote, "During the nineteenth century and well into the twentieth, religion prospered while theology slowly went bankrupt."
This tendency to emphasize personal growth over any fixed creed has shaped our cultural and political life. First, it's meant that Americans are reasonably tolerant, generally believing that all people of good will are basically on the same side. In London recently, President Bush said that Christians and Muslims both pray to the same God. That was theologically controversial, but it was faithful to the national creed.
Second, it has meant that we relax severity. American faiths, as many scholars note, have tended to be optimistic and easygoing, experiential rather than intellectual.
Churches compete for congregants. To fill the pews, they often emphasize the upbeat and the encouraging and play down the business about God's wrath. In today's megachurches, the technology is cutting-edge, the music is modern, the language is therapeutic, and the dress is casual. These churches are seeker-sensitive, not authoritarian.
The small groups movement, from which President Bush emerges, emphasizes intimate companionship and encouragement. Members of these groups study the Bible in search of guidance and help with personal challenges. They do not preach at one another, but partner with each other.
The third effect of our dominant religious style is that we have trouble sustaining culture wars. For some European intellectuals, and even some of our own commentators, the Scopes trial never ended. For them, the forces of enlightened progress are always battling against the rigid, Bible-thumping forces of religion, whether represented by William Jennings Bryan or Jerry Falwell.
But that's a cartoon version of reality. In fact, real-life belief, especially these days, is mobile, elusive and flexible. Falwell doesn't represent evangelicals today. The old culture war organizations like the Moral Majority or the Christian Coalition are either dead or husks of their former selves.
As the sociologist Alan Wolfe demonstrates in his book, "The Transformation of American Religion," evangelical churches are part of mainstream American culture, not dissenters from it.
So we have this paradox. These days political parties grow more orthodox, while religions grow more fluid. In the political sphere, there is conflict and rigid partisanship. In the religious sphere, there is mobility, ecumenical understanding and blurry boundaries.
If George Bush and Howard Dean met each other on a political platform, they would fight and feud. If they met in a Bible study group and talked about their eternal souls, they'd probably embrace.
I'm not sure this is necessarily a good thing for spreading Christ's word. I keep going back to what happened with the Unitarians. I guess that is the ultimate 'American' church...a church with no real beliefs.
In Christ,
Bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 30, 2003.
This is a confusing paragraph to me. I can read into it that you are saying there can be more than one truth, and it depends on how you look at things, that different religions have different views of the truth and that is OK. Well according to Christ, it isn’t. He said He was the Truth and the Life and *no one* goes to the father except through him. That all salvation is through the Catholic Church is Catholic dogma.TO CLARIFY:I am nost saying that there are various Truths or various ways to get to heaven. I am saying that there are many religions out there and we should respect the adherents to those religion and recognize that their ultimate goal is to reach God. Those men and women who believe in their religion, be they Muslim, Catholic or Protestant, want others to see that they have found the truth (or what they think is the truth) We should not slam them for their convictions but be tolerant of their ignorance while we teach them what the Truth is. I do not believe there are many paths (religions) to God but there are many ways to get to the right Path. Some people are born in the correct religion while it may take others 50 years to recognize it.
Where there is common ground, I will be very supportive. Where they are in error, if that area is bring brought forward in discussion, I will point out. To allow any moral error to go unchallenged is to condone it. Look at what ‘tolerance’ in moral areas has done to Western society. We are asked by Christ to witness, sometimes you get bashed for witnessing to the Truth, especially in moral areas.
TO CLARIFY: I think we agree here Bill. We should have discussions but we shouldn't ignore our differences. These should definately be mentioned and discussed with respect and politely. I think this is what went wrong on this forum. The Muslim woman was attacked for her differences in belief. Not by all but by a few. Ther result? She left the group. She felt violated and disrespected. That is no way to help someone understand Catholicism! Yes, tolerance has led to the moral decline of society. But I am more for tolerating the person NOT the false religion, homosexuality etc.
