Muslims, what do you think of Catholicism?

[Hiroshi]

You had brought out a similar point regarding Abraham's sacrifice as a test of faith and devotion to God as opposed to a ransom or atonement for some sin he had committed. I suppose that a Christian reading the Quran would tend to interpret it according to his own beliefs rather that what is drawn logically from the text. We have no concept of a blood sacrifice for atonement; however, we often will offer extra prayers, fasting, charity or other good deeds to offset some sin or bad deed that we have done. Please, correct me if I am wrong.

It is the sacrificed life and blood of the animal that makes atonement for sins according to the Bible. This is also the reason given as to why blood is prohibited for food.

Leviticus 17:11-12 "For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life. Therefore I say to the Israelites, “None of you may eat blood"."

Hebrews 9:22 " In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."

 

[Hiroshi]

the operative word in your sentence is "isn't" which indicates current tense.

I have read that there were some Christian groups that included Mary as part of the Trinity centuries ago.

 

[MustafaMc]

Surah 2:72 explains that here is a case of an unsolved murder. And Deuteronomy 21:1-9 shows what was needed to be done in such circumstances with an animal sacrifice. It is all explained there.

Again, you are interpreting a single verse in light of your Christian faith and understanding of the Bible. To quote the passage 2:71-74 "(Moses) answered: 'Lo!' He said: 'Verily she is a cow unyoked; she plows not the soil nor waters the tilth; whole and without mark.' They said: 'Now you bring the truth.' So they sacrificed her, though almost they did not. And (remember) when you slew a man and disagreed concerning it and Allah brought forth that which you were hiding. And We said: Smite him with some of it. Thus Allah brings the dead to life and shows you His portents so that you may understand. Then, even after that, your hearts were hardened and became as rocks..."

To quote the commentary on this passage in Yusuf Ali's translation, "In Deut. 21:1-9 it is ordained that if the body of a slain man be found in a field and the slayer is not known, a heifer shall be beheaded, and the elders of the city next to the slain man's domicile shall wash their hands over the heifer and say that they neither did the deed nor saw it done, thus clearing themselves from the blood-guilt. The Jewish story based on this was that in a certain case of this kind, every one tried to clear himself of guilt and lay the blame at the door of others. In the first place they tried to prevaricate (speak evasively) and prevent a heifer from being slain as in the last parable. When she was slain, Allah by a miracle disclosed the real person. A portion of the sacrificed heifer was ordered to be placed on the corpse, which came to life and disclosed the whole story of the crime."

This explanation shows that the sacrifice has absolutely nothing, zero, nada, zilch to do with forgiveness for the sin of murder, but rather for the murderer's exposure so he can be punished.

Ezekiel 18:4 "The soul that sins shall die." Romans 6:23 "The wages of sin is death." Romans 5:12 "through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men bacause they had all sinned".

Yes, I expect to die but I can hope for the resurrection from the dead which I believe is God's arrangement through Jesus.

And I, too, believe in the resurrection and hope in the mercy of Allah for the forgiveness of my sins such that I may attain Paradise and be protected from the Hellfire. I stand on the promises that Allah made over and over again in the Quran for those who believe in the Oneness of Allah and do good deeds.

The unforgivable sin, if one dies in that state, is to ascribe partners to Allah. For example, saying that Jesus is the Son of God is clearly and irrefutably unbelief in Allah's Oneness and puts Christians in the category of mushrikeen, or polytheists. Verily, their fate is as Jesus says in the Quran 5:118 "If You punish them, lo! they are Your slaves, and if You forgive them (lo! they are Your slaves). Lo! You, only You, are the Mighty, the Wise."

 

[Hiroshi]

Again, you are interpreting a single verse in light of your Christian faith and understanding of the Bible. To quote the passage 2:71-74 "(Moses) answered: 'Lo!' He said: 'Verily she is a cow unyoked; she plows not the soil nor waters the tilth; whole and without mark.' They said: 'Now you bring the truth.' So they sacrificed her, though almost they did not. And (remember) when you slew a man and disagreed concerning it and Allah brought forth that which you were hiding. And We said: Smite him with some of it. Thus Allah brings the dead to life and shows you His portents so that you may understand. Then, even after that, your hearts were hardened and became as rocks..."

