Print Page | Close Window

Any Answers from Christians?

Printed From: IslamiCity.com
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Interfaith Dialogue
Forum Discription: It is for Interfaith dialogue, where Muslims discuss with non-Muslims. We encourge that dialogue takes place in a cordial atmosphere on various topics including religious tolerance.
URL: http://www.IslamiCity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=15040
Printed Date: 22 December 2014 at 2:44am


Topic: Any Answers from Christians?
Posted By: islamispeace
Subject: Any Answers from Christians?
Date Posted: 15 July 2009 at 8:06pm
I have presented the following theological questions to two Christians on this forum.  Neither has yet to respond.  I figured maybe the other Christians here just didn't see them so I will paste them here for all to see.

1.  If Jesus' mission was to die for our sins, why did he not just kill himself?

2. Or arrange for some accident to occur? 

3. Would that not be the same as being crucified, as long as the result was death?

4. And what about the ones who killed him (allegedly)?  Are they not the greatest heroes in the world?  I mean, come on, they basically ensured that Jesus' mission would be a success.  If they had not decided to kill him, then he could not die for our sins and therefore none of us would get saved.  So, the people who did kill him are heroes because they allowed for the mission to succeed and ensured that all who believed would go to Heaven.

Number 4 is really bugging me. 



-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)




Replies:
Posted By: martha
Date Posted: 16 July 2009 at 1:29pm
Originally posted by islamispeace

I have presented the following theological questions to two Christians on this forum.  Neither has yet to respond.  I figured maybe the other Christians here just didn't see them so I will paste them here for all to see.
 
Will I do? I was Christian before:)

1.  If Jesus' mission was to die for our sins, why did he not just kill himself?

 That would have been suicide...not allowed in Christian religions

2. Or arrange for some accident to occur? 

As before, it would have been a form of suicide...

3. Would that not be the same as being crucified, as long as the result was death?

As far as Christians are concerned, crucifixion was a necessary part of God's plan...just as Adam and Eve were all part of the big plan. No other form of death for Jesus would have sufficed. Jesus after all knew his mission and knew he would be betrayed and would die.

4. And what about the ones who killed him (allegedly)?  Are they not the greatest heroes in the world?  I mean, come on, they basically ensured that Jesus' mission would be a success.  If they had not decided to kill him, then he could not die for our sins and therefore none of us would get saved.  So, the people who did kill him are heroes because they allowed for the mission to succeed and ensured that all who believed would go to Heaven.

How could they be seen as the greatest of heroes? They did not foresee  the crucifixion. THey were only human beings. Jesus had a 1 to 1 relationship with God so he knew his mission on earth. Even if Jesus supposedly died for our sins it does not mean we are exempt from repenting of our own individual sins. It is an ongoing progression in life, just as it is for muslims. We have to repent for every wrong deed just like CHristians. FOr Christians Jesus is the mediator between humans and God. Jesus is therefore not God as we know God. THis is often confusing for Christians and muslims alike. God and Jesus are separate personages.
 
Number 4 is really bugging me. 
Don't let it bug you, lol. Is it really that important anyway? Hope this helps. Salaams


-------------
some of us are a lot like cement:- all mixed up and permanently set


Posted By: Nazarene
Date Posted: 16 July 2009 at 4:38pm
salaams
 
1.  If Jesus' mission was to die for our sins, why did he not just kill himself?
 
That would have been suicide...not allowed in Christian religions
 
    At the time of jesus there was no " christian religion " the term
 "CHRISTIAN" was first used in Antioch some 30 yrs. after jesus' death and was given to the GENTILE followers of jesus.
   so if jesus would have killed himself this event would have shaped " what was to come ".
leland
 


-------------
love for all conquers all


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 16 July 2009 at 7:17pm
Walaikum as-salaam sister Martha,

Will I do? I was Christian before:)

Sure!  Everyone's opinion is welcomed.  Smile

That would have been suicide...not allowed in Christian religions

I agree with you on that.  But, I think brother Leland also made a good point.  There was no "Christian religion" in the time of Jesus.  But, since he was from among the Jews, suicide would still have been forbidden.

As before, it would have been a form of suicide...

Now here I definitely disagree.  An "accident" would not be suicide, especially if it was not in his control.  Certainly, the Father could have conjured up some way for him to die? 

