RE: Catholic Documents Examined (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> The Church



Message

marcposs -> RE: Catholic Documents Examined (7/8/2006 4:49:05 PM)

In Athens they had more Gods than people.

There was really no real belief. The stoics I believe would sit around all day and discuss and want to know about different Gods.

On Mars Hill Paul preached about the "unknown God". He wanted to tell them about the "unknown God" the Gospel.

Marc

quote:

ORIGINAL: ukfan

quote:

ORIGINAL: figmentPez
Paul came to them to explain a God they did not know. As I understand it, in the polytheistic atmosphere of Athens the people wanted to worship the most powerful god because they were afraid that a more powerful god who was unworshipped would punish them. That's why there was a statue "to an unknown god", to cover their bases so to speak. Paul proclaimed to them that more powerful god they didn't know, he proclaimed to them the true God that they had been missing all along.

How someone can relate that to telling Muslims that they already know God is beyond my understanding. Paul told them "you don't know God, but I am here to tell you about Him, since you know a greater god than what you've been worshipping exists".

Ah, but that is not what Paul said,
" For as I went around and observed closely your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: 'To an unknown god.' Therefore what you worship without knowing it, this I proclaim to you."
Paul did not say a greater god exists that they could worship, he said they were worshipping God, just that they didn't know it and that he was there to tell them more fully about Him.

quote:

We Christians know the Son, and the Son has revealed the Father to us. Muslims reject the Son, and therefore do not know the Father. How well we know God is irrelevant, Muslims do not know God at all.

Athenians did not know the Son yet Paul claimed they worshipped God. How do you reckon your belief with the missionary work of Paul in Areopagus?



ukfan -> RE: Catholic Documents Examined (7/8/2006 4:53:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcposs

In Athens they had more Gods than people.

There was really no real belief.


This is not biblically supported. Paul specifically said there was worship of God,
"...Therefore what you worship without knowing it, this I proclaim to you."

*edit to fix confusing grammer



lw9 -> RE: Catholic Documents Examined (7/8/2006 7:32:11 PM)

ukfan:

quote:

lw9: God is not going to reveal a half truth or a false god or a false religion to anyone.


quote:

ukfan: I've always wanted to say this...where is that in the bible?


1 Jn 5:6 This is the one who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

Jn 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

1 Jn 4:6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

quote:

In Acts in the example I've already given, Paul used an incomplete view of God to reach the Athenians. How do you respond to this verse?


The altar was to an UNKNOWN god... meaning they had no knowledge or even a name for this god. Paul filled in their lack of knowledge with the truth. He wasn't commending them on their the worship of a known pagan god or pointing to the 'truth' in a pagan god or attempting to combine a pagan god into the true God.

quote:

We, as simple humans, can still not fully grasp our triune God, 2000 years after Christ's resurrection, and the relationship between the persons, hence we do not know the fullness of our God. Do we worship a false God?


I don't see your logic here. If a person has faith in Jesus Christ, the true God, they have the truth and are saved. Muslims reject Jesus Christ, which makes them not only followers of a false god, but according to the Bible they are anti-Christs.

1 Jn 2:22 Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist--he denies the Father and the Son.

quote:

lw9: Because there is only one truth, God is not 'found' in false religion, yet the RCC clearly proclaims the god of Islam TO BE the God of the Holy Bible [false god = true God].

quote:

ukfan: Paul did not agree with your assesment in Acts. How do you rectify that portion of scripture with your belief?


I completely disagree with your interpretation of Acts. It's very clear that Paul was not proclaiming a pagan god to be God. Instead, he explained the God of the Holy Bible to them because they did not know Him. Very simple stuff. See explanation above.

Since God reveals only the truth, He will not be found in the false. He is not Buddha, Allah, or Vishnu, and neither has He revealed Himself through those gods to any group. He has revealed Himself in full through scripture. What you and the RCC are calling 'limited truth' is actually false revelation, and false revelation is not the work of God.

God bless.



ukfan -> RE: Catholic Documents Examined (7/8/2006 7:57:55 PM)

quote:

lw9: God is not going to reveal a half truth or a false god or a false religion to anyone.