To quote the commentary on this passage in Yusuf Ali's translation, "In Deut. 21:1-9 it is ordained that if the body of a slain man be found in a field and the slayer is not known, a heifer shall be beheaded, and the elders of the city next to the slain man's domicile shall wash their hands over the heifer and say that they neither did the deed nor saw it done, thus clearing themselves from the blood-guilt. The Jewish story based on this was that in a certain case of this kind, every one tried to clear himself of guilt and lay the blame at the door of others. In the first place they tried to prevaricate (speak evasively) and prevent a heifer from being slain as in the last parable. When she was slain, Allah by a miracle disclosed the real person. A portion of the sacrificed heifer was ordered to be placed on the corpse, which came to life and disclosed the whole story of the crime."

This explanation shows that the sacrifice has absolutely nothing, zero, nada, zilch to do with forgiveness for the sin of murder, but rather for the murderer's exposure so he can be punished.

I agree that the sacrifice of the cow does not result in the forgivenss of the murderer. But I thought that the death of the animal was required on account of the bloodguilt that would otherwise fall upon the community if nothing was done. I might be wrong. I will look into this further.

 

[gmcbroom]

it all ends with the Blood. Atleast in the Old Testament and New Testament.
Peace be with you.
gmcbroom

 

[Pygoscelis]

The Trinity Doctrine: God sacrificed himself to himself so he could change his own mind about what to do with man.

 

[gmcbroom]

Seems to be the case. It is a mystery and God is truly unscrutable. I think it's out of love though.
peace be with you
gmcbroom

 

[Ramadhan]

Seems to be the case. It is a mystery and God is truly unscrutable. I think it's out of love though.

so God didnt love humans before he decided to morph into jesus?

 

[gmcbroom]

Naidamar,
Of course he did. When Jesus died on the cross his death was the perfect offering as he is the lamb of God, he redeemed us all.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

 

[MustafaMc]

Naidamar,
Of course he did. When Jesus died on the cross his death was the perfect offering as he is the lamb of God, he redeemed us all.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

Why does God need a 'payment' for sin? According to Catholic belief, is God incapable of forgiving the repentant sinner? Forgiveness is implied in the NT with: 1) the father of the 'prodigal son' upon his return seeking only to be treated as a servant in Luke 15:11-31, 2) the adulteress brought forward by the Pharisees in John 8:3-11, and 3) the paralytic in Matt. 9:4-6?

Where is the mercy if God if a sin debt cannot be forgiven straight away? Does not the Lord's Prayer include 'forgive us our sins as we forgive everyone who sins against us' in Luke 11:4?

 

[Ramadhan]

Of course he did. When Jesus died on the cross his death was the perfect offering as he is the lamb of God, he redeemed us all.
Peace be with you

How come?
I thought christians (or in your case, catholics) teach that unless you believe in Jesus, you will not be saved.
Well, the followers of Abraham (pbuh) certainly did not believe in jesus. Heck, even Abraham (pbuh) himself did NOT believe in jesus.

Explain please.

I find it amusing that christians keep shifting stance on the same argument.

 

[gmcbroom]

Naidamar,
That's true. However, and this is the interesting part, God does seem to want those of faith. That goes to back to the didache 16:12 actually. {They that endure} by their faith {shall be saved} by the curse himself. I forgot which but I know one man who was a relative of Mohammed's and even though Mohammed pled with him to embrace Islam he chose to die a pagan. The man was responsible for translating Old Testament and New Testament scripture. He would know that passage and find hope in it.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

 

[Ramadhan]

Naidamar,
That's true. However, and this is the interesting part, God does seem to want those of faith. That goes to back to the didache 16:12 actually. {They that endure} by their faith {shall be saved} by the curse himself. I forgot which but I know one man who was a relative of Mohammed's and even though Mohammed pled with him to embrace Islam he chose to die a pagan. The man was responsible for translating Old Testament and New Testament scripture. He would know that passage and find hope in it.

More words, but, again, do not really answer or explain the problem that I presented. Let me simplified for you again:

Abraham (pbuh) followed the one true god (pure monotheism), he never believed in jesus (pbuh) or holy spirit.
And jesus only redeemed humans sins when he died on a cross.
christians say only those who believe in jesus (pbuh) will be saved, because those who dont believe in him will still retain the sins that prevent them from going to heaven (ie. they will all go to hell)
so, does this mean that the prophets of God (pbut) and their followers prior to jesus (pbuh) will be condemned to hell since they all never believed in anything being partnered to god, and never believed in god who came down to earth?

