View Full Version : Is God and Allah the same person?
HulkaManiaRunninWild
03-01-04, 10:46 PM
From what I know they/he is the same person. In college I was told that God and Allah are one in the same. It's how one arrives at them is what seperates Islam from Christianity. WTF?
I have no idea
Ask me anything not religion based and maybe I can help ya:D
HulkaManiaRunninWild
03-01-04, 10:49 PM
I have no idea
Ask me anything not religion based and maybe I can help ya:D
ya, you're right. Religion has a tendency to get things heated.
Have you seen the passion of the Christ?
ya, you're right. Religion has a tendency to get things heated.
Have you seen the passion of the Christ?
Hell no
HulkaManiaRunninWild
03-01-04, 10:52 PM
Hell no
regardless of one's beliefs, that movie is spooky
Ssstern
03-01-04, 11:16 PM
They are analysing The passion on Fact or Hollywood on the History Channel. Looks very eerie.
Superfluous_Nut
03-02-04, 04:22 AM
you ever seem them together?
hanger4
03-02-04, 06:07 AM
Is God and Allah the same person?
Nope, Allah is the name of a Bedouin moon Deity.
/he is the same person.
no
The Brain
03-02-04, 08:33 AM
Yes they are the same... and as a matter of fact Muslims believe in Jesus Christ just not the fact that he was the son of God. They thought him to be a prophet.
Yes they are the same... and as a matter of fact Muslims believe in Jesus Christ just not the fact that he was the son of God. They thought him to be a prophet.
Yes, Muslims actually accept Christians and Christianity because the Quran only states that there would be no prophets AFTER Muhammad, so since Jesus acame before him, they think Christianity is OK. My stepmother's mother lives in Tehran, and he neighbor is a practicing Catholic. They're pretty harsh on religions that came after Islam, though.
Yes. Allah, "The Father" and Yaweh all one in the same. Makes you wonder what all the fighting is about.
hasbeen99
03-02-04, 05:19 PM
Allah and 1/3 of the Christian Trinity are the same, I think. :thinking:
Allah and 1/3 of the Christian Trinity are the same, I think. :thinking:
it would be 2/3 no?
Isaac OddVelvet
03-02-04, 05:44 PM
yes. Allah, Yahweh and Yehovah are the same. there are dramatic differences in other beliefs though. The Muslims believe that Jesus ascended live into heaven he didn't die, wasn't crucified and didn't come back from the dead. The Muslims also hold the holy books of Christianity and Judaism as sacred books as well. Of course, they also believe their version of the truth is "the truth" just as the other religions do, so that creates a bit of friction.
hasbeen99
03-02-04, 07:37 PM
it would be 2/3 no?
No. I don't think Allah incorporates the properties or purpose of the Holy Spirit. I could be wrong on that one, though.
Miss tery
03-02-04, 08:49 PM
They are both deities worshipped by religions, there are a bunch of them out there.
builder
03-02-04, 08:51 PM
They are both deities worshipped by religions.
stunning. :)
Miss tery
03-02-04, 08:53 PM
stunning. :)
Be nice. My cat is frisky when we play and just drew major blood. I'm trying to keep it off the keyboard.
jazzbluescat
03-03-04, 08:24 AM
From what I know they/he is the same person. In college I was told that God and Allah are one in the same. It's how one arrives at them is what seperates Islam from Christianity. WTF?
From my collegiate study I learned that all the "main" religions in the world believe in concept of one God.
Anyhow, if this is true, God being the Creator, it seems that what happens after or from God would be the major difference(s), IMHO.
:thinking:
No. I don't think Allah incorporates the properties or purpose of the Holy Spirit. I could be wrong on that one, though.
I think you're right on that one. I dated a muslim girl and she said she could not comprehend the "holy spirit" part of the Holy Trinity. She could see, but did not agree, with the Father and Son part.
hasbeen99
05-10-04, 07:29 PM
No. I don't think Allah incorporates the properties or purpose of the Holy Spirit. I could be wrong on that one, though.
