[hosepipe]

[ Mohammed himself, was not, like most heresiarchs, a man of Catholic birth and doctrine to begin with. He sprang from pagans. But that which he taught was in the main Catholic doctrine, oversimplified. ]

You might have a point..
The Roman Catholic church in the sixth century especially in North Africa (where Mohamaad) arose (on a westward journey) was totally corrupt.. Mohammad might have started out as a relief to that corruption, but being corrupt himself only made things first better, and then worse.. as it is today..

But then, I think the Roman Catholic church was corrupt from the beginning.. and "pagan" itself, still is.. especially after Constatine made "christanity" the state religion of all of Roman territory.. by force.. Forced "conversions" was exactley what Mohamaad did himself..

Pagan Rome one day, "christian" Rome the next day.. is political not spiritual.. and so then, required "priests" like the pagan Romans were used to.. "Pagan priests" one day, "christian priests" the next.. all so very logical.. and Roman Univeralism(Catholic) has been, and still is, political to this very day.. Even "some" so-called protestant churchs are apeing Universalism as variants.. And is the answer to all the "pagan" practises morphed into so-called "christain" ones today.. The list of which is too large for me to even care to describe..

[ventana]

You may think many things, but facts seem to escape you. The Catholic church as founded by Peter through Christ had man at the helm, and therefore was subject to the shortcomings individuals may incur, and individuals may be corrupt, but the institution itself is guided by the Holy Spirit and does not change its fundamental truths from age to age. The priests of the faith were not pagan, good sir, but derived from Rabbis as the church was an institution begun by a Jew named Jesus. As to politics, the infamous Jew wisely said: render to Caesar what is Caesar's. As to morphing, Christ embraced the Samaritan with ease who brought along his respective practises, which is reasonable, so long as his main effort is Christian, such as caring for the beaten individual at the side of the rode while others pass by. Have a nice day hosepipe. V's wife.

[Antoninus]

The Roman Catholic church in the sixth century especially in North Africa (where Mohamaad) arose (on a westward journey) was totally corrupt.. Mohammad might have started out as a relief to that corruption, but being corrupt himself only made things first better, and then worse.. as it is today.

Mohammad did not start out in North Africa--which was a world away from Arabia where he did start out. North Africa was a provice of the Roman Empire during Mohammad's day. It had suffered from the Donatist and Arian heresies, but was strongly Roman and Catholic in Mohammad's day. Indeed, the Roman emperor at Byzantium at this time was a North African named Heraclius.

As a protestant who is hostile to the Catholic Church, you probably would have been right at home in the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire in the time of Mohammad. It was positively rife with sects and heresies that were hostile to the Churches in both Rome and Constantinople to varying degrees. Chief among these was monophysitism. When the Muslims arrived in Egypt, many of the monophysites felt it was better for them to have Islamic rulers than "Chalcedonians" (i.e., Catholics). Turned out to be a pretty bad deal in the long run.

Next time you post on a thread like this, do a little research first.