Again you use words that lead one to say that immoral beliefs are OK. If that is what you are saying, you are in error here. I guess it depends on what your goals are. If your goal is to encourage Muslims to be Muslims that is a different goal than to preach the truth. I am against belittling anyone, personally. People should not be placed into a position of loosing face, if possible. As far as stating that a belief is wrong, that is your Christian duty: it is called witnessing. How you go about doing it will depend on your personality I suppose. St. Paul preached very differently from St. James.
TO CALRIFY: I so not believe I used words to say immoral beliefs are OK. I, as a teacher, discuss the different religions- what they teach. I mention the Truth throughout my class but I will never make someone feel bad or insulted. That is not my intention. I am there to unite two groups of people so that we can learn about the world around us and with the help of God we can learn about the Truth.
Sorry again for my quick message. My little guy was hanging all over me and trying to play with the keyboard! Now he's taking a nap :-)
Anne
-- Anne (razberrycordial@yahoo.com), December 30, 2003.
Anne said: TO CLARIFY:I am nost saying that there are various Truths or various ways to get to heaven. I am saying that there are many religions out there and we should respect the adherents to those religion and recognize that their ultimate goal is to reach God. Those men and women who believe in their religion, be they Muslim, Catholic or Protestant, want others to see that they have found the truth (or what they think is the truth) We should not slam them for their convictions but be tolerant of their ignorance while we teach them what the Truth is. I do not believe there are many paths (religions) to God but there are many ways to get to the right Path. Some people are born in the correct religion while it may take others 50 years to recognize it.cool! No problem with me on that.
TO CLARIFY: I think we agree here Bill. We should have discussions but we shouldn't ignore our differences. These should definately be mentioned and discussed with respect and politely. I think this is what went wrong on this forum. The Muslim woman was attacked for her differences in belief. Not by all but by a few. Ther result? She left the group. She felt violated and disrespected. That is no way to help someone understand Catholicism! Yes, tolerance has led to the moral decline of society. But I am more for tolerating the person NOT the false religion, homosexuality etc.
I think there was some attacking going on from both sides.
TO CALRIFY: I so not believe I used words to say immoral beliefs are OK. I, as a teacher, discuss the different religions- what they teach. I mention the Truth throughout my class but I will never make someone feel bad or insulted. That is not my intention. I am there to unite two groups of people so that we can learn about the world around us and with the help of God we can learn about the Truth.
OK, but realize our goal as Christians is to teach the Good News of Jesus Christ, not to unite people. In fact, Christ warned us we would probably not unite people. The Unitarian’s goal may be to unite people, but they really do not do a good job of teaching a morality. With such a goal, morality tends to get dissolved and the ethical code turns into the sole law of ‘toleration’.
Sorry again for my quick message. My little guy was hanging all over me and trying to play with the keyboard! Now he's taking a nap :-)
No problem! Thanks for the reply.
In Christ
Bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@Hotmail.com), December 30, 2003.
The Muslim woman was attacked for her differences in belief. Not by all but by a few. The result? She left the group. She felt violated and disrespected.She ("Um Danyaal") was not attacked. Rather, some things she did and said were attacked. She didn't feel "violated." She felt defeated. She realized that she couldn't get any converts here. She probably was beginning to feel guilty about leaving Catholicism too. She knew that she had "caused offense." Look at the spirit in which she first announced her departure: I'm going to choose my words carefully so as not to cause gratuitous offence, and then I will bid you farewell! (*smile*)
Examples of things she did and said that were attacked =====>
----- Leaving Catholicism and now trying to convert us. (I converted to Islam eight years ago from Catholicism. This was followed by many quotations from the Koran, statements that Jesus is not divine, etc.. A "cradle Moslem" would have been given much more leeway, being wrong through less fault of her own than someone who abandoned the Pearl of Great Price for a relative dungheap.)
----- Lying about the equality of the role of Jesus in her life before and after conversion. (I can assure you that by becoming Muslim, one does not leave Jesus. She no longer receives Holy Communion! She no longer believes that Jesus is God!)