I was wrong. Reading what I have of the Qur'an, I've seen mention made of the Holy Spirit. So VOR was correct on this question -- Muslims recognize/worship 2/3 of the Christian Trinity.
vpkozel
05-11-04, 07:07 AM
They're pretty harsh on religions that came after Islam, though.
Are there any of these that are not based on Jesus being the Son of God?
Blueblood32
05-11-04, 08:37 PM
I read once that the acceptance of ALLAH as one God came by virtue of combining many older ancient Gods...A referrence to a moon God above as the name of ALLAH is correct and that's why the moon is so prevalent in flags from Islamic states. I do believe that muslims have a belief that the Christian and Jewish God is the same as theirs, but I don't understand why there is so much difficulty attributing a special relationship between God and the Jewish people. I also happend to believe that the rise of Muhammed came about because of the significance of Christ, and the already established doctrine of the Jewish community, leading the other inhabitants of that region a need to adopt their own personal spiritual leader. Hence, the birth of Islam.
The devil often uses corrupted versions of good things. Islam is a perversion of christianity.
vpkozel
05-12-04, 02:54 PM
The devil often uses corrupted versions of good things. Islam is a perversion of christianity.
Good Lord.
hasbeen99
05-12-04, 03:08 PM
The devil often uses corrupted versions of good things. Islam is a perversion of christianity.
And you know this how? Have you ever read the Qur'an?
Islam respects Jesus, it just does not recognize Him as the Christ, therefore it has little to do with Christianity. It would be more accurate to say Islam is a modified version of Judaism.
To assert that Islam is a 'perversion of Christianity' is ignorant.
vpkozel
05-12-04, 03:25 PM
Islam respects Jesus,
Anyone who doubts how much Islam respects Christianity should go see Hagia Sofia. If that had been a mosque in Christian territory, it would have been torn down.
hasbeen99
05-12-04, 03:34 PM
Anyone who doubts how much Islam respects Christianity should go see Hagia Sofia. If that had been a mosque in Christian territory, it would have been torn down.
Not sure what you mean by this, VP. :thinking:
Islam denies the truth of christianity. Christ was the son of God and he died and rose again to save the lost. Islam denies this so it is a false religion. It twists christian doctrine and is therefore a perversion of christianity.
vpkozel
05-12-04, 03:58 PM
Not sure what you mean by this, VP. :thinking:
Hagia Sofia is in Istanbul - which of course was the seat of the Ottoman Empire. It had been built by Constatine (I think) when he was the first Christian Roman Emperor. It was a marvel of engineering. The church was treated with respect by the Ottomans and never desecrated. They never tried to turn it into a mosque. In fact, they thought so highly of it and its architecture that they built the awesome Blue Mosque across the square - which amazingly enough bears a striking resemblance to Sofia.
Now, contrast that the way that teh Crusaders treated mosques.
Did that clear it up?
hasbeen99
05-12-04, 04:01 PM
Islam denies the truth of christianity. Christ was the son of God and he died and rose again to save the lost. Islam denies this so it is a false religion.
A lot of belief systems fall under that definition. Doesn't mean they're perversions of Christianity.
It twists christian doctrine and is therefore a perversion of christianity.
How? :huh:
The reason Islam is a perversion is that it accepts certain aspects of christianity but denies the fundamentals of it. If it totally rejected all aspects of christianity then it would just be a false religion like Bhudism or Hinduism.
Islam is to Christianity as Baseketball (the sport in the dumb movie from the guys who make south park) is to the NBA. It takes certain pieces from it but it in no way compares to the real thing.
hasbeen99
05-13-04, 03:45 PM
The reason Islam is a perversion is that it accepts certain aspects of christianity but denies the fundamentals of it. If it totally rejected all aspects of christianity then it would just be a false religion like Bhudism or Hinduism.
I guess I'll have to concede the point somewhat. The Qur'an does recognize Jesus as more than an ordinary human being (which is more credit than most belief systems will give Him), but still stop short of acknowledging Him as the New Testament does. By doing so, they attempt to make Him less than Christianity recognizes Him, so by definition you are correct.
However, I would be very quick to point out that several other religions would fall into the same category. For example, as far as I know, Jehovah's witnesses (who call Him an angel) and I think Mormons also could be called perversions of Biblical Christianity, based solely on their perceptions and acknowledgments of Jesus.