As far as Christians are concerned, crucifixion was a necessary part of God's plan

But how and why?  That's my question.  I already know that they believe that.  I want to know the logic behind it, if there is any.

Jesus after all knew his mission and knew he would be betrayed and would die.

You are still referring to the Christian perspective, correct? 

You brought up another point I didn't consider.  The betrayal!  We are told Judas betrayed Jesus so that the Pharisees could have him executed.  Does that not make Judas a hero too?  His betrayal allowed Jesus to fulfill his "mission". 

How could they be seen as the greatest of heroes? They did not foresee  the crucifixion. THey were only human beings.

Yes, I know.  But as I pointed out, their actions ensured that Jesus' intended sacrifice would occur, even though they were not privy to itYou could say that they were pawns in the whole grand scheme. 

Even if Jesus supposedly died for our sins it does not mean we are exempt from repenting of our own individual sins. It is an ongoing progression in life, just as it is for muslims.

If this is true for Christianity, then the crucifixion serves no purpose.  My understanding was that if I were to ask a Christian if he or she is saved, they would say quite enthusiastically "yes!".  Why?  Because Jesus' supposed death washed away their sins, supposedly.

FOr Christians Jesus is the mediator between humans and God. Jesus is therefore not God as we know God. THis is often confusing for Christians and muslims alike. God and Jesus are separate personages.
 
I don't know which denomination you belonged to but this is not what I have heard and read from mainstream Christians, Catholics and Protestants especially. 

Don't let it bug you, lol. Is it really that important anyway? Hope this helps. Salaams

I didn't mean that it was bothering me.  What can I say?  I am just a curious guy! Smile I spend my days pontificating on theological and spiritual issues.

Its important because I am trying to understand the other perspective.  That's how one learns.  Its also important because if a Christian tries to convert me, I have some difficult questions for them in my arsenal!  LOL
  



-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Natassia
Date Posted: 16 July 2009 at 8:10pm
Originally posted by islamispeace

I have presented the following theological questions to two Christians on this forum.  Neither has yet to respond.  I figured maybe the other Christians here just didn't see them so I will paste them here for all to see.

1.  If Jesus' mission was to die for our sins, why did he not just kill himself?

2. Or arrange for some accident to occur? 

3. Would that not be the same as being crucified, as long as the result was death?

4. And what about the ones who killed him (allegedly)?  Are they not the greatest heroes in the world?  I mean, come on, they basically ensured that Jesus' mission would be a success.  If they had not decided to kill him, then he could not die for our sins and therefore none of us would get saved.  So, the people who did kill him are heroes because they allowed for the mission to succeed and ensured that all who believed would go to Heaven.

Number 4 is really bugging me. 

Jesus' mission was to restore that which was lost and fulfill the Law and the Prophets. He had foreknowledge of what would happen, and he offered his life up as ransom for many. Despite his foreknowledge, he did not control the minds or actions of those who betrayed and executed him. If you have read the Bible, you would see that despite the st**idities and wickedness of humans, God's will is still done. Despite the evil action men took to kill Jesus, God used the crucifixion to glorify His name when He resurrected Christ.

You are assuming that God's will was dependent upon the actions of humans. Here's where we come to the paradox of omniscience. So, God is able to know all of the past, present, and future...and yet He desires that we have free will and the ability to exercise that free will. Tell me, how is an omniscient deity to interact with His creation without controlling their thoughts, choices, and actions?

He always knew how wicked the Jews and Gentiles (all humans) would be. Despite that, He decided to give them a means of salvation and the gift of eternal life. And He did it...even though humans were still exercising their free will.

I find it to be absolutely amazing.



Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 17 July 2009 at 4:57pm
He always knew how wicked the Jews and Gentiles (all humans) would be. Despite that, He decided to give them a means of salvation and the gift of eternal life. And He did it...even though humans were still exercising their free will.

Interestingly, so what is Jesus's choice or God's? Who is in control?  If he knew he Would 'die' and would be 'resurrected' then what is the big deal? If he knew the 'ultimate' result?

If Jesus IS God, then how was he 'sent' by God?

If Jesus is in heaven as part of the trinity,  what exactly did he 'give up'?

Its like if I give money and I know that money will allow me to get more money, what did I really loose or risk?