Unfortunately the verses you've quoted do not back up this claim. Paul used a deficient view, a half truth, of God to spread the Gospel. Quoting verses that claim the truth of Christ's devinity do not negate this.

quote:


The altar was to an UNKNOWN god... meaning they had no knowledge or even a name for this god. Paul filled in their lack of knowledge with the truth. He wasn't commending them on their the worship of a known pagan god or pointing to the 'truth' in a pagan god or attempting to combine a pagan god into the true God.


Paul wasn't commending them on their worship of a pagan god. He said the god they partially knew was in fact the one true God and he was introducing the Son to them.

quote:

I don't see your logic here. If a person has faith in Jesus Christ, the true God, they have the truth and are saved. Muslims reject Jesus Christ, which makes them not only followers of a false god, but according to the Bible they are anti-Christs.


Muslims are not saved and Catholicism does not teach they are. Interestingly enough Paul did not claim that the Greeks were saved either. Yet they had a partial revelation of God, just as the Muslims do.

quote:

I completely disagree with your interpretation of Acts. It's very clear that Paul was not proclaiming a pagan god to be God. Instead, he explained the God of the Holy Bible to them because they did not know Him. Very simple stuff. See explanation above.

Since God reveals only the truth, He will not be found in the false. He is not Buddha, Allah, or Vishnu, and neither has He revealed Himself through those gods to any group. He has revealed Himself in full through scripture. What you and the RCC are calling 'limited truth' is actually false revelation, and false revelation is not the work of God.


But according to your definition, the Greeks would be participants in a false religion, yet Paul claimed the true God to be involved, at least in part.



mafields627 -> RE: Catholic Documents Examined (7/8/2006 8:31:35 PM)

quote:

quote ukfan: Paul wasn't commending them on their worship of a pagan god. He said the god they partially knew was in fact the one true God and he was introducing the Son to them.


quote:

quote ukfan: Yet they had a partial revelation of God, just as the Muslims do.


Which is it -- are partial revelation, a partial knowing; or, a god they did not know about, as scripture said? They weren't worshiping Jehovah God -- they were worshiping a statue dedicated to anything else that might be out there! They were breaking the first commandment with that one statue by dedicating it to all of the gods that might be out there, and they were breaking the second commandment by using a "carved image" (NKJV) in worship.

The philosphers said in Acts 17:19-20, "...May we know what this new doctrine is of which you speak? For you are bringing som strange things to our ears. Therefore we want to know what these things mean." You CANNOT worship that which you do not know. What Paul had to say to them was completely new to them. There was NO partial revelation, NO partial belief. I would like to offer this footnote from the New Oxford Annotated Study Bible: "One who did not know which god to thank might set up an altar to an unknown god." That statue was birthed out of confusion over which of their pagan gods to worship. Paul simply used it as an illustration -- as an in -- to try and gain ground with them, not all that different from some of the tactics that modern preachers use.



lw9 -> RE: Catholic Documents Examined (7/8/2006 8:47:17 PM)

ukfan:

quote:

Unfortunately the verses you've quoted do not back up this claim. Paul used a deficient view, a half truth, of God to spread the Gospel. Quoting verses that claim the truth of Christ's devinity do not negate this.


If you can't see relevance in those passages, I certainly can't help you see it. God brings truth and only truth. He does not bring a lie. Scripture has made this clear.

As for Acts, we will not agree on the interpretation and as far as I'm concerned it's not relevant to this discussion. Muslims do not worship an unknown god, nor do they have 'limited knowledge' about the one true God of the Holy Bible. In fact, they actively deny knowledge about the one true God. They worship a very specific known god who rejects Jesus Christ. The facts stand:

1. The Koran rejects and denies Jesus Christ. It rejects the Son and the Holy Spirit, and therefore rejects the one true God.

2. The God of the Holy Bible did not reveal Himself through the Koran since the Koran denies Him. God does not deny Himself.

3. The Koran contains lies, not truths, about the God of the Holy Bible. It leads people away from Christ and into damnation. Therefore it is obviously a false revelation and not from God.