However, I would be very quick to point out that several other religions would fall into the same category. For example, as far as I know, Jehovah's witnesses (who call Him an angel) and I think Mormons also could be called perversions of Biblical Christianity, based solely on their perceptions and acknowledgments of Jesus.
Now you are on the right track. If the religion denies the gospel then it is either a false religion or a perversion of christianity. I guess maybe Judaism falls into a seperate catagorey since they believe that Christ has not yet arrived.
vpkozel
05-13-04, 05:05 PM
Now you are on the right track. If the religion denies the gospel then it is either a false religion or a perversion of christianity. I guess maybe Judaism falls into a seperate catagorey since they believe that Christ has not yet arrived.
The believe that Jesus Christ was a prophet, but not the Messiah.
And I think that Mormons believe everything in the New Testament - they just add that Christ came to North America too.
slydevl
05-13-04, 05:16 PM
All Islam is is Christianity with all the questions removed. It is an easy religion to accept because there is no need for faith other than the single basic requirement of believing in Allah. Basically, Mohammed attempted to create a vanilla form of Judeo-Christianity.
hasbeen99
05-13-04, 05:18 PM
All Islam is, is Christianity with all the questions removed.
That's an interesting way of putting it. Don't know if I'd disagree, either.
Isaac OddVelvet
05-14-04, 03:38 PM
Now you are on the right track. If the religion denies the gospel then it is either a false religion or a perversion of christianity. I guess maybe Judaism falls into a seperate catagorey since they believe that Christ has not yet arrived.
Islam believes that Christ was a prophet. He didn't die on the cross and he rose to heaven still alive. If Islam is a perversion of Christianity, then Christianity is a perversion of Judaism. Judaism was there first and the Christians just added on top of it and took out the parts they didn't like. Exactly the same way that Islam was born from Christianity.
Here's a question for you Thelt, which form of Christianity is the real one? Catholicism? Orthodox? Protestantism? Mormonism? Christian Science? Baptists? Episcopalians? Presbyterians? They all believe slightly different versions of the bible so if there is only one true religion, which is it?
slydevl
05-14-04, 04:13 PM
Islam believes that Christ was a prophet. He didn't die on the cross and he rose to heaven still alive. If Islam is a perversion of Christianity, then Christianity is a perversion of Judaism. Judaism was there first and the Christians just added on top of it and took out the parts they didn't like. Exactly the same way that Islam was born from Christianity.
Here's a question for you Thelt, which form of Christianity is the real one? Catholicism? Orthodox? Protestantism? Mormonism? Christian Science? Baptists? Episcopalians? Presbyterians? They all believe slightly different versions of the bible so if there is only one true religion, which is it?
Where to begin?
Christians removed nothing from Judaism. Jesus came to add to the Law not remove or change it. He did set one commandment before the others and that is "Love on another" but that does not lessen the need to follow the others.
Second, all the flavors of Protestant Christianity, which is everything you named except Catholicism, Orthodox, and Mormanism, believe in the same Bible. It is the theology that differs. In other words, they all read the same thing, it the the thoughts inspired by those readings that is different.
IMO (I repeat IMO), Mormanism is about as credible as Islam and that is not at all.
slydevl
05-14-04, 04:19 PM
Before VP gets angry, I don't think Episcopalean is considered protestand either.
vpkozel
05-14-04, 04:23 PM
Second, all the flavors of Protestant Christianity, which is everything you named except Catholicism, Orthodox, and Mormanism, believe in the same Bible. It is the theology that differs. In other words, they all read the same thing, it the the thoughts inspired by those readings that is different.
IMO (I repeat IMO), Mormanism is about as credible as Islam and that is not at all.
I think that all Christians believe in the same Bible. But is you are going to divide it up, then Episcopalians are going to use whatever the Catholic Church does, I think. We still say that we believe in "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church" in the Nicene Creed.
Mormons believe in everything in the Bible. They have a second book that is additive. Not unlike Christianity is to Judaism.
vpkozel
05-14-04, 04:24 PM
Before VP gets angry, I don't think Episcopalean is considered protestand either.