-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 17 July 2009 at 8:36pm
Hi Natassia.  Thank you for answering. 

You are forgetting that despite our shortcomings and free will, God still wants us to do good and believe in him.  In other words, He does not want us to be wicked and cruel, but good and pious.  We all have that capacity.  That is why the crucifixion serving to wash away our sins does not make sense, because it required that someone be wicked and cruel.  The plan called for someone evil, and God never wants us to be evil. 

Look at it from the Islamic perspective.  If Satan never disobeyed God, we would all be in Heaven.  But, Satan had free will and he chose evil.  Even then, salvation was always open for us, if we made the right choices.  The plan never changed. 

For the crucifixion to make sense, the Pharisees and Romans had to be absolutely evil.  They could not be good, since it would ruin the whole salvation plan.  Its like saying that you have to do a little evil to do a greater good.  From that perspective, the evil Pharisees and Romans were indeed doing a greater good by killing Jesus, and ensuring that all who believed would be saved.  To say that God's plan of salvation required a little evil on the part of some human beings does not make sense to me. 


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: martha
Date Posted: 17 July 2009 at 9:12pm

islamispeace..

I hope the following link is helpful and interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_of_salvation - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_of_salvation
 
It does explain quite a lot and this was my religion before I became muslim. You are right that Catholics and Protestants have completely different views to this.
 
As a child I found GOd rather confusing having been brought up in the Church of England(protestant) THe teachings did not make sense at all...all the stuff that God and Jesus were the same for example. Logically it was not possible. In my early 20's I found the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to dispel all those confusing issues of mine ( I know this Church gets a lot of bad press too, but actually there are several sects that don't conform to the original Latter Day Saint organisation)
 
Anyways, read the link, perhaps it will give you another perspective.


-------------
some of us are a lot like cement:- all mixed up and permanently set


Posted By: martha
Date Posted: 17 July 2009 at 9:17pm
Originally posted by Hayfa

He always knew how wicked the Jews and Gentiles (all humans) would be. Despite that, He decided to give them a means of salvation and the gift of eternal life. And He did it...even though humans were still exercising their free will.

Interestingly, so what is Jesus's choice or God's? Who is in control?  If he knew he Would 'die' and would be 'resurrected' then what is the big deal? If he knew the 'ultimate' result?

If Jesus IS God, then how was he 'sent' by God?

If Jesus is in heaven as part of the trinity,  what exactly did hie 'give up?

Its like if I give money and I know that money will allow me to get more money, what did I really loose or risk?

 
Salaams Hayfa...as you've probably guessed my idea of God and Jesus is different to most Christian religions. If you look at the link above it might show you why


-------------
some of us are a lot like cement:- all mixed up and permanently set


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 18 July 2009 at 3:12pm
Originally posted by martha

islamispeace..

I hope the following link is helpful and interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_of_salvation - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_of_salvation
 
It does explain quite a lot and this was my religion before I became muslim. You are right that Catholics and Protestants have completely different views to this.
 
As a child I found GOd rather confusing having been brought up in the Church of England(protestant) THe teachings did not make sense at all...all the stuff that God and Jesus were the same for example. Logically it was not possible. In my early 20's I found the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to dispel all those confusing issues of mine ( I know this Church gets a lot of bad press too, but actually there are several sects that don't conform to the original Latter Day Saint organisation)
 
Anyways, read the link, perhaps it will give you another perspective.



As-salaam alaikum sister Martha,

Thank you for the link.  It clarifies certain aspects of Mormon theology, but it also got me asking more questions.  For instance, the "war in heaven".  Was Lucifer so st**id as to try to take over Heaven by military force?  What chance did he think he had? 




-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: martha
Date Posted: 18 July 2009 at 9:18pm
Wa-laikum as-salaam brother,
 
The war in heaven...
You could say Lucifer, (Satan) thought he had a chance to succeed. I always tried to look at it before that he was no different to any disobedient child,lol. And if you look at any dictator throughout history then they certainly felt/feel they have a good chance of success by bullying and evil deeds. And we know what ultimately befalls them. Disobedience to any of Allahs laws always results in their downfall...just like Lucifer(satan, shaytan)


-------------
some of us are a lot like cement:- all mixed up and permanently set


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 19 July 2009 at 12:08pm
Originally posted by martha

Wa-laikum as-salaam brother,
 
The war in heaven...
You could say Lucifer, (Satan) thought he had a chance to succeed. I always tried to look at it before that he was no different to any disobedient child,lol. And if you look at any dictator throughout history then they certainly felt/feel they have a good chance of success by bullying and evil deeds. And we know what ultimately befalls them. Disobedience to any of Allahs laws always results in their downfall...just like Lucifer(satan, shaytan)


Thanks.  This helps to clarify the Mormon viewpoint. 