So... back to the RCC proclamations:

RCC Catechism
The Church and non-Christians
841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

I can only hope Roman Catholics will take notice.



ukfan -> RE: Catholic Documents Examined (7/8/2006 8:52:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mafields627



Which is it -- are partial revelation, a partial knowing; or, a god they did not know about, as scripture said? They weren't worshiping Jehovah God -- they were worshiping a statue dedicated to anything else that might be out there! They were breaking the first commandment with that one statue by dedicating it to all of the gods that might be out there, and they were breaking the second commandment by using a "carved image" (NKJV) in worship.
But of course Paul said they were worshipping Jehovah, yet they did not know the Son. How is this possible with your biblical understanding?

quote:

The philosphers said in Acts 17:19-20, "...May we know what this new doctrine is of which you speak? For you are bringing som strange things to our ears. Therefore we want to know what these things mean." You CANNOT worship that which you do not know.

Yet Paul explicitly stated in Scripture that they were in fact worshipping what they did not know.



ukfan -> RE: Catholic Documents Examined (7/8/2006 9:07:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lw9
If you can't see relevance in those passages, I certainly can't help you see it. God brings truth and only truth. He does not bring a lie. Scripture has made this clear.

As for Acts, we will not agree on the interpretation and as far as I'm concerned it's not relevant to this discussion. Muslims do not worship an unknown god, nor do they have 'limited knowledge' about the one true God of the Holy Bible. In fact, they actively deny knowledge about the one true God. They worship a very specific known god who rejects Jesus Christ. The facts stand:

1. The Koran rejects and denies Jesus Christ. It rejects the Son and the Holy Spirit, and therefore rejects the one true God.


Catholicism does not teach, nor does Nostra Aetate state, that the Muslim belief in God is sufficient for salvation. Nor does it state that the Muslim belief in God has not been perverted. It seems to me to be a silly, semantically argument. If you hold either position, Muslims still need to hear the Gospel of Christ.

quote:

2. The God of the Holy Bible did not reveal Himself through the Koran since the Koran denies Him. God does not deny Himself.



3. The Koran contains lies, not truths, about the God of the Holy Bible. It leads people away from Christ and into damnation. Therefore it is obviously a false revelation and not from God.


God can and does use any means possible to reveal himself to man. For instance, while some may have started to question their faith after the Da Vinci Code nonsense, many were lead to further study the faith and because of the efforts of many apologists, were introduced to Christ. A negative, a lie, a used by God to reveal the truth. The bible is rife with examples of God turning a negative into a positive...



lw9 -> RE: Catholic Documents Examined (7/8/2006 9:22:31 PM)

ukfan:

quote:

Catholicism does not teach, nor does Nostra Aetate state, that the Muslim belief in God is sufficient for salvation. Nor does it state that the Muslim belief in God has not been perverted. It seems to me to be a silly, semantically argument. If you hold either position, Muslims still need to hear the Gospel of Christ.


Sweep it away if you want, but the fact remains that the RCC has proclaimed a false god to be true. This is universalism. Silly to you, deadly serious to the Lord.

Ex 20:3 "You shall have no other gods before Me."

Blessings.



mafields627 -> RE: Catholic Documents Examined (7/8/2006 9:40:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ukfan

But of course Paul said they were worshipping Jehovah, yet they did not know the Son. How is this possible with your biblical understanding?


Yes, that is what Paul says; but, is that really what they were doing? I don't think so. According to Darby's commentary on this verse, "according to Theophylact, was this;

``to the gods of Asia, Europe, and Lybia (or Africa), to the unknown and strange god;''

The word used in that passage for "god" was "Theos", which according to Strong, in addition to refering to Jehovah, can also refer to a general god or goddes, a general term for divine beings. Also from Darby's commentary are the words of Lucian in the "Philopatris,"

the reason why they erected an altar with such an inscription might be, for fear when they took in the gods of other nations, there might be some one which they knew not; wherefore, to omit none, they erect an altar to him;


quote:


Yet Paul explicitly stated in Scripture that they were in fact worshipping what they did not know.