We are. But the differences are not as many as other denominations.
slydevl
05-14-04, 04:25 PM
I think that all Christians believe in the same Bible. But is you are going to divide it up, then Episcopalians are going to use whatever the Catholic Church does, I think. We still say that we believe in "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church" in the Nicene Creed.
Mormons believe in everything in the Bible. They have a second book that is additive. Not unlike Christianity is to Judaism.
Doesn't the catholic church have a few extra books like Maccabees? Don't know about Episcopalian.
Isaac OddVelvet
05-14-04, 04:25 PM
Then which is the true word of God? Catholicism, Orthodox or Protestantism? There are large differences between the three main branches. To say that only Christianity is the true religion, when Christianity itself is not a coherent religion seems strange. And how do you tell if one religion is the true one? If you refer to the Bible then you have a circular argument.
slydevl
05-14-04, 04:28 PM
Then which is the true word of God? Catholicism, Orthodox or Protestantism? There are large differences between the three main branches. To say that only Christianity is the true religion, when Christianity itself is not a coherent religion seems strange. And how do you tell if one religion is the true one? If you refer to the Bible then you have a circular argument.
What are the large differences of which you speak? Different flavors choose different parts to stress or not but they all still honor all of the rest of it. Protestantism sprung out of more procedural differences like the selling of indulgences than differences in Biblical interpretation from what I can recall.
Isaac OddVelvet
05-14-04, 04:56 PM
There are some rather large differences in my view. Orthodox do not believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. They also have different concepts of Jesus and why he died on the cross. Orthodox split from Catholicism because they believed Catholics were idolaters and worshipped Mary and the Saints as gods unto themselves. They also have different books in their Bible than Catholics and Protestants do. In fact, the Catholic and Protestant Bible are different. Protestants have the fewest books... Catholics and Orthodox both additionally have 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, The Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), additions to Esther, and Susanna and Bel and the Dragon which are included in Daniel. Orthodox Bibles also include 1st and 2nd Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151 and 3rd Maccabees.
vpkozel
05-14-04, 05:10 PM
There are some rather large differences in my view. Orthodox do not believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. They also have different concepts of Jesus and why he died on the cross. Orthodox split from Catholicism because they believed Catholics were idolaters and worshipped Mary and the Saints as gods unto themselves. They also have different books in their Bible than Catholics and Protestants do. In fact, the Catholic and Protestant Bible are different. Protestants have the fewest books... Catholics and Orthodox both additionally have 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, The Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), additions to Esther, and Susanna and Bel and the Dragon which are included in Daniel. Orthodox Bibles also include 1st and 2nd Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151 and 3rd Maccabees.
yeah, but other than that they are exactly the same, right?
hasbeen99
05-14-04, 06:36 PM
Islam believes that Christ was a prophet. He didn't die on the cross and he rose to heaven still alive. If Islam is a perversion of Christianity, then Christianity is a perversion of Judaism. Judaism was there first and the Christians just added on top of it and took out the parts they didn't like. Exactly the same way that Islam was born from Christianity.
I want to argue this point, but I can't. :thinking:
Here's a question for you Thelt, which form of Christianity is the real one? Catholicism? Orthodox? Protestantism? Mormonism? Christian Science? Baptists? Episcopalians? Presbyterians? They all believe slightly different versions of the bible so if there is only one true religion, which is it?
Personally, I think true Christianity is anchored in the Bible. Now, I've not read the 'extra' books the non-Protestants use, except a few bits and pieces of the Gospel of Thomas. From what I gather, the Protestant Bible excluded the Gnostic gospels, Maccabees, et al, because they didn't agree with Old Testament writings and/or New Testament theology. From the little I've seen, it seems like a legitimate assertion.
All that to say, I believe the Protestant version of the Bible is the truest statement of Christian doctrine until it's proven to me otherwise. (I am open to argument, BTW.) Going from that reference point, any theology that deviates from that foundation is lacking in Christian legitimacy.
hasbeen99
05-14-04, 06:56 PM
Christians removed nothing from Judaism. Jesus came to add to the Law not remove or change it. He did set one commandment before the others and that is "Love on another" but that does not lessen the need to follow the others.