----- Insulting Catholics and Jesus by using improper language at a Catholic forum, even after being asked not to do so. ("Don't insult us and Jesus by wishing that 'peace be upon him.' He is the Prince of Peace." GF Antonio. I would hate to knowingly insult Jesus (peace be upon him) just as I would hate to be thrown into a blazing fire. Notice the intentional repetition of the offensive phrase in direct reply.)
----- Insulting Catholicism by insulting the Bible and the Apostles at a Catholic forum. (The New Testament ... contains contradictions. If a text contains errors it cannot be the word of God. ... it was the men who attributed divinity to Jesus who were the liars.)
-- GFA (GFA@asdf.com), December 30, 2003.
TO CLARIFY:When a old man has sexual relations with a eight year old little child, this is EVIL!
Miss Teacher would you want the big M. taking your eight year old daughter doll[s] out of her hand before he had sex with her?
Wasn't it suppose to be 40 virgins waiting for the Muslims that crashed into the W.T.C.?
Muslims should wake up and smell the coffee before its' to late. Don't be scared of your faith. Speak the truth!
Its obvious you must not be teaching correct Miss Teacher, or the Muslims wouldn't be running out of your classroom.
May St. Alodia pray for the sexually abused children in the world. St. Alodia feast day is celebrated on 10/22 in the holy Catholic Church. She is one of the patron saints for child abuse victims.
-- - (David@excite.com), December 30, 2003.
David-First of all you do insult people Muslim and Catholic. Usingig 'Miss Teacher' in condescending and your remarks about my teaching are unfounded. Have you been in my class?
Do you feel threatened by ANYONE who had a different point of view?
Perhaps you should remember how compassionate Jesus was and follow his example!
Anne
-- Anne (razberrycordial@yahoo.com), December 30, 2003.
I agree with Anne. We have to, as Christians, always endeavor to treat everyone with gentleness and respect. That is the highest road. Remember the only people Christ scathed were the Pharisees, the religious leaders who had no "heart" and the moneychangers in the temple, sacriliging the Holy Place.Gail
P.S. But we can't compromise the truth either. So we walk a fine line, but walk it we must, (even with fundie crackpots), which truly is my Achilles Heel, and I confess I don't always take the high road!
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 30, 2003.
I have to agree with Gail and Anne. I've been dropping in on this thread from time to time since its inception. We can disagree with people with different religious orientations, we can deliniate areas we find to be doctrinely in error, but there must be a way to do it that is not so harsh and insulting. Referring to the center of ones religious beliefs, the one they genuinely put their faith and trust in (even if misguided) as a liar, "Big Mo" etc. does nothing to further ones argument. It drives that person away leaving us to preach to ourselves. Um seemed like a nice lady. Her use of the phrase "Peace be upon him" was a "religious colloquialism," not a blatent insult. Its not like she referred to Jesus as The Big G-man. I don't think we could have converted her but how does her absence make our lives any better. Really, I know it was probably unintentional, but it truley seemed like "piling on." She left because she felt unwelcome and that is not what Catholicism is about. Even if she was "defeated," who really won? P.S. I'm probably not that good of a Catholic, (trying) but I hope thats not why I'm feeling this way about Um's leaving.
-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), December 30, 2003.
Hi Anne,"I am a teacher who deals with interfaith dialogue between Muslims and Christians.."
Yes, but you don't know the basics about Catholicism. Are you Catholic Miss Teacher?
"I have a lot of experience discussing the two faiths.."
If you have " a lot of experience discussing the two faiths" than why did you start a thread asking where you can find the basics?
How come you don't know the basics about Catholicism?
What kind of experience do you have Miss Teacher?
-- - (David@excite.com), December 31, 2003.
I agree, Jim. Let's try not to be insulting.In Christ, Bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 31, 2003.
Jim -- Her use of the phrase "Peace be upon him" was a "religious colloquialism," not a blatent insult.You must not have read carefully. Everyone knows that Moslems have a custom, when they speak or write, of inserting "(peace be upon him)" or "(p.b.u.h.)" after the names of people they consider prophets, such as Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed.
