Rationalizing the Same God
#1
https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2016...-same-god/

Quote:Rationalizing the same God

Without getting into a full blown theory of language – as something expressed in language itself, a full blown theory of language may be intrinsically problematic, at least qua something expressed in language – I will simply observe that we often use words to refer to things out there in reality.

When we refer to a thing out there in reality using language, what we are doing is similar to pointing our finger at a bird, or a rock, a tree, another person, some numbers in a ledger, a book, a diagram, etc. We are concretely acting, using our material corporeal faculties, in order to assist another person in seeing or perceiving the objective thing to which we refer.

In this sense it is manifest that Christians and Mohammedans are both referring to God when we use our various words for God.  The notion that monotheists refer to two different gods when they each use their various words for God is self contradictory. Referring to a thing is not the same as asserting a complete or even partial theory of the thing to which one refers.  When I say “What the Hell is that?” I am referring to something or other by ‘that’: something or other about which I may know very little, and about which I may well have very mistaken beliefs or perceptions.

The question ‘do we worship the same God‘ is therefore malformed, because the emphasis is on the objective referent of ‘God’ not on the meaning of ‘worship’. The phrase ‘the same God’, understood as a reference used by monotheists, contains the contradictory notion within it that there might be more-than-one only-one God. Every monotheist necessarily refers to God when he uses his word for God.

So asking ‘do Christians and Mohammedans worship the same God?’ asserts a contradiction and then asks what follows from that contradiction.  It is no surprise to find that people disagree over what follows based on their own extrinsic commitments and biases. Anyone who reads here regularly should realize by now that a contradiction implies everything and its opposite all at once, and when people reach various conclusions from contradictory premises what they are really doing is rationalizing: presenting a putative justification for something which they believe or assert for reasons entirely extrinsic to the doctrine which they are invoking to justify that belief or assertion.

To rationalize is to present arguments for a belief or assert rhetoric in favor of a belief apart from the actual reasons for a belief.  Rationalization is a kind of lie: it proposes that we should believe Q because of P when P is not an actual reason to believe Q; or that we did Q because of P when P was not actually the reason we did Q.  Rationalization proposes, as true, an actually false causal relation between P and Q.

A truthful, non-rationalizing answer to the question ‘do Christians and Mohammedans worship the same God’ is that the question is self contradictory.  A more interesting question is ‘do both Christians and Mohammedans actually worship God?’

Modern people are post cartesian subjectivists/materialists, so when we use a term like ‘worship’ we tend to retreat to the purely subjective.  What defines ‘worship’ in these discussions tends to be the purely subjective intentions (begging the question in favor of strict post cartesian dualism) of the person doing the ‘worshiping’.  If the person thinks that his actions, including his acting by praying in a certain manner, constitute ‘worship’ in the requisite sense, well then that is ‘worship’.

But there is only one sufficient way to worship God: the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Other people, including non-Catholic Christians, may well ‘worship’ God in a sense. And if they are baptized they belong to the communion of those actually worshiping whether they themselves believe it or not — there is that distinction between subjective belief and objective reality, again.

However just because something is labeled ‘worship’ it does not follow that it has the objective qualities essential to worship. Defective worship may still be worship in a sense, just as a play-acted wedding is a wedding in a sense. A merciful Father may well generously treat something that is not actually worship as though it actually were worship.  Or He may not.

But there is certainly a sense – the most important sense – in which play-acted worship is not really, objectively, worship.
Reply
#2
(01-18-2016, 11:45 AM)DeoDuce Wrote: https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2016...-same-god/

Quote:But there is only one sufficient way to worship God: the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

This quote seems to sum it up for me.

This may sound cuckoo coming from a Catholic, but I've often wondered if early on, Mohammed had begun receiving revelations as to the nature of God; one God, omnipotent, created all, but then greed, lust, desire for power, and insanity took over, and the rest of his "teachings" were of demonic origin. Just a thought when one compares the 1st vs 2nd half of the koran. On the one hand mercy, on the other hand, bloodshed.
Reply
#3
(01-18-2016, 12:41 PM)Sir Charles Napier Wrote:
(01-18-2016, 11:45 AM)DeoDuce Wrote: https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2016...-same-god/

Quote:But there is only one sufficient way to worship God: the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

This quote seems to sum it up for me.

This may sound cuckoo coming from a Catholic, but I've often wondered if early on, Mohammed had begun receiving revelations as to the nature of God; one God, omnipotent, created all, but then greed, lust, desire for power, and insanity took over, and the rest of his "teachings" were of demonic origin. Just a thought when one compares the 1st vs 2nd half of the koran. On the one hand mercy, on the other hand, bloodshed.

That's an interesting observation.

I have heard the claim that he was given revelations by the demonic which defiantly makes sense but from my study of the Middle East history I learned that Muhammed grew up working on a trade route and listened extensively to Christians and Jews discuss their faiths. To me I have a feeling that he was just a opportunist that took his knowledge on the other two religions to unite the Pagan tribes of the Arab world and rise to power.  Just a theory and regardless of how it happened I know it is false.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply
#4
(01-18-2016, 04:04 PM)DeoDuce Wrote: To me I have a feeling that he was just a opportunist that took his knowledge on the other two religions to unite the Pagan tribes of the Arab world and rise to power.  Just a theory and regardless of how it happened I know it is false.

That actually makes a lot of sense too.
Reply
#5
I think when the Church says Muslims worship the one God, they are using "worship" in its most fundamental sense, that of religion as defined by St. Thomas:  "to show reverence to one God under one aspect, namely, as the first principle of the creation and government of things."
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3081.htm

Note, this is not a supernatural act, but this specific act is a legitimate and even good form of worship--it is rightfully called a virtue (but not a theological virtue).  Worshiping God in spirit and in truth in Christ through His Eucharistic sacrifice is certainly the highest and greatest worship that can be offered God, but that doesn't mean other forms are bad (I assume we all adore God outside of Mass as well as at Mass, right?)
Reply
#6
(01-18-2016, 05:10 PM)Sir Charles Napier Wrote:
(01-18-2016, 04:04 PM)DeoDuce Wrote: To me I have a feeling that he was just a opportunist that took his knowledge on the other two religions to unite the Pagan tribes of the Arab world and rise to power.  Just a theory and regardless of how it happened I know it is false.

That actually makes a lot of sense too.

Just like Joseph Smith. Look at this:

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/smith_and_muhammed.html

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)