Yes, he did say that. They said it too. Here's my take: Paul's purpose was to convert Athenians. Nowadays, we might use dramas of people strung out on dope or alcohol to win someone over; or, we can use scriptures and reason. In a sense, when we witness we're either appealing to someone's emotions or to their brain. With the Stoics & Epicureans, Paul was using logic (probably like he was trained with at the feet of Gamaliel -- what we now refer to as the Socratic reason). In the most remote sense of the word, they WERE worshiping Jehovah -- along with every other pagan god they weren't aware of. There was no partial knowledge of Jehovah's teachings, no partial knowledge of the Word, no partial knowledge of Jesus Christ. He told them that as a witnessing tacting, an attempt to use reason to achieve his goal in Athens of converting people.



ukfan -> RE: Catholic Documents Examined (7/8/2006 9:41:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lw9
Sweep it away if you want, but the fact remains that the RCC has proclaimed a false god to be true. This is universalism. Silly to you, deadly serious to the Lord.

Ex 20:3 "You shall have no other gods before Me."

Blessings.


Fortunately, there is nothing to sweep away. The Church has not declared a false god true. But I think we are at a stalemate in our conversation...

In the spirit of Paul, Therefore what you worship without knowing it, this I proclaim to you.



ukfan -> RE: Catholic Documents Examined (7/8/2006 9:52:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mafields627

quote:

ORIGINAL: ukfan

But of course Paul said they were worshipping Jehovah, yet they did not know the Son. How is this possible with your biblical understanding?


Yes, that is what Paul says; but, is that really what they were doing? I don't think so. According to Darby's commentary on this verse, "according to Theophylact, was this;



quote:


Yes, he did say that. They said it too. Here's my take: Paul's purpose was to convert Athenians. Nowadays, we might use dramas of people strung out on dope or alcohol to win someone over; or, we can use scriptures and reason. In a sense, when we witness we're either appealing to someone's emotions or to their brain. With the Stoics & Epicureans, Paul was using logic (probably like he was trained with at the feet of Gamaliel -- what we now refer to as the Socratic reason). In the most remote sense of the word, they WERE worshiping Jehovah -- along with every other pagan god they weren't aware of. There was no partial knowledge of Jehovah's teachings, no partial knowledge of the Word, no partial knowledge of Jesus Christ. He told them that as a witnessing tacting, an attempt to use reason to achieve his goal in Athens of converting people.


But Paul, through the prompting of the Holy Spirit, would not lead people to the truth by telling a lie. This is an unfortunate example of a particular theological ideology forming a scriptural interpretation.

Sure Paul said this, but that can't be true, so what he meant was...?

I know your intent is good, but I do ask you to reexamine your take on this.



mafields627 -> RE: Catholic Documents Examined (7/8/2006 10:39:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ukfan


But Paul, through the prompting of the Holy Spirit, would not lead people to the truth by telling a lie. This is an unfortunate example of a particular theological ideology forming a scriptural interpretation.

Sure Paul said this, but that can't be true, so what he meant was...?

I know your intent is good, but I do ask you to reexamine your take on this.


I didn't mean to imply that Paul would use a lie to trick them into Christ, because I don't think he did. What I'm trying to get across is:

1)Per Acts 17:18-21 there had been NO previous revelation of Jehovah or Christ to these people -- it was all new to them;

2) That Paul changed his approach to have the most impact possible. For example, in Antioch when he was preaching in the synagogue, he used Jewish history and the Old Testament to frame Jesus' divinity through the line of David. He did the same in Thessolonica. In Berea, he used the Old Testament to show the divinity of Christ because they were studiers of the word. In Athens, he used reason and what they were already doing (covering their bases). He tried to show them that Jehovah and Christ were greater than all of the other gods they didn't know, and the ones they did. At Ephesus, Paul worked miracles which spread the word of God. In Acts 22, he used his Jewish heritage and history as a persecutor of Christians -- and even his Roman citizenship -- to help preach the Gospel.