 

[YusufNoor]

Naidamar,
That's true. However, and this is the interesting part, God does seem to want those of faith. That goes to back to the didache 16:12 actually. {They that endure} by their faith {shall be saved} by the curse himself. I forgot which but I know one man who was a relative of Mohammed's and even though Mohammed pled with him to embrace Islam he chose to die a pagan. The man was responsible for translating Old Testament and New Testament scripture. He would know that passage and find hope in it.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

you know a man? i don't think so sparky! you show your ignorance of Islam and Islamic history by insinuating that you hold some knowledge [that you don't have]! perhaps you spend too much time on anti-Islamic sites.

you are mixing Waraka ibn Nawfal, Khadija's, RadiAllahu Anha, uncle with the Prophet's, Salla Allahu Alayhe wa Salaam, Uncle Abu Taalib. it's is Waraka whom you speak when you say he was "responsible for translating Old Testament and New Testament scripture" and he IS considered a Muslim as he told RasoolAllah that he wished he would still be alive when he was ordered to spread the Faith. the first you mention, who did not accept Islam was Abu Taalib, who the Prophet loved dearly. 2 different people.

as for the Didache, is this now considered "canon?" why don't you explain to the folks that you are trying to BS here that the Didache is NOT accepted by Christians as having divine origin. it MAY have been at some point by SOME Christians. but it is NOT included in any western Bibles as authentic. Please tell us which "translation" of the Bible you use that has the Didache as part of the "canon."

as you seem to enjoy it as a source, why don't you tell us who wrote it and when it was written? and please use Scholarly sources.

and PLEASE, quit writing lies about Islam and it's history. you are not deserving of peace...

ciao

 

[MustafaMc]

Why does God need a 'payment' for sin? According to Catholic belief, is God incapable of forgiving the repentant sinner? Forgiveness is implied in the NT with: 1) the father of the 'prodigal son' upon his return seeking only to be treated as a servant in Luke 15:11-31, 2) the adulteress brought forward by the Pharisees in John 8:3-11, and 3) the paralytic in Matt. 9:4-6?

Where is the mercy if God if a sin debt cannot be forgiven straight away? Does not the Lord's Prayer include 'forgive us our sins as we forgive everyone who sins against us' in Luke 11:4?

gmcbroom, perhaps you did not see my post. Can you and/or Hiroshi reply with your answers to my questions?

 

[gmcbroom]

Naidamar,
No, they may be saved through Invincible Ignorance atleast according to the catechism of the catholic church. For those that know of Jesus and deny him though........

YusufNoor,
Your right the Didache isn't canon. The web version of the Didache is found at Early Christian Writings.com MLA Kirby,Peter, 2001-2006 copyright. So why would I use it? Simple, It's the one piece of christian Sacred Scripture I see on this site that's talked about most here; so since the muslim view is that Sacred Scripture is corrupted I felt one of the earliest New Testament writings would be exempt from that viewpoint as it's written between 50A.D. to 120A.D. Plus, its one of the earliest New Testament texts So I believed the scribe would be familiar with it.

Could I be wrong? Sure. But, then again I could be right.

MustafaMC,
That answer really depends on how one views God. Why is that important? Simple the Christian view is different than the muslim view. To Christians he is the Heavenly Father and we approach him in that light a family relationship through baptism. I may be mistaken but I thought the muslim community view is more of a Master/Slave relationship concerning God. So there is a point where we have different views that can only be understood though not agreed upon between us both. Take Original Sin. Original Sin explains Jesus's sacrifice. The mercy of God is through Jesus his Son, this is the Christian understanding. I don't think that view is shared by the muslim community though. Maybe I'm mistaken but I thought muslims believed christians are ascribing partners to God which of course is blaphemous. The christian view at least according to St. John of Damascus writings The Fathers of the Church vol. 37 translated by Frederic H. Chase, Jr. Catholic University of America Press, is that you are mutilating God by ripping Jesus from him. That's not good either.
As for The Lord's Prayer it is both prayer and an oath to the death. Why oath? Because, in it we're asking God to forgive us our tresspasses as we forgive those who tresspass against us. There is no easy answer to the questions posted concerning God's mercy as the answer is as different as our perspectives on God.

Peace be with you.
gmcbroom

 

[MustafaMc]

As for The Lord's Prayer it is both prayer and an oath to the death. Why oath? Because, in it we're asking God to forgive us our tresspasses as we forgive those who tresspass against us. There is no easy answer to the questions posted concerning God's mercy as the answer is as different as our perspectives on God.

