Guest Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) I'm reading the book of Exodus right now. Sounds like the God Christians worship. Idolaters were killed in Israel, and God led the Hebrews to the promised land promising to exterminate their enemies. That's not all there is to Judaism, but it's part of the narrative. If Jesus wouldn't have came and cleared things up I would have nothing to do with it. I'm well aware of the Old Testament issues.It's crippled my faith a few times. Thank God for Jesus and Him setting things straight. Edited January 12, 2015 by Guest
Guest Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) I'm reading the book of Exodus right now. Sounds like the God Christians worship. Idolaters were killed in Israel, and God led the Hebrews to the promised land promising to exterminate their enemies. That's not all there is to Judaism, but it's part of the narrative. Who knows maybe Islam is TRUE! That would be crazy. Edited January 12, 2015 by Guest
Era Might Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 If Jesus wouldn't have came and cleared things up I would have nothing to do with it. I'm well aware of the Old Testament issues.It's crippled my faith a few times. Thank God for Jesus and Him setting things straight. But Jesus wasn't here to build a "Jesus society." As soon as Christians set about to build a Christian society, they went to war, killed heretics, etc. That's how human society was. Christians simply had the advantage of inheriting the Roman empire, so a lot of their killing and conquest was done for them, at least initially. Later they started killing each other, when they weren't uniting to kill the infidel. Muslims set out from the Arabian peninsula and had to create their own empire, as the Greeks and Romans had done before them, and the Christians would do after them. My point is just that, yes, religion has always been a bloody affair because it wasn't a private thing, like it is today, it was connected with human society. The average Christian peasant was just along for the ride, they weren't out there making conquest, burning heretics, etc. (although they could be very violent, e.g., killing Jews). It's the same with Muslims and Islam. Muslims wake up every day, feed their kids, pray, give alms...all the same things Christians do. There is more to religion than just the killing and converting, things that don't really occupy the daily lives of ordinary Jews, Christians, or Muslims. Those are things that priests and kings worry about, because they have nothing better to do.
Guest Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) What I was saying is Jesus was peaceful. He saved the woman caught in adultery. He said to turn the other cheek. That kinda stuff. He didn't come advocating the violence of the Old Testament. Edited January 12, 2015 by Guest
Not A Real Name Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 Josh, also be careful to not be a Catholic who dismisses clear church teaching because you don't think it's infallible. That happened before. It's called Protestantism. While a Catholic must believe and adhere to infallible doctrines of the Faith, a Catholic is not obligated to believe things which are not infallible. To determine whether or not Phuture is doing some wrong we would need to find out whether or not what was listed is considered infallible doctrine or if it just a respected onion of the Church regarding Islam.
Guest Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 So do people in this thread think God is working through Islam? Could someone like Bin Laden been inspired by God? Is this what some of you believe?
Amppax Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 The Church doesn't call us to hold that teaching, however. If you look, it says Muslims profess to worship the same God of Abraham, not that they do. It's clear if you actually read the Qur'an and Islamic history that they most certainly do not worship the same God as us. However, I still hold that the wording should be edited. These aren't the opinions of an 18 year old on the internet, they are the opinions of people like Bishop Schneider, who gives very thoughtful reasons as to why it should be edited and revised. That's fine. I wasn't so much challenging that, but the oft held notion that dissent from Vatican II is perfectly okay because this or that wasn't infallibly defined. The position misunderstands the Church's Magisterium, and our duty of obedience.
Nihil Obstat Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 To determine whether or not Phuture is doing some wrong we would need to find out whether or not what was listed is considered infallible doctrine or if it just a respected onion of the Church regarding Islam. What about for people who do not respect any onions though? I mean, personally, I am not the biggest fan of onions, but some recipes just do need a couple. But I know some people do not want any onions in any recipes. We need to respect their rights too.
Not A Real Name Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 What about for people who do not respect any onions though? I mean, personally, I am not the biggest fan of onions, but some recipes just do need a couple. But I know some people do not want any onions in any recipes. We need to respect their rights too. LOL. :hehe2: I swore I wrote 'opinion'. Sometimes I think this layout changes the words I type.
Amppax Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 While a Catholic must believe and adhere to infallible doctrines of the Faith, a Catholic is not obligated to believe things which are not infallible. To determine whether or not Phuture is doing some wrong we would need to find out whether or not what was listed is considered infallible doctrine or if it just a respected onion of the Church regarding Islam. Again, no. FP is making, or at least it seems like he's making, the same mistake. We owe the obedience of faith to ALL teachings of the Church's ordinary magisterium. Not all at the same level of assent, but we are called to assent. Please read the CDF commentary on the profession of faith, written by Card. Ratzinger. See specifically paragraph 10.
PhuturePriest Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 Again, no. FP is making, or at least it seems like he's making, the same mistake. We owe the obedience of faith to ALL teachings of the Church's ordinary magisterium. Not all at the same level of assent, but we are called to assent. Please read the CDF commentary on the profession of faith, written by Card. Ratzinger. See specifically paragraph 10. And I agree this wholeheartedly. But again, the Pope and the Bishops have no ability to infallibly declare something about other religions, only the Catholic Church. Unless the teaching is "Hinduism is wrong", there is no guarantee that the statement is objectively true, even if it is in a Council.
Amppax Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) On the whole question of worshipping the same God as Islam, I have an interesting paper on it somewhere, I'll have to dig it up. A professor wrote it and gave us a copy this summer, but I haven't looked at it yet. I'll try to find it, because I do think the question "Do we worship the same God?" is worth asking. In the meantime, here's an interesting response from a Muslim to the attack in Paris. Edited January 12, 2015 by Amppax
PhuturePriest Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 On the whole question of worshipping the same God as Islam, I have an interesting paper on it somewhere, I'll have to dig it up. A professor wrote it and gave us a copy this summer, but I haven't looked at it yet. I'd be interested in it, if you ever find it.
Amppax Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 I'd be interested in it, if you ever find it. Yeah, wish me luck, I know I still have it, it's a question of sorting through all my papers. I've moved since then too.
Amppax Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 And I agree this wholeheartedly. But again, the Pope and the Bishops have no ability to infallibly declare something about other religions, only the Catholic Church. Unless the teaching is "Hinduism is wrong", there is no guarantee that the statement is objectively true, even if it is in a Council. Okay... but you're missing the point when you keep talking about "infallible definitions." I'm not sure if your correct in your assertion about the Pope/Magisterium's teaching power here, I'll have to think about it. You may be right.
Nihil Obstat Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) All things being equal we should assent to any magisterial teaching. But when it is not infallible, and more especially when its authoritative nature is relatively low, we could offer reasonable and measured critique of a teaching if there are decent reasons for doing so. Just as it is not a binary infallible/not infallible, it is also not simply assent required/no assent required. Edited January 12, 2015 by Nihil Obstat
beatitude Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) If Jesus wouldn't have came and cleared things up I would have nothing to do with it. I'm well aware of the Old Testament issues.It's crippled my faith a few times. Thank God for Jesus and Him setting things straight. Jesus read and taught from the Old Testament - He didn't arrive and chuck it out of the window. It's still a sacred book. But as Catholics we don't think that sacred texts are enough on their own. We know that we need tools to interpret them. This is why Scripture and Tradition are so closely tied together in Catholic thought. Many Protestants believe that it's possible just to have the Bible on its own, but as Catholics we know that we need a framework for interpreting the Bible. This is why we don't keep every single one of the Levitical laws or sacrifice bulls or whatever - we interpret those texts differently. But the texts still matter and they still have something important to say to us. Muslims don't have a central Magisterium for the interpretation of the Qu'ran. They are quite similar to Protestants in this respect; they have lots of different groups, each one with its own customs and ideas. Some Muslims do believe that the Qu'ran mandates them to kill other people. Many other Muslims don't. My Muslim colleagues, most of them aid workers, are inspired to work for peace because of their scripture. I can't turn around and tell them, "Well, your interpretation of your own religion is all wrong and ISIS has the right version of Islam!" - if I did that then how am I any better than those Dawkins-style atheists who cherry-pick parts of the Bible and go, "Look at what your Christianity REALLY teaches - this peace and love stuff you believe in isn't the real thing at all!". Obviously I don't think my colleagues have the right ideas about Jesus and the Trinity but I can see that they are striving to lead good lives, guided by their texts and their traditions (five prayers every day, etc.), and I think it's wrong to label their spiritual inspiration as 'evil' just because of the actions of some completely different people somewhere else. I have a friend whose evangelical Christian parents believe that Catholicism is evil because of the sex abuse scandals. They've told her not to trust me, because Catholics are taught that it's OK to lie to non-Catholics in order to convert them. (I thought this myth died a death in the 1800s, but it seems not!) They insist that they love me as a person, it's just my religion that's evil. But that religion happens to be the most important thing in my life, so when they say things like that it does feel like an attack on me, my character and my values - they're making it sound as though any goodness I have is just by accident and it's sheer luck that I'm not an evil child abuser too. That's not a fair way to view people and so if you go around saying "I love Muslims, but I hate their God - their God is Satan" then you are going to cause a lot of hurt unnecessarily and unfairly. Edited January 12, 2015 by beatitude
Amppax Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 All things being equal we should assent to any magisterial teaching. But when it is not infallible, and more especially when its authoritative nature is relatively low, we could offer reasonable and measured critique of a teaching if there are decent reasons for doing so. Just as it is not a binary infallible/not infallible, it is also not simply assent required/no assent required. I would agree with this for the most part. :cool: Where's Aloysius' smoking one when you need it? :cry:
Nihil Obstat Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 I would agree with this for the most part. :cool: Where's Aloysius' smoking one when you need it? :cry: Onto its third round of chemo last I heard.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now