Everyone knew that the fallen-away Catholic woman meant no "blatant insult" at first. However, she was reminded that this is a Catholic forum and that we consider Jesus the Son of God and Prince of Peace -- not a mere prophet. Consequently, she was told, it is wrong to wish that "peace be upon" the very source of peace. Even after being told this, she immediately, intentionally, and blatantly insulted Catholics by repeatedly using that phrase.
What she did was as insulting as if she were to say that someone needs to die for Jesus's salvation. No. He is the Savior, and he is the source of Peace. No one can save him, and no one can put "peace upon him."
-- GFA (GFA@asdf.com), December 31, 2003.
Hi GFA,Point taken, you may be right,...but I still think we have to be more careful about the feelings of visitors, (not to mention regulars)
Happy New Year!
-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), January 01, 2004.
For those interested in Islamic / Catholic relations, this article may be of interest:Belloc On Islam
by: Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.In Christ,
Bill Nelson
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 01, 2004.
G.K. Chesterton writes in " The New Jerusalem":'There is a strong bias against the Christians and in favour of the Moslems and the Jews in most of the Victorian historical works, especially historical novels.
And most people of modern, or rather of very recent times got all of their notions of history from dipping into historical novels.
In those romances the Jew is always the oppressed where in reality he was often the oppressor. In those romances the Arab is always credited with oriental dignity and courtesy and never with oriental crookedness and cruelty.
The same injustice is introduced into history, which by means of selection and omission can be made as fictitious as any fiction.
Twenty historians mention the way in which the maddened Christian mob murdered the Moslems after the capture of Jerusalem, for one who mentions that the Moslem commander commanded in cold blood the murder of some two hundred of his most famous and valiant enemies after the victory of Hattin.
The former cannot be shown to have been the act of Tancred, while the latter was quite certainly the act of Saladin.
Yet Tancred is described as at best a doubtful character, while Saladin is represented as a Bayard without fear or blame.
Both of them doubtless were ordianry faulty fighting men, but they are not judged by an equal balance. It may seem a paradox that there should be this prejudice in Western history in favour of Eastern heroes.
The cause is clear enough; it is the remains of the revolt among many Europeans against their old religious organisation, which naturally made them hunt through all ages for its crimes and its victims.
It was natural that Voltaire should sympathise more with a Brahmin he had never seen than with a Jesuit with whom he was engaged in a violent controversy; and should simialrly feel more dislike of a Catholic who was his enemy than of a Moslem who was the enemy of his enemy.
In this atmosphere of natural and even pardonable prejudice arose the habit of contrasting the intolerance of the Crusaders with the toleration shown by the Moslems... As the modern world does not know what is means itself by religious liberty and equality, as the moderns have not thought out any logical theory of toleration at all( for their vague generalisations can always be upset by twenty tests from Thugs to Christian Science) it would obviously be unreasonable to expect the moderns to understand the much clearer philosophy of the Moslems.'
Article from ANNALS AUSTRALASIA pg35, July 2002 . Editor Father Paul Stenhouse 1 Roma Avenue, Kensington NSW 2033 Sydney, AUSTRALIA
-- Administrator (storagedepot@hotmail.com), January 05, 2004.
http://members.lycos.co.uk/jloughnan/3f_islam.htm
-- Administrator (storagedepot@hotmail.com), January 05, 2004.
I am very much in agreement with Anne here. We all answer to God and God ony, who will judge us and deem us either worthy or unworthy to enter the kingdom of Heaven. We are not worthy to judge others who are of different faiths, just as they are not worthy to judge us. We should concentrate our efforts into our own souls, and leave others to find their own path. After all, won't they take the path that God chooses for them?
-- Penelope Homer (ladypenelope13@lycos.co.uk), January 17, 2005.
Of course it is not our place to judge others. However, God did choose a path for all men when He founded His Church on earth and said that all men were to be members of it. That's an objective fact, not a subjective judgment. He does not call men to come to Him via any other path. Still, the salvation of those who try to find Him by following other paths due to ignorance of the true path is a matter for His judgment, not ours.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 17, 2005.