Posted on 03/26/2013 6:56:09 AM PDT by NYer
Last week, Pope Francis received a collection of world religious leaders in his first ecumenical and interreligious event. His address to them contained diplomatic niceties and specific expressions of good will aimed at Orthodox, Protestants, Jews, and Muslims.
His remarks to the latter recognized that Muslims “worship the one living and merciful God, and call upon him in prayer.” In this he echoed the 1964 dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium, which gave a nod to “the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.”
Now, both Lumen Gentium 16 and Pope Francis’s words have a pastoral rather than doctrinal purpose. Their aim is to build interreligious bridges by generously acknowledging whatever can be found to be true in other faiths—not to make precise pronouncements about their theology. That said, Lumen Gentium is an exercise of the ordinary Magisterium, and even casual statements from a pope (be it this one from Francis or similar ones made by his predecessors) shouldn’t be taken lightly.
So, what does it mean to say that Muslims adore the one God along with us—to say, as can be reasonably drawn from these statements, that Muslims worship the same God as Catholics? We can consider the idea in several senses.
I think we can say with confidence that any monotheist who calls out to the Lord is heard by the Lord, whether it’s a Muslim, a pagan philosopher seeking the God of reason, or a Native American petitioning the Great Spirit. As Lumen Gentium 16 continues, God is not “far distant from those who in shadows and images seek [him].”
Likewise I think we’re on solid ground in saying that the subjective intention of Muslims is to worship the one God—moreover, the one God from the line of Abrahamic revelation. Whether or not their version of that revelation is authentic or correct, that’s what they “profess to hold” to. Furthermore, some of the attributes of the God to whom they address their worship are comparable to the Christian God’s: He is one, merciful, omnipotent, and the judge of the world.
Just as clearly, though, we cannot say that the God in whom Muslims profess to believe is theologically identical to the Christian God. For the most obvious example, their God is a “lonely God,” as Chesterton put it, whereas ours is a Trinity of persons. Beyond that difference, in the divine economy our Gods are also quite different: most pointedly in that ours took human nature to himself and dwelt among us on earth, whereas the Muslim God remains pure transcendence. To Muslims the idea of an incarnation is blasphemy.
And so perhaps we can distinguish between worship of God and belief in him, the former being more about the intent of the worshiper and the latter being more about the object of belief himself. Thus could Gerhard Müller, bishop emeritus of Regensburg and since last year the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, assert in 2007 that Muslims and Christians “do not believe in the same God,” and yet not contradict any magisterial teaching.
Of course, Jews believe in an utterly transcendent and “lonely” God, too; the idea that Jesus was God’s son, Yahweh incarnate, was likewise blasphemous to the Jews of his day. Is their theology as deficient as Islam’s? Ought we to put them in the same category as Muslims: subjectively worshiping the one God but believing in him, as least partly, in error?
Well, at least one difference suggests itself. Muslims “profess” to hold to the faith of Abraham but really don’t; their version of Abrahamic faith is false. (Of course, they believe that our version is the false one, a corruption of the Qur’an.) Jews, on the other hand, know and believe in their God according to his authentic self-revelation—what they have received from him is true, just incomplete. To be fully true, Jewish theology just needs to be perfected by Christian revelation, whereas, although we can identify many truths in it, Islamic theology needs to be broken down, corrected, rebuilt from an authentic foundation.
Now, it can be a bad practice to judge ideas by their sources. But if, as Benedict XVI has said, faith is at root a personal encounter with God, then the authenticity of God’s personal revelation of himself is of the utmost importance. In other words, the source of God-knowledge becomes the very question. We worship and believe in God because and to the extent that we know him. And we know him, above all other reasons, according to how he revealed himself to us.
In this sense, then, I suggest that we can correctly say that Jews worship and believe in a God who is qualitatively truer, closer to the God of Christianity, than the God of Islam. Both Jews and Muslims lay claim to the same revelation, but where Jews have an accurate record of it (and thus of the God it reveals) Muslims have a fictionalized adaptation.
This question of the theological similarities and differences between Christianity and Islam is perhaps more important than it ever has been. With religious folk of all kinds increasingly beset by secularism and moral relativism, we look across creedal lines for friends and allies—comrades-in-arms in the fight for unborn life, traditional marriage and morality, religious rights, and a continued place for believers in the cultural conversation. It can be an encouragement and a temptation, then, to look at Islam and see not warriors of jihad against Arab Christians and a decadent West, but fellow-soldiers of an “ecumenical jihad” against an anti-theist culture.
Can Islam be that reliable ally? (Shameless product plug alert.) That’s the subject of the newest book from Catholic Answers Press: Not Peace but a Sword by Robert Spencer. The evidence he presents will help us understand Islam’s God more clearly, and make us examine more shrewdly the prospects for any future alliance with followers of the Prophet.
Neither does Satan.
Your answer then is ‘void of reason’ when you say simply that ...”God Instills in each of us what He requires. No point of reference is required.”
What then do you base your moral decisions on? What foundation and test do you give to know if or not they are God’s standards?
The question isn’t proof , it’s what standard do you use to measure if what you believe is true or not?
Everyone has the right to certainly believe what they want, but not everything one believes is right as you know. Therefore their needs to be a standard of measure to determine if those moral beliefs are indeed from God’s point of view. ...so how do you ‘know’ what you’ve determined is right or not?
It’s a good question, stuartcr. I want to come back to this thread tomorrow to see wha folks are saying about it.
So its void of reason to you, ok. I dont test or measure my moral decisions
If it has anything to do with any of my answers, you’ll probably find most don’t think well of them.
If it has anything to do with any of my answers, you’ll probably find most don’t think well of them.
islam’s “god” is satan.
That about covers it...Perhaps the pope and millions of Catholics feel just as comfortable praying to Allah, the black moon rock god...
They do not, however, believe that Jesus is the son of God. They believe that He was, like Adam, directly created by God --- in the virgin Maryam's womb.
They also believe tht Jesus will come again at the end of the world to judge the living and the dead.
Then how do you know if they are right or wrong from Gods viewpoint? or for that matter accountability?
Geez man, what is going on in your head? What kind of moral decisions do you ponder over, that makes you need to know if they are right or wrong? Don’t you have a conscience?
I have never, in my 62+yrs, ever done something that I had to actually ask myself if it was morally right or wrong. I really don’t think I’m alone in this either.
I told you a number of times that I believe our moral code is instilled in us by God when He creates us. To me, that means that what I do, is ok in my eyes and in God’s eyes.
I’m accountable for all my actions here on earth, but I’ve never done anything that led me to believe that I would get in trouble with God.
Why do you think I’m so thankful to God all the time?
I’m just thinking it’s a waste of time to try to convince someone that God is an “objective reality” (your term in post $#20) if they do not believe in objective truth to be begin with... that’s all. That’s why I keep asking if you believe ANYTHING is objectively true. We’ve gotten way off track on this thread and my apologies to NYer.
Actually, as you’ve read, it was #18s term, I was asking about it.
I suspect you're also interested in (if not entirely pleased with) "Dominus Iesus" ("Jesus is Lord"), issued by the CDF with Pope John Paul II's approbation in 2000, over the signture of Joseph Ratzinger, principal author.
It was particularly nifty because it offended everyone: polytheists (because it said there is only one God), Jews and Muslims (because it said Jesus is Lord), Protestants (because it said there is only one Church), and Catholic theologians (because it said there is only one Pope--- whoops, no, that was only strongly implied!)
It kicked over the whole Can 'o' WormsTM (not to be confused with Diet of WormsTM) concerning ecumenism, won't you be my buddy, the long-leash-short-whip policy which had led to a shrinkage of evangelization and a logorrhea of dialog.
The tugging and pulling is still in progress.
Don't be expecting any anathema or excommunication of Muslims, since they are not baptized persons and thus are not in any way ecclesiastical subjects of the Pope. You can't divorce somebody you were never married to; you can't excommunicate someone you were never in communion with.
(This is so galling to lesbians, who, being denied the right to marry, now demand the right to divorce!! --- but I digress.)
The question being volleyed about concerning the Muslims is, what is the best way to carry out the Great Commission? Do you have to be on speaking terms with people to evangelize them? Etc.etc.
We don't know how far Francis wishes to emulate hois namesake, but he may have his mission to the Muslims in mind, as the following (Source) illustrates:
Want to come along for the ride?
Francis saw the crusade first of all as a chance for martyrdom: and in martyrdom the highest and purest form of Christian witness. In June 1219 Francis embarked for the East and reached Damietta, where he had a peaceful meeting with Sultan Malek Kemel. After returning home he summarised his missionary experience :
"The Lord says: 'I send you as sheep among wolves. Be prudent as serpents and simple as doves'. Therefore friars who are divinely inspired to go among the Saracens and other infidels, may go with the permission of their minister and servant ...
"Friars who go among the infidels may behave spiritually in their midst in two manners.
"One manner is that they shall avoid any argument or dispute and be subject to every human creature for love of God and they shall confess they are Christians.
"The other manner is, when they see it is pleasing to the Lord, they shall announce the word of God that they (infidels) may believe in God the almighty Father and Son and Holy Spirit, creator of all things, and in the Son redeemer and saviour, and that they may be baptised and become Christians, because unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God."
However,... ...”Conscience points towards a standard,conscious is not the standard”......... we might be able to determine that wrong has been done,.... but then how do we define that wrong? .........If there isn't a standard or reference we have nothing to truly measure by except ‘opinion’.
additionally... conscience is not ‘the source’ of revelation ‘about’ right and wrong... It does not teach us moral or ethical ideals, rather to hold us accountable to the highest standards of right and wrong we know............. the conscience can only react to what it knows and what it has been taught.
If one has been taught that the the Bible is God’s word to mankind and that it is the supreme standard for right and wrong, the conscience will react when there is any deviation from those teachings...... If ‘the conscience’ is taught that Islam, Mormonism, Hinduism, is ‘the truth’... it will react when those standards are about to be violated..... If the conscience is taught that cursing, drinking and wicked living are right, the conscience will have no problem with those things.
J. Oswald Sanders said this concerning the conscience:
“Every conscience needs instruction... Its delicate mechanism has been thrown off balance by the fall..... Just as a bullet will reach the bull’eye only if the two sights are in correct alignment, so correct moral judgments are delivered ‘only’ when the conscience is correctly aligned with the Scriptures.”
...The conscience does not determine whether something is moral, what it does do is “apply” moral truth.... if it is to be reliable it must make judgments consistent with objective moral truth.... If it does not, then that conscience is in error and is not to be trusted. (notes I took from a study on the conscious)
Yes, you used the term “objective reality” in your response-question which I assume was a legitimate question with meaning. I see no difference between “objective reality” and “objective truth.” So, I still do not know the answer: “Do you believe in objective reality OR, if you prefer, objective truth?”
He moves the goalposts, and the discussion, around so much you cannot get him to come out and admit what he does actually believe--if anything.
Multiple FReepers have tried. But he steadfastly refuses to be adult about any of the conversations he's involved in.
For me, the conscience is the source for right or wrong.
Well, if you would define either of those, then I may be able to answer your question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.