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 19 July 2009 at 5:09pm
Natassia]You are assuming that God's will was dependent upon the actions of humans. Here's where we come to the paradox of omniscience. So, God is able to know all of the past, present, and future...and yet He desires that we have free will and the ability to exercise that free will. Tell me, how is an omniscient deity to interact with His creation without controlling their thoughts, choices, and actions?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           


Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 19 July 2009 at 5:15pm
Ahke] Salama,Natassia.Human free will does not in any way contradict the fact that God,The Witness,knows everything that will ever occur in creation.Someone might ask,"If (AstaghfirAllah) that I am going to commit a sin tommorrow,then it is unavoidable that I do so because God's Knowledge is infallible,and what God knows will come to pass."God's Knowledge of this person's decision does not mean that he or she is being force d to make that decision.Long story short God wants us to be able to make our own choices.So all this talk about the so-called crusufixion of course Allah Knew of it but maybe it was for mans own good like what are you going to take for worship know that Jesus(AS) is off the scene.Think about it.He never said that he was God reincarnated he said we all were sons of God but people with there own free will attributed things to him he(AS) did not say.The Qur'an says the things that you worship besides Allah will testify against you on the day of judgement including Jesus(AS)


Posted By: martha
Date Posted: 19 July 2009 at 7:06pm
Originally posted by islamispeace

Originally posted by martha

Wa-laikum as-salaam brother,
 
The war in heaven...
You could say Lucifer, (Satan) thought he had a chance to succeed. I always tried to look at it before that he was no different to any disobedient child,lol. And if you look at any dictator throughout history then they certainly felt/feel they have a good chance of success by bullying and evil deeds. And we know what ultimately befalls them. Disobedience to any of Allahs laws always results in their downfall...just like Lucifer(satan, shaytan)


Thanks.  This helps to clarify the Mormon viewpoint. 
 
 
 
 That's good then. Mormons are Christians but not everyone understands that
 
 
 


-------------
some of us are a lot like cement:- all mixed up and permanently set


Posted By: Natassia
Date Posted: 19 July 2009 at 7:56pm
@ Hayfa
 
Interestingly, so what is Jesus's choice or God's? Both.

Who is in control? God the Father is in control of all, and He gave authority over mankind's eternal salvation to Jesus Christ because of what the Messiah did.

If he knew he Would 'die' and would be 'resurrected' then what is the big deal? If he knew the 'ultimate' result? Jesus was still a human with human emotions and the ability to feel pain and humiliation. Crucifixion was one of the most humiliating and excruciating experiences for a human to go through. It was the method of execution for the worst of criminals. He was tortured beforehand, and then stripped of his clothing and crucified in the manner of some horrific type of spectator sport.

If Jesus IS God, then how was he 'sent' by God? Jesus "is" God in the same sense that your spoken word is you.

If Jesus is in heaven as part of the trinity, what exactly did he 'give up'? Jesus gave up his life on earth. What makes you think he wouldn't have enjoyed getting married and having children? He had to live his life PERFECTLY in accordance with the Law...and then he died in his mid-thirties in one of the worst imaginable ways.

Its like if I give money and I know that money will allow me to get more money, what did I really loose or risk? We're not talking about money. We are talking about a life.



Posted By: Natassia
Date Posted: 19 July 2009 at 8:24pm

@ islamispeace

Sure, God wants us to abide in Him and walk in His ways. Humans are never capable of doing so, though. Try as we might, we always mess up. We are all transgressors. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US. And you know what the Quran says about transgressors.

I think of it like the laws of nature...this idea of atonement. When something evil is done, there must be atonement for it. Even the Orientals had the same idea with the yin-yang thing. The Egyptians had it with the scales of justice. I think even Islam has such a concept.

And yet no religion has provided the scales with which to weigh such debt. How is murder properly atoned for in the eyes of God? How is lying properly atoned for in the eyes of God? How about theft? Or what about the sins of the heart like lust and hate?

The plan for salvation was contingent upon humanity's sinfulness. But since God always knew humans would be sinful, then it doesn't sound like He was dependent on anything. Omniscience, remember?

If it weren't for humans sinning and then teaching the next generations to sin (and so forth), then salvation would not be necessary. The crucifixion is OUR FAULT!

Salvation is not guaranteed in Islam. You can hope and pray for it...fearing hell and begging for Jannah...Was Muhammad even sure? (Quran 46:9) And really, being a sinner as a Muslim doesn't matter. There are more than enough Christians and Jews to take your place. [Sahih Muslim, Book 37, Numbers 6665, 6666, & 6668]

That's what I never could understand about Islam. Can you sin or can't you? Are your good and bad deeds going to be weighed? How do you determine the individual weight of each deed so that you can keep track? If all you have to do is repent and make dua, then what is to keep you from sinning? If a Christian or Jew will take your place in hell, then what is to keep you from sinning? If Islam is the only guidance given by Allah, how do you know if you are doing things perfectly or not? Why must we follow Islam? Why won't Allah personally guide each one of us?



Posted By: Natassia
Date Posted: 19 July 2009 at 8:32pm
@ Akhe Abdullah

Yes, omniscience does not necessarily mean predetermination. I agree.

However, the crucifixion was for our sake. If atonement for our individual sins were left up to us, then we'd all go to hell, and then eternal destruction. According to Christianity, the soul is not eternal. We are not guaranteed eternal life...even if it is torture in hell. Eternal life is a gift.

Basically, what Jesus did was to fulfill the Law perfectly and offer his life as ransom for ours. It was like he said, "Father, please take my life and spare theirs from eternal destruction. I will go to hell for their sakes." God accepted Jesus' offering.

When we sin, we dig our own spiritual grave. God offered a way out of it. We need only to believe in that way out. True faith is rewarded with the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit is what guides each person to live a life free from slavery to sin.



Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 20 July 2009 at 3:46am
Natassia, I think that in Islam and I think you would agree, NONE of us knows our fate.  You can 'believe' what you want, but the reality is the unknown.

Yes we don't know. And we can tally up our good deed and bad deed, and repent.   I have felt far more conscious of my actions and thoughts as a Muslim far more than I ever did as a Christian. Reason is that I was "saved." There was no accountability. As you said,  'just believe in that way out."

Why do most people not think about death.. we pretend it does not exist, its all made up pretty in the  casket.  I can accept that death is a natural part of life. But yeah, it is scary. and there are no guarantees.

So are you saying Jesus went to hell?

And you are right its not money, but I am asking you for a logical response. So Jesus knew he would be back in heaven so he volunteered to go down and 'die' and 'suffer'  but is it really then a sacrifice he is in HEAVEN!!!  He did not 'give his life' then.

And why do I need Jesus to have God forgive me? Then it would doom all those who have not heard of "Jesus" in this manner? Of course God can save all. God made us all. So why need another person.And its funny, I was taught to pray to "our Lord Jesus Crist". And I grew up thinking "God was human."

Where did you hear that Christians and Jews will replace Muslims in hell?? We are all determined by our own merit.

And no Mohammed (PBUH) was not sure. Because none of us are sure. We are taught to both love and fear God.

And do any of us stop sinning? Probably not. But so what? I think that some people are obsessed with the fact we do sin. It is the life of humans? If Jesus was meant to 'save us'  well sin is not over. Cause Jesus had no power. God as made this life a test. God can do what God wants. And we are supposed to attempt to do the best that we can do.

I think that keeping track of good deeds and bad deeds and repenting is about what we call God consciousness.. that are every action, our every thought is important. How I treat each moment. What is my intention with this post, how do I do it.

I don't in fact think we are meant to 'be free of sin."  Its about your relationship to yourself and your Creator.

I do not think that Christianity is that different in that a Christian should follow the actions of Jesus. What did Jesus do? He lived among the poor and oppressed. He was not rich, he lived a simple life. Was he a kind man, was he caring. There are many peace activist who are Christians. They protest against the wars, etc. Many help people who need help.

And Allah does guide each of us. What makes you think he does not?

And Islam is not the only guidance.. no, it is the most comprehensive and best known.

I tend not to get involved in these discussions much.. I tend to think they are more polarizing than anything. I think that people of faith would do better helping feed the homeless together or cleaning up trash than all the tit for tat stuff on this board..

Peace


In Islam we are taught to smile at people.  There are so many benefits for us and others. That is how detailed it is. It has the ability to address life and its many levels and facets.




-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi


Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 20 July 2009 at 10:05am
Originally posted by Natassia

@ Akhe Abdullah


Yes, omniscience does not necessarily mean predetermination. I agree.


However, the crucifixion was for our sake. If atonement for our individual sins were left up to us, then we'd all go to hell, and then eternal destruction. According to Christianity, the soul is not eternal. We are not guaranteed eternal life...even if it is torture in hell. Eternal life is a gift.


Basically, what Jesus did was to fulfill the Law perfectly and offer his life as ransom for ours. It was like he said, "Father, please take my life and spare theirs from eternal destruction. I will go to hell for their sakes." God accepted Jesus' offering.


When we sin, we dig our own spiritual grave. God offered a way out of it. We need only to believe in that way out. True faith is rewarded with the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit is what guides each person to live a life free from slavery to sin.

So what is your source of all this?Is this Jesus(As)sayings or someoneleses.Where did it come from?This is what the Qur'an says Jesus(As)says: Surah Al Ma'idah :117) Never said I to them Aught except what Thou Didst command me To say,to wit,'Worship Allah,my Lord and your Lord';And I was a witness Over them whilst I dwelt Amongst them; when Thou Didst take me up Thou wast the Watcher Over them, and Thou Art a witness to all things.


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 20 July 2009 at 3:35pm
Originally posted by martha

Originally posted by islamispeace

Originally posted by martha

Wa-laikum as-salaam brother,
 
The war in heaven...
You could say Lucifer, (Satan) thought he had a chance to succeed. I always tried to look at it before that he was no different to any disobedient child,lol. And if you look at any dictator throughout history then they certainly felt/feel they have a good chance of success by bullying and evil deeds. And we know what ultimately befalls them. Disobedience to any of Allahs laws always results in their downfall...just like Lucifer(satan, shaytan)


Thanks.  This helps to clarify the Mormon viewpoint. 
 
 
 
 That's good then. Mormons are Christians but not everyone understands that
 



I guess they are as much Christian as Bahai's are Muslim.  The Mormon religion is different in many ways than it is similar, as you have actually shown.  I don't mainstream Christians would agree with the Mormon views on salvation, and the questions I presented were posed to those Christians, in all honesty.  Of course, I don't agree with the Mormon stance.  It does have its own theological problems, but you have clarified certain aspects.  Now if only the mainstream Christians here would answer my questions, I would be set! LOL



-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Natassia
Date Posted: 20 July 2009 at 4:38pm
@ Hayfa

If you truly had faith in Allah, you would not fear death, and the afterlife would not be "unknown" to you.

And no accountability? Never heard the phrase "you reap what you sow"? If you choose to be promiscuous, and you get venereal disease, it looks to me like you were held accountable for your actions. When you trust in the salvation of God and rely on guidance from the Holy Spirit and TRULY BELIEVE in the sacrifice made by Christ, the desire to sin leaves you. You are no longer a slave to selfish desires and sin.  How can you be? Imagine if you knew someone died in a terrible manner to give you eternal salvation? At that point, how could you ever think to disobey his commands? It's about love. If you love your king, you will WANT TO obey him.

So are you saying Jesus went to hell? Yes. (But the hell of Islam is not the Judeo-Christian hell. Jesus went to Sheol/Hades...not Gehenna.)

And you are right its not money, but I am asking you for a logical response. So Jesus knew he would be back in heaven so he volunteered to go down and 'die' and 'suffer' but is it really then a sacrifice he is in HEAVEN!!! He did not 'give his life' then.

Jesus knew what his heavenly reward would be for his sacrifice...but that doesn't make it any less painful or devastating. If you die a martyr, you know you will go to heaven...and yet does that make you want to be a martyr? Come on. Life is precious. Even Christ appreciated that.

And why do I need Jesus to have God forgive me? Then it would doom all those who have not heard of "Jesus" in this manner? Of course God can save all. God made us all. So why need another person.And its funny, I was taught to pray to "our Lord Jesus Crist". And I grew up thinking "God was human."

We pray to God the Father in the name of the Son. God is not human. I'm wondering, why do you need Islam to have Allah forgive you? God is complete justice and mercy. He is also omniscient. What makes you think the gospel can't be preached in hell? (See 1 Peter 3:18-22.)

Where did you hear that Christians and Jews will replace Muslims in hell?? We are all determined by our own merit.

I read it here: Sahih Muslim, Book 37, Numbers 6665, 6666, and 6668. Islam has a big contradiction when it comes to the burden of sins and who will bear them. It also has a big contradiction in regards to the salvation of the people of the Book. http://www.scribd.com/doc/17357032/Is-Islam-the-Religion-of-Contradictions

And no Mohammed (PBUH) was not sure. Because none of us are sure. We are taught to both love and fear God.

If you have 100% faith and trust that someone loves you and cares for you, then you should have 100% faith that they will take care of you and save your soul.

And do any of us stop sinning? Probably not. But so what? I think that some people are obsessed with the fact we do sin. It is the life of humans? If Jesus was meant to 'save us' well sin is not over. Cause Jesus had no power. God as made this life a test. God can do what God wants. And we are supposed to attempt to do the best that we can do.
 
Muslims believe Muhammad came to bring "the way" (aka Islam) and Christians believe Jesus came to BE "the way." If sin is not a big deal, then what do we need salvation for at all? Why would Allah create hell in the first place? What's the point of worrying about transgressors? Why not destroy people permanently rather than allow them to be tortured for all eternity?
 
I think that keeping track of good deeds and bad deeds and repenting is about what we call God consciousness.. that are every action, our every thought is important. How I treat each moment. What is my intention with this post, how do I do it.

Yeah, do you write it all down to make sure that your good deeds column is longer than your bad deeds column? Is telling a lie worth two good deeds? And if you live your life constantly questioning your intentions, it sounds to me like you are just as obsessed with sin as Christians are...if not more.

I don't in fact think we are meant to 'be free of sin." Its about your relationship to yourself and your Creator.

You cannot be a slave to two masters. You are either a slave to your own selfish desires or you are a slave to the will of God. You can't straddle the fence when it comes to the mastership of your spirit.

I do not think that Christianity is that different in that a Christian should follow the actions of Jesus. What did Jesus do? He lived among the poor and oppressed. He was not rich, he lived a simple life. Was he a kind man, was he caring. There are many peace activist who are Christians. They protest against the wars, etc. Many help people who need help.

Christians are not saved by what they do. "Being a Christian" does not guarantee salvation.
 
And Allah does guide each of us. What makes you think he does not?
 
You're kidding me, right? The minute someone falters off the path of Islam, Allah will no longer guide them. In fact, Allah will likely misguide them. (Quran 2:26, 6:125, 14:4, 14:27)

And Islam is not the only guidance.. no, it is the most comprehensive and best known.

You're bordering upon heresy here. Either Islam is the only way or it is not. The minute it is not, then you make Muhammad and the Quran unnecessary, and therefore one can be a Christian, Jew, Zoroastrian, etc. and go to heaven.

I tend not to get involved in these discussions much.. I tend to think they are more polarizing than anything. I think that people of faith would do better helping feed the homeless together or cleaning up trash than all the tit for tat stuff on this board..

Education and knowledge are key to preventing the ignorance that leads to things like homelessness and littering. One should never feel guilty for discussing things and learning.

In Islam we are taught to smile at people. There are so many benefits for us and others. That is how detailed it is. It has the ability to address life and its many levels and facets.

With Christ, we don't need to be "taught." But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. (Galatians 5:22-25 NIV)


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 20 July 2009 at 4:41pm

Natassia: Sure, God wants us to abide in Him and walk in His ways. Humans are never capable of doing so, though. Try as we might, we always mess up. We are all transgressors. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US. And you know what the Quran says about transgressors.

The Quran says that all humans are born with a clean slate, unlike the Christian Bible.  My point was that in order for the plan of salvation to work, it required people to commit sin, something that the plan was trying to get rid of.