I agree with you, Sly, but couldn't it be argued that salvation by grace supercedes Mosaic Law, and thereby renders much (not all) of Old Testament (i.e. Torah) doctrine invalid?
Second, all the flavors of Protestant Christianity, which is everything you named except Catholicism, Orthodox, and Mormanism, believe in the same Bible. It is the theology that differs. In other words, they all read the same thing, it the the thoughts inspired by those readings that is different.
Agreed.
IMO (I repeat IMO), Mormanism is about as credible as Islam...
You've made this point before, and I still think it has a lot of credibility. Both claim roots in the Old and New Testaments, but both include later writings that when in conflict with the Bible, override it. And both writings were borne from the unwitnessed revelation/experience of a single man (as far as I know).
hasbeen99
05-14-04, 07:29 PM
I think that all Christians believe in the same Bible. But is you are going to divide it up, then Episcopalians are going to use whatever the Catholic Church does, I think. We still say that we believe in "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church" in the Nicene Creed.
Mormons believe in everything in the Bible. They have a second book that is additive. Not unlike Christianity is to Judaism.
My biggest problem with Catholicism is (per Sadic) the word of the Pope supercedes the Bible.
Mormons do believe in the Bible (they tend to be very proud of their "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" moniker) and claim to be Christians. The problem is there are subtle differences in interpretation of Biblical doctrine (i.e. changes in the identities of God the Father, Jesus, Adam, etc.) that apparently are corroborated in the Book of Mormon. There are also practices and traditions the Mormons observe that have evolved over the decades that stand in stark contrast to New Testament principles (salvation after death, the whole 'temple' concept, etc.), based solely on the interpretations of Mormon clerics seemingly with little or no accountability to the Bible itself.
I suppose the fundamental difference I see between Christianity/Judaism and Mormonism/Christianity is that Christianity has much more historical, scientific, and spiritual evidence to support it. The other difference is that Christianity is actually predicted and anticipated in the Old Testament. The New Testament gives no such forewarning of additional revelations of prophets to come, such as Muhammad or Joseph Smith.
Isaac OddVelvet
05-14-04, 07:36 PM
All that to say, I believe the Protestant version of the Bible is the truest statement of Christian doctrine until it's proven to me otherwise. (I am open to argument, BTW.) Going from that reference point, any theology that deviates from that foundation is lacking in Christian legitimacy.
The history of it goes like this: The early Christians used a set of scriptures called the Septuagint, it was basically a Greek translation of Jewish Scripture. This text was adopted and called the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. However, around 100AD, Jewish rabbis revised their Scripture and established an official canon of Judaism which excluded some portions of the Greek Septuagint. The material excluded was a group of 15 Jewish books. Christians did not follow the revisions of Judaism and continued to use the text of the Septuagint.
Protestant reformers in the 1500s decided to follow the official canon of Judaism for the Old Testament rather than the Septuagint, and the excluded material was palced in a separate section of the Bible called the Apocrypha. Protestant Bibles included the Apocrypha until the mid-1800s, but eventually dropped.
So I guess, what I'm saying is, with all the revisions (this one and the Council of Nicaea) and so much material excluded for both religous and political reasons, how can you claim that any single text is the true and whole Word of God? It seems to me that with 2,000 years and several translations there would be some loss. I'm not saying that the Bible is wrong, in fact, I believe in it, but I cannot accept that it is the one true book and that Modern Christianity is the one true faith when so much has been altered from its beginnings. The most that I can say is that the only real Christians are those who follow Christ's teachings and strive to be Christ-like. And that means being forgiving and compassionate, not vengeful and hateful. Too many so-called Christians do not follow Christ's teachings.
hasbeen99
05-14-04, 08:16 PM
However, around 100AD, Jewish rabbis revised their Scripture and established an official canon of Judaism which excluded some portions of the Greek Septuagint. The material excluded was a group of 15 Jewish books. Christians did not follow the revisions of Judaism and continued to use the text of the Septuagint.
Interesting...