Paul wasn't as liar -- he was the ultimate witnesser!



ukfan -> RE: Catholic Documents Examined (7/9/2006 9:36:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mafields627
I didn't mean to imply that Paul would use a lie to trick them into Christ, because I don't think he did. What I'm trying to get across is:

1)Per Acts 17:18-21 there had been NO previous revelation of Jehovah or Christ to these people -- it was all new to them;

2) That Paul changed his approach to have the most impact possible. For example, in Antioch when he was preaching in the synagogue, he used Jewish history and the Old Testament to frame Jesus' divinity through the line of David. He did the same in Thessolonica. In Berea, he used the Old Testament to show the divinity of Christ because they were studiers of the word. In Athens, he used reason and what they were already doing (covering their bases). He tried to show them that Jehovah and Christ were greater than all of the other gods they didn't know, and the ones they did. At Ephesus, Paul worked miracles which spread the word of God. In Acts 22, he used his Jewish heritage and history as a persecutor of Christians -- and even his Roman citizenship -- to help preach the Gospel.

Paul wasn't as liar -- he was the ultimate witnesser!


But Jehovah was not entirely new to them. They were worshipping Him, as Paul stated. And I grant you that Paul was using different techniques with different peoples but if he told a particular group that they were worshipping God when they we in fact worshipping a worthless idol he would have to be lying. There must have been a kernel of truth, a kernel of the Truth in their religion. Paul's statements demand this....



mafields627 -> RE: Catholic Documents Examined (7/9/2006 9:49:37 AM)

Then why did they say the following?

quote:

18 Also some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers debated with him. Some said, "What does this babbler want to say?" Others said, "He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign divinities." (This was because he was telling the good news about Jesus and the resurrection.) 19 So they took him and brought him to the Areopagus and asked him, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20 It sounds rather strange to us, so we would like to know what it means." Acts 17:18-20


IF there was any truth in what they were doing, I don't believe they recognized it. They were ignorant to the teachings of Christ (thought there might have been knowledge of Judaism) and Paul needed something to relate it to -- that would be the idol to "the unknown god".



ukfan -> RE: Catholic Documents Examined (7/9/2006 2:17:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mafields627

Then why did they say the following?

quote:

18 Also some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers debated with him. Some said, "What does this babbler want to say?" Others said, "He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign divinities." (This was because he was telling the good news about Jesus and the resurrection.) 19 So they took him and brought him to the Areopagus and asked him, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20 It sounds rather strange to us, so we would like to know what it means." Acts 17:18-20


IF there was any truth in what they were doing, I don't believe they recognized it. They were ignorant to the teachings of Christ (thought there might have been knowledge of Judaism) and Paul needed something to relate it to -- that would be the idol to "the unknown god".

The issue isn't that they recognized the truth in what they were doing. In fact, that they did not recognize it lends itself to proof that Nostra Aetate is correct in it's assertion. Muslims do not fully recongize the truth they have. They do not know Christ and his devinity and the quote from Acts written 2000 years ago could just as easily come from the mouth of a current day Muslim,

"May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? It sounds rather strange to us, so we would like to know what it means."



GoodME_II -> RE: Catholic Documents Examined (7/10/2006 8:52:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lw9
So... back to the RCC proclamations:

RCC Catechism
The Church and non-Christians
841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

I can only hope Roman Catholics will take notice.

As long as, in the history of Christianity, a Muslim has converted to Christianity, and therefore been "saved" - this statement in the Catechism is true.

The burden of proof is now on you to demonstrate that, in the history of Christianity, NO Muslim has ever converted to Christianity.

What the Catechism is recognizing here is the disciplines of daily prayer and periodic worship that are common between other religions and Christianity. It may very well be in God's plan of Salvation for a particular soul that they may come to a faith and its practice via another religious system, and then convert to Chirstianity.

Every soul in the early Church came to Christianity via this route - many from Judaism and many from pagan mono-theistic religions.

It is nice to see a thread where the non-Catholics are hitting the Catechism...



Ps103 -> RE: Catholic Documents Examined (7/10/2006 9:10:54 AM)

quote:

It is nice to see a thread where the non-Catholics are hitting the Catechism...


heh heh heh....[8D]



milesjesu -> RE: Catholic Documents Examined (7/12/2006 11:54:01 PM)

quote:

How is their God the same? They claim a totally different god. Examine the Koran and then tell me the description of their god matches ours.