So, technically Jesus did not really mean it when he said 'forgive us our sins as we forgive everyone who sins against us', because what really matters is Jesus' sacrifice on the cross as the only acceptable atonement for that sin and then only to those who accept the free gift of Jesus blood for salvation. Is this not an example of what Jesus said doesn't really matter, but rather what he supposedly did on the cross?

 

[Ramadhan]

No, they may be saved through Invincible Ignorance atleast according to the catechism of the catholic church. For those that know of Jesus and deny him though........

You missed my point.

All the prophets (pbut) told their followers to follow The one true God, They rejected any belief that God can come in the form of human, they even destroyed ANYTHING (likenesses, images, statues, idols) that people revered or worship.
If what christians say were true (ie. jesus is god) why is it that this most important knowledge NOT given to the previous prophets (pbut)? And why were the previous prophets (pbut) never taught that sins were inherited from Adam (pbut)?

you may provide your explanation backed up by using bible.

 

[YusufNoor]

YusufNoor,
Your right the Didache isn't canon. The web version of the Didache is found at Early Christian Writings.com MLA Kirby,Peter, 2001-2006 copyright. So why would I use it? Simple, It's the one piece of christian Sacred Scripture I see on this site that's talked about most here; so since the muslim view is that Sacred Scripture is corrupted I felt one of the earliest New Testament writings would be exempt from that viewpoint as it's written between 50A.D. to 120A.D. Plus, its one of the earliest New Testament texts So I believed the scribe would be familiar with it.

Could I be wrong? Sure. But, then again I could be right.

gmcbroom

i asked you, "who wrote it?" you DID NOT provide an answer. in other words, you don't even KNOW what century it was written in and you don't know who wrote it! that DOES NOT qualify for any kind of an exemption as a corrupt text. WHY WOULD IT?

as it is NOT a part of any canon, it is amusing that you call it a "sacred scripture," when canon usually denotes what Christians DO consider sacred. i reckon you consider it BOTH sacred and NOT sacred at the same time.

interestingly...

in Acts 11:

25 Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

and in the Didache 11:

11:3 But concerning the apostles and prophets, thus do ye according to the doctrine of the Gospel.

11:4 Let every apostle who cometh unto you be received as the Lord.

11:5 He will remain one day, and if it be necessary, a second; but if he remain three days, he is a false prophet.

11:6 And let the apostle when departing take nothing but bread until he arrive at his resting-place; but if he ask for money, he is a false prophet.

according to the Didache, Paul would be a false prophet.

as far as dating the Didache:

Little is known about the author or date of the Didache. The work is anonymous and the text makes no reference to a date or to any external event that can be dated.

Although several scholars have assigned the Didache to the first century, and others have dated it to the third or even fourth century, most prefer a date in the first half of the second century

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/texts/didache.htm

Didache (Teaching of the Lord through the Apostles): Eleventh century MS discovered by Philotheus Bryennios. The Didache consists of various parts, starting with the "Two Ways" ethical instruction (see Barn 18-21) and including community rules for liturgical practices and leadership conduct, before ending with a short apocalyptic section. While some of the material might go back before the year 100, the current form of the document is probably mid-second century at earliest[/QUOTE]

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/christian-history.html

in other words, no one knows...

and a response or retraction of your lie:

I forgot which but I know one man who was a relative of Mohammed's and even though Mohammed pled with him to embrace Islam he chose to die a pagan.

i simply don't see it

ciao

 

[gmcbroom]

MustafaMC,
Oh Jesus meant what he said and his sacrifice does indeed matter.

Naidamar,
It is because they were following the Law as handed down by the Prophets. When Jesus walked among us he fufilled the law.
I'd love to give scriptural references but the problem with that is that you can't accept them for to you the Bible is corrupted. This saddens me because it exposes that we can only go so far to justify our beliefs. In the end you'll have to deny them and i'll have to disagree. I thought Genesis 3 was clear on it may not reference the word sin yet clearly shows the first one.

YusufNoor,
I didn't think you'd accept the answer but here goes. At one point in time (clearly not now in the present) it was Sacred Scripture to the group who wrote it. As for the actually person who phyically first wrote it all I can tell you is that who ever he was, was inspired by the Holy Spirit. I doubt if you'd accept God wrote it, but he did inspire it.

Peace be with you
gmcbroom