Any idea why the rabbis decided at that point in history to canonize their Scripture? If memory serves, that was less than a generation after John wrote his revelation on Patmos, and probably less than a decade after he died. Smells a little like a revisionist history conspiracy to me.
The most that I can say is that the only real Christians are those who follow Christ's teachings and strive to be Christ-like. And that means being forgiving and compassionate, not vengeful and hateful. Too many so-called Christians do not follow Christ's teachings.
Agreed.
Then which is the true word of God? Catholicism, Orthodox or Protestantism? There are large differences between the three main branches. To say that only Christianity is the true religion, when Christianity itself is not a coherent religion seems strange. And how do you tell if one religion is the true one? If you refer to the Bible then you have a circular argument.
There is not one "true religion". There is however one true gospel message. That message is that Christ was the son of God and he died for the sins of mankind. All men are sinners and must accept Christ and ask him for salvation in order to go to heaven. That is one basic truth that any religion must accept in order to be valid. I agree that there are lots of different beliefs and sects within christianity but if they do not accept the gospel message then they are not truly christian. All of the other issues that people disagree on do not matter that much.
I also believe that any religion that does not hold the gospel to be true is keeping its followers from finding the truth. Those religions are therefore instruments of evil even if they are responsible for many good deeds. They are like placing a band aid on a snake bite. It may appear to help the wound but with out the anti-venom they are not going to help you.
vpkozel
05-15-04, 11:33 PM
My biggest problem with Catholicism is (per Sadic) the word of the Pope supercedes the Bible.
I do not believe that sadic is correct about this. It is my understanding that Catholics think that the Pope is God's representative on Earth, but I don't think he trumps the Bible.
The history of it goes like this: The early Christians used a set of scriptures called the Septuagint, it was basically a Greek translation of Jewish Scripture. This text was adopted and called the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. However, around 100AD, Jewish rabbis revised their Scripture and established an official canon of Judaism which excluded some portions of the Greek Septuagint. The material excluded was a group of 15 Jewish books. Christians did not follow the revisions of Judaism and continued to use the text of the Septuagint.
Protestant reformers in the 1500s decided to follow the official canon of Judaism for the Old Testament rather than the Septuagint, and the excluded material was palced in a separate section of the Bible called the Apocrypha. Protestant Bibles included the Apocrypha until the mid-1800s, but eventually dropped.
So I guess, what I'm saying is, with all the revisions (this one and the Council of Nicaea) and so much material excluded for both religous and political reasons, how can you claim that any single text is the true and whole Word of God? It seems to me that with 2,000 years and several translations there would be some loss. I'm not saying that the Bible is wrong, in fact, I believe in it, but I cannot accept that it is the one true book and that Modern Christianity is the one true faith when so much has been altered from its beginnings. The most that I can say is that the only real Christians are those who follow Christ's teachings and strive to be Christ-like. And that means being forgiving and compassionate, not vengeful and hateful. Too many so-called Christians do not follow Christ's teachings.
Christ's message of salvation is not to be "Christ like" it is to ask his forgiveness for his sins and repent of them. Attempting to be Christ like is something all christians should strive for but it is not the main message of Christ.
The King James 1611 version of the bible has been the same since 1611. I believe it to be most valid version of the bible. However regardless of which version you use the central message of the gospel is unchanged.
Isaac OddVelvet
05-17-04, 12:27 PM
Interesting...
Any idea why the rabbis decided at that point in history to canonize their Scripture? If memory serves, that was less than a generation after John wrote his revelation on Patmos, and probably less than a decade after he died. Smells a little like a revisionist history conspiracy to me.
Agreed.
The rabbis decided to canonize their scriptures because a large amount of material had leaked into it from the Greek-speaking world. They took out a lot of non-Hebrew stuff, i.e. less Jewish stuff, and added other, older work in. The result was a new canon that formed the "official" Jewish scripture from then on and founded Modern Judaism. Many Christians didn't follow the revision.
I do not believe that sadic is correct about this. It is my understanding that Catholics think that the Pope is God's representative on Earth, but I don't think he trumps the Bible.
The belief that the Pope is God's representative goes further than that in that he cannot do any wrong because he is directly imbued with the Holy Spirit and it will not allow him to err. This belief has wavered considerably over time, but that was a central pillar of Catholicism for many centuries.
vpkozel
05-17-04, 01:03 PM
The belief that the Pope is God's representative goes further than that in that he cannot do any wrong because he is directly imbued with the Holy Spirit and it will not allow him to err. This belief has wavered considerably over time, but that was a central pillar of Catholicism for many centuries.
I have never read that. Wouldn't that belief make him a Second Coming, since the only man without sin was Christ?
vpkozel
05-17-04, 01:08 PM
FWIW
http://catholicoutlook.com/objpope.html
Isaac OddVelvet
05-17-04, 02:29 PM
FWIW
http://catholicoutlook.com/objpope.html
Bad wording on my part. The statement comes from the Catholic doctrine that the Pope is infallible. The little bit of hedging and wordplay that this site does seems to solve that objection. Gotta love semantics.
hasbeen99
06-08-04, 02:04 PM
FWIW
http://catholicoutlook.com/objpope.html
Interesting link. Thanks for posting it. :)
hasbeen99
06-08-04, 02:35 PM
Christ's message of salvation is not to be "Christ like" it is to ask his forgiveness for his sins and repent of them. Attempting to be Christ like is something all christians should strive for but it is not the main message of Christ.
I agree that being Christ-like is not the primary means of salvation. A Christ-like life is the natural result of one submitting to God's will and actively pursuing a growing relationship with Him.
At the same time, I strongly disagree that living a Christ-like life wasn't a significant part of Jesus' message and ministry. I think that's exactly what He meant when He told the apostles, "Follow me."
hasbeen99
06-08-04, 02:43 PM
The belief that the Pope is God's representative goes further than that in that he cannot do any wrong because he is directly imbued with the Holy Spirit and it will not allow him to err. This belief has wavered considerably over time, but that was a central pillar of Catholicism for many centuries.
Interesting. But that would suggest to me that the Catholics believe that in this day and age, only the Pope is endowed with the Holy Spirit. If so, that doctrine is unbiblical. According to Jesus' exchange with Nicodemus, all believers are/will be indwelt by the Spirit. That's what being 'born again' means.
Another problem I have with the above statement is that "the Holy Spirit will not allow him to err". This, too, is unbiblical. The Spirit does not override the will of the individual. It guides, but it does not control.
hasbeen99
06-08-04, 02:48 PM
Wouldn't that belief make (the Pope) a Second Coming, since the only man without sin was Christ?
I don't think so. Christ's identity is a lot bigger than just being sinless.
Superfluous_Nut
06-08-04, 02:49 PM
it's only a matter of time before catholics and protestants don't recognize each other as true believers.
it's only a matter of time before catholics and protestants don't recognize each other as true believers.
Names and labels do not matter. The gospel has not changed for two thousand years. If a group believes in it then they are true believers.
Superfluous_Nut
06-08-04, 03:13 PM
Names and labels do not matter. The gospel has not changed for two thousand years. If a group believes in it then they are true believers.
sure, but the issue is determining whether they really believe in it. i'm talking long term future here, not a few years.
hasbeen99
06-08-04, 08:13 PM
it's only a matter of time before catholics and protestants don't recognize each other as true believers.
A matter of time? Catholics and Protestants have been ripping each other apart in Ireland for decades -- maybe centuries -- over this very issue.
Superfluous_Nut
06-09-04, 04:03 AM
A matter of time? Catholics and Protestants have been ripping each other apart in Ireland for decades -- maybe centuries -- over this very issue.
sure. that'll come and go. i mean, the religious freedom that people sought in america wasn't freedom from budhism or islam, it was freedom from other christian religions.
hasbeen99
06-10-04, 07:56 PM
sure. that'll come and go. i mean, the religious freedom that people sought in america wasn't freedom from budhism or islam, it was freedom from other christian religions.
Precisely.
Miss tery
06-26-04, 03:29 PM
All religions have equal merit and validity to the extent that they preach fundamental moral precepts such as the golden rule and responsibility for one's fellows. Where they fall apart is when the supernatural is dragged in. Those that do so the least deserve the most respect.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.