If the requirement is for the description to match ours, where would you classify the Jews? They do not believe in the Trinity. Does that mean that they do not see the same Person as the Father?

quote:

The NOSTRA AETATE presented by Vatican II equates the Muslim god with our God, and that is not true.


Actually, it does not. "Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet." If they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, certainly it is not the same Trinitarian God of Christianity. How do you say then, that NOSTRA AETATE equates them?

Peace,

MilesJesu



lw9 -> RE: Catholic Documents Examined (7/13/2006 12:50:20 AM)

GoodMe_II:

quote:

As long as, in the history of Christianity, a Muslim has converted to Christianity, and therefore been "saved" - this statement in the Catechism is true. The burden of proof is now on you to demonstrate that, in the history of Christianity, NO Muslim has ever converted to Christianity.


This isn't applicable to anything I have been discussing. The contention is the RCC proclaiming a false god to be the true God. You are going to have to review all of my previous posts, maybe. I have already pointed out why Allah cannot be the Lord Jesus Christ, and why the RCC is completely wrong in making Allah equal to the God of the Holy Bible.

quote:

What the Catechism is recognizing here is the disciplines of daily prayer and periodic worship that are common between other religions and Christianity.


Nostra Aetate
3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God.

RCC Catechism
The Church and non-Christians
841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

They are not just recognizing 'similar' worship practices. They have proclaimed a false god to be true. Others may not see this as a big problem, but I will call it what it is: universalism.

Take care.



facedown -> RE: Catholic Documents Examined (7/13/2006 7:20:30 AM)

lw9-
the 'plan of salvation' includes all - indeed 'the whole world'. this doesn't suggest that the 'whole world' and their worship of false gods is acceptable. and just because God is reconcilling the "whole world" to Himself through Christ - doesn't mean that those wolves who do not desire to live within the Kingdom will.

in addition, such a statement must be held in light to at least the following: the Church of Rome teaches/believes/upholds that Jesus is the way - the truth -and the life, no one comes to the Father, except through Christ.

and, why would you link to the index page, rather than the actual page where you quoted from? which is here

and how does: The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved relate to your concern (843)?
and how does: "Outside the Church there is no salvation"...means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body (846) fit in?



lw9 -> RE: Catholic Documents Examined (7/13/2006 10:53:25 AM)

facedown:

To the point: if you believe Allah of the Koran is the God of the Holy Bible, then you will have no problem with the RCC's position. I do not believe Allah is God [and have shown why this cannot be], therefore I challenge and completely reject their position.



Lurker -> RE: Catholic Documents Examined (7/13/2006 11:16:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lw9

facedown:

To the point: if you believe Allah of the Koran is the God of the Holy Bible, then you will have no problem with the RCC's position. I do not believe Allah is God [and have shown why this cannot be], therefore I challenge and completely reject their position.


Yet the Muslims believe Allah of the Koran is the god of the Bible, and they've been trying to wipe out the RCC for over 1000 years. They seem to have a very big problem with the RCC.



GoodME_II -> RE: Catholic Documents Examined (7/13/2006 11:22:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lw9

facedown:

To the point: if you believe Allah of the Koran is the God of the Holy Bible, then you will have no problem with the RCC's position. I do not believe Allah is God [and have shown why this cannot be], therefore I challenge and completely reject their position.

How have you observed people coming to God?

How did you come to God?

Was this a process, or an instance?

Is your "coming to God" perfect and complete. or are you continuing to grow in depth and breadth of this action?

People begin to come to God by believing in a higher power. We do not reject these "baby-steps" as undesirable or unessential for some, and note that this path may very well be "the plan of Salvation" for these individuals.

Coming to God is journey. Islam may be the first steps on that journey, just as Judaism, Buddahism, Taoism. Hinduism and any other -ism you can think of may be. The statement is respecting the discipline and practice without judging the indidvidual - in a hope that the destination of the journey is Christ.

I find you position to be both incongruent and inconsistent - all at the same time. Congratulations.



facedown -> RE: Catholic Documents Examined (7/13/2006 1:09:34 PM)

lw9-
to the point, you have some unanswered questions.

peace



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI