Poll: Do you prefer the dialogue Mass?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
14
0%
0 0%
22
0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

God and "Allah"
<<<< Yes, those are good, but we've been saying this but he's been objecting. I think he acknowledges that they reject Christ. But can they believe in the true God despite denying His Son? As soon as one rejects the words of Christ, does He then forfeit all belief in the Father? This is what he is debating.  >>>>

Malleus: didnt Our Lord already answer this?

The Holy Gospel according to St John

5:19. Then Jesus answered and said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you, the Son cannot do any thing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing: for what things soever he doth, these the Son also doth in like manner.

5:20. For the Father loveth the Son and sheweth him all things which himself doth: and greater works than these will he shew him, that you may wonder.

5:21. For as the Father raiseth up the dead and giveth life: so the Son also giveth life to whom he will.

5:22. For neither does the Father judge any man: but hath given all judgment to the Son.

5:23. That all men may honour the Son, as they honour the Father. He who honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father who hath sent him.

5:24. Amen, amen, I say unto you that he who heareth my word and believeth him that sent me hath life everlasting: and cometh not into judgment, but is passed from death to life.

5:25. Amen, amen, I say unto you, that the hour cometh, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

5:26. For as the Father hath life in himself, so he hath given to the Son also to have life in himself.

5:27. And he hath given him power to do judgment, because he is the Son of man.

5:28. Wonder not at this: for the hour cometh wherein all that are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God.

5:29. And they that have done good things shall come forth unto the resurrection of life: but they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment.

Unto the resurrection of judgment... That is, condemnation.

5:30. I cannot of myself do any thing. As I hear, so I judge. And my judgment is just: because I seek not my own will. but the will of him that sent me.

5:31. If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

5:32. There is another that beareth witness of me: and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.

5:33. You sent to John: and he gave testimony to the truth.

5:34. But I receive not testimony from man: but I say these things, that you may be saved.

5:35. He was a burning and a shining light: and you were willing for a time to rejoice in his light.

5:36. But I have a greater testimony than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to perfect, the works themselves which I do, give testimony of me, that the Father hath sent me.

5:37. And the Father himself who hath sent me hath given testimony of me: neither have you heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

5:38. And you have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him you believe not.

5:39. Search the scriptures: for you think in them to have life everlasting. And the same are they that give testimony of me.

Or... You search the scriptures. Scrutamini... It is not a command for all to read the scriptures; but a reproach to the Pharisees, that reading the scriptures as they did, and thinking to find everlasting life in them, they would not receive him to whom all those scriptures gave testimony, and through whom alone they could have that true life.

5:40. And you will not come to me that you may have life.

5:41. I receive not glory from men.

5:42. But I know you, that you have not the love of God in you.

5:43. I am come in the name of my Father, and you receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive.

5:44. How can you believe, who receive glory one from another: and the glory which is from God alone, you do not seek?

5:45. Think not that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one that accuseth you, Moses, in whom you trust.

5:46. For if you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also: for he wrote of me.

5:47. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?

Reply
Calling me churchesof the lame is exactly why I will not speak to you knuckles, you hurl insults.

as for who then if God rejects their prayers who then do they worship then the answere is clar no one
Reply
I think it might clear things up by using the phrase "have knowledge of" rather than "believe in" since in Scripture "believe in" has a deeper and more extensive meaning than simply having the knowledge of someone's existence. The Pharisees surely had knowledge of Jesus existence--they turned Him over to be crucified--but they didn't believe in Him.

I posted this in another thread, but it may be helpful here. One can know of God apart from revelation, but one can only know God through faith by receiving His revelation, especially the Word made flesh.

I think this fits well with what St. Paul said of the pagans with an altar to God--he said he preached Who they worshiped without knowing (NB: they did worship Him, while also not knowing Him). There's another line in Scripture too where it says of Jews (correct me if I'm wrong): "We worship what we know; you worship what you know not."

This also how, in his commentary on St. John, St. Thomas reconciles the apparent contradiction between the verse that says one cannot know the Father without knowing the Son and the verse in Romans saying God can be known through nature (as I mentioned earlier, St. Thomas says the Persons of the Trinity cannot be known apart from revelation, although they are represented through appropriation). T o know God means to know the Trinity, but to acknowledge Him does not necessitate acknowledging the Trinity.

I think I have a good analogy for Muslims--it's definitely not perfect, but it may be helpful. Say some kid peruses an encyclopedia and comes to the knowledge that Pope Pius XII was the Pope from 1939-1958, but not much else. At some point, his parents, who happen to be neo-Nazis, and who raised him as such give him a copy of Cornwall's "Hitler's Pope." He reads this and begins to admire Pope Pius and to venerate him and he carries this belief through life.

Obviously, this book is filled with malicious lies so much of this person's knowledge of Pope Pius is in error. His veneration of him is also based on calumny and therefore gives Pius no true honor. But he knows of the same Pope Pius we truly know. Pope Pius is still the object of his veneration, just as he is the object of our true veneration.

I think this is similar to someone with a natural knowledge of God who has also been instructed about Him from the Koran.
Reply
Just to show this idea is nothing new:

----St. John Damascene in his "Founts of Knowledge"

These used to be idolaters and worshiped the morning star and Aphrodite, whom in their own language they called Khabár, which means great. And so down to the time of Heraclius they were very great idolaters. From that time to the present a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, devised his own heresy....He says that there is one God, creator of all things...
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_islam.aspx
(notice, they are no longer idolators but are considered heretics--in fact, St. John calls them "mutilators of God" in retort to them calling us "Associators"--their doctrine does not offer a new God, but "mutilates" the true one)

-----Pope St. Gregory VII (11th century) to a Muslim prince: ‘Almighty God, who wishes that all should be saved and none lost, approves nothing in so much as that after loving Him one should love his fellow man, and that one should not do to others, what one does not want done to oneself. You and we owe this charity to ourselves especially because we believe in and confess one God, admittedly, in a different way, and daily praise and venerate him, the creator of the world and ruler of this world.’
(this is the letter cited by Vatican II in NA)

-----Francisco Suarez, SJ (a famous Thomist from the counter-reformation days):

Thomas, however, rightly distinguishes two kinds of religious practices: there are those which go against reason and against God insofar as he can be recognized through nature and through the natural powers of the soul, e.g., the worship of idols, etc. Others are contrary to the Christian religion and to its commands not because they are evil in themselves or contrary to reason as, for example, the practices of Jews and even many of the customs of Mohammedans and such unbelievers who believe in one true God.

Suarez, Tract. de Fide Disp. 18 Sect. III

(Notice, the worship of idols is intrinsically evil because it goes against reason (the true God can be known by natural reason), yet many practices of the Muslims are not intrinsically evil in and of themselves--obviously if they were worshipping the devil or some other entity, they would be intrinsically evil.)

------Catechism of Pope St. Pius X : 12 Q. Who are infidels?
A. Infidels are those who have not been baptised and do not believe in Jesus Christ, because they either believe in and worship false gods as idolaters do, or though admitting one true God, they do not believe in the Messiah, neither as already come in the Person of Jesus Christ, nor as to come; for instance, Mohammedans and the like.

(again, they are not worshipping false gods)

-------Catholic Encyclopedia: As in ecclesiastical language those who by baptism have received faith in Jesus Christ and have pledged Him their fidelity and called the faithful, so the name infidel is given to those who have not been baptized. The term applies not only to all who are ignorant of the true God, such as pagans of various kinds, but also to those who adore Him but do not recognize Jesus Christ, as Jews and Mohammedans.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08002b.htm

See also this chapter on Islam in Hillair Belloc's "Great Heresies."
http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/HERESY4.TXT
Reply
(03-31-2010, 04:26 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: I think it might clear things up by using the phrase "have knowledge of" rather than "believe in" since in Scripture "believe in" has a deeper and more extensive meaning than simply having the knowledge of someone's existence. The Pharisees surely had knowledge of Jesus existence--they turned Him over to be crucified--but they didn't believe in Him.

I posted this in another thread, but it may be helpful here. One can know of God apart from revelation, but one can only know God through faith by receiving His revelation, especially the Word made flesh.

I think this fits well with what St. Paul said of the pagans with an altar to God--he said he preached Who they worshiped without knowing (NB: they did worship Him, while also not knowing Him). There's another line in Scripture too where it says of Jews (correct me if I'm wrong): "We worship what we know; you worship what you know not."

This also how, in his commentary on St. John, St. Thomas reconciles the apparent contradiction between the verse that says one cannot know the Father without knowing the Son and the verse in Romans saying God can be known through nature (as I mentioned earlier, St. Thomas says the Persons of the Trinity cannot be known apart from revelation, although they are represented through appropriation). T o know God means to know the Trinity, but to acknowledge Him does not necessitate acknowledging the Trinity.

Yes, I agree with the distinction between "to know of" God and "to know" God. This goes back to what I was saying earlier in the thread concerning the Gestalt Theory: "The whole is [more / greater / something else] than the sum of its parts." This was originally posited by Aristotle, formalized in the Gestalt Theory, and reiterated by Kurt Koffka (Gestalt psychologist).  

By this principle I mean that acknowledging God's essence (the properties or attributes by means of which something can be placed in its proper class or identified as being what it is* [the sum of parts]) is "less / something else" than acknowledging (or knowing) Him [the Whole]. I think this is consonant with what you're saying. As a religion, Islam lacks the faith necessary to know God (acknowledge the Whole). But Islam knows of God. There could be individual exceptions of course, but I am not speaking of these anomalies.

Quote:I think I have a good analogy for Muslims--it's definitely not perfect, but it may be helpful. Say some kid peruses an encyclopedia and comes to the knowledge that Pope Pius XII was the Pope from 1939-1958, but not much else. At some point, his parents, who happen to be neo-Nazis, and who raised him as such give him a copy of Cornwall's "Hitler's Pope." He reads this and begins to admire Pope Pius and to venerate him and he carries this belief through life.

Obviously, this book is filled with malicious lies so much of this person's knowledge of Pope Pius is in error. His veneration of him is also based on calumny and therefore gives Pius no true honor. But he knows of the same Pope Pius we truly know. Pope Pius is still the object of his veneration, just as he is the object of our true veneration.

I think this is similar to someone with a natural knowledge of God who has also been instructed about Him from the Koran.

I think that could work as an analogy. I'll have to give it some more thought.
Reply
(03-31-2010, 05:17 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(03-31-2010, 04:26 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: I think it might clear things up by using the phrase "have knowledge of" rather than "believe in" since in Scripture "believe in" has a deeper and more extensive meaning than simply having the knowledge of someone's existence. The Pharisees surely had knowledge of Jesus existence--they turned Him over to be crucified--but they didn't believe in Him.

I posted this in another thread, but it may be helpful here. One can know of God apart from revelation, but one can only know God through faith by receiving His revelation, especially the Word made flesh.

I think this fits well with what St. Paul said of the pagans with an altar to God--he said he preached Who they worshiped without knowing (NB: they did worship Him, while also not knowing Him). There's another line in Scripture too where it says of Jews (correct me if I'm wrong): "We worship what we know; you worship what you know not."

This also how, in his commentary on St. John, St. Thomas reconciles the apparent contradiction between the verse that says one cannot know the Father without knowing the Son and the verse in Romans saying God can be known through nature (as I mentioned earlier, St. Thomas says the Persons of the Trinity cannot be known apart from revelation, although they are represented through appropriation). T o know God means to know the Trinity, but to acknowledge Him does not necessitate acknowledging the Trinity.

Yes, I agree with the distinction between "to know of" God and "to know" God. This goes back to what I was saying earlier in the thread concerning the Gestalt Theory: "The whole is [more / greater / something else] than the sum of its parts." This was originally posited by Aristotle, formalized in the Gestalt Theory, and reiterated by Kurt Koffka (Gestalt psychologist).  

By this principle I mean that acknowledging God's essence (the properties or attributes by means of which something can be placed in its proper class or identified as being what it is* [the sum of parts]) is "less / something else" than acknowledging (or knowing) Him [the Whole]. I think this is consonant with what you're saying. As a religion, Islam lacks the faith necessary to know God (acknowledge the Whole). But Islam knows of God. There could be individual exceptions of course, but I am not speaking of these anomalies.

Quote:I think I have a good analogy for Muslims--it's definitely not perfect, but it may be helpful. Say some kid peruses an encyclopedia and comes to the knowledge that Pope Pius XII was the Pope from 1939-1958, but not much else. At some point, his parents, who happen to be neo-Nazis, and who raised him as such give him a copy of Cornwall's "Hitler's Pope." He reads this and begins to admire Pope Pius and to venerate him and he carries this belief through life.

Obviously, this book is filled with malicious lies so much of this person's knowledge of Pope Pius is in error. His veneration of him is also based on calumny and therefore gives Pius no true honor. But he knows of the same Pope Pius we truly know. Pope Pius is still the object of his veneration, just as he is the object of our true veneration.

I think this is similar to someone with a natural knowledge of God who has also been instructed about Him from the Koran.

I think that could work as an analogy. I'll have to give it some more thought.

Moreover, the whole of an object defines its parts. The parts of an object do not define the whole. Similarly, God defines His "parts" (rather, His essence [attributes or "properties"]) through a preliminary acknowledgement of His Whole. This is why faith is necessary for belief in God, and the light of human reason allows us to believe in what we cannot see. So the belief in God through faith (the Whole) precedes the definition of His "parts" through light of natural reason (the sum of parts). One cannot conceive of individual "parts" of God through light of reason (devoid of faith) and acknowledge the Whole (God).

Consequently, the mere fact that Muslims conceive of the same essence (or parts) is not to say that they conceive of the same whole. Still, it is possible that individual Muslims ignorant of the Truth, through true faith in God's wholeness, do conceive of the whole of God. In conceiving the sum of His "parts", however, their natural reason fails them, or, as often seems to be the case, they explicitly reject God's guidance of their natural reason.
Reply
Well then Impefess there you have it, I could not have put it better myself then you did in your last post.

They desire the true God but since they have not the true guidence their desire is disconnected if indeed God rejects their requests, as we all know God can hear what we all think and say, but may ignore what we ask if it is not proper.

signed Jeremy L have a good holy thursday.
Reply
There u go....
Reply
Yes, I agree with the distinction between "to know of" God and "to know" God. This goes back to what I was saying earlier in the thread concerning the Gestalt Theory: "The whole is [more / greater / something else] than the sum of its parts." This was originally posited by Aristotle, formalized in the Gestalt Theory, and reiterated by Kurt Koffka (Gestalt psychologist). 

Malleus: But the underlying point you have failed to address is HOW one comes to know GOD or to know of GOD. As for Gestait - I completely disagree that von Ehrenfels derived his underlying principles from Aristotle.  Try Kant and new age philosphy.

By this principle I mean that acknowledging God's essence (the properties or attributes by means of which something can be placed in its proper class or identified as being what it is* [the sum of parts]) is "less / something else" than acknowledging (or knowing) Him [the Whole]. I think this is consonant with what you're saying. As a religion, Islam lacks the faith necessary to know God (acknowledge the Whole). But Islam knows of God. There could be individual exceptions of course, but I am not speaking of these anomalies.

Malleus: Once again - the entire theory is based entirely on the abilities of Man sans GOD's Grace.  Without the necessary component of Pure TRUTH given by GOD to each man Trough Grace and coupled with Mans propensity to err (Thanks to Adam) - the the parts of the Whole are indistinguishable from the parts outside of the whole without Grace. Therefore - an individual may know OF GOD but still not do HIS WILL.  Either purposely or through omission - but in either event - when one becomes aware of GOD Through GOD's Grace they are convicted if they purposely disobey.    Now to add a false religion into the mix like ISLAM (some say it is a Heretical Religion and some say that it is a False Religion and both sides have been debated, but for this discussion it matters not if either. )  and error is then intermingled with truth.    So who guides man to GOD's TRUTHS if not HIS CHURCH? Certainly the anomaly would be illustrated in those few souls who despite alll the error somehow in some way overcame all the error and saved their soul by relying solely on GRACE.    That is one of the fundamental errors of Vatican II.  It speaks of the "GOOD" in false religions and completely ignores the BLATENT ERRORS present in all of them.

The First Commandment of GOD is clear.  I am the Lord thy GOD - thou shalt have no false GOD's before me.    JESUS is GOD.

Pax
Reply
(04-01-2010, 10:49 AM)Malleus Haereticorum Wrote: Malleus: But the underlying point you have failed to address is HOW one comes to know GOD or to know of GOD. As for Gestait - I completely disagree that von Ehrenfels derived his underlying principles from Aristotle.   Try Kant and new age philosphy.

Malleus, this is what I mean, everywhere I go I am followed by your posts disagreeing with everything I say.

The Gestalt theory find its foundations in holism. In the Metaphysics, Aristotle summarized holism in the words, "The whole is more than the sum of its parts" (1045a10).

Gestalt psychology echoes this concept by applying it to the human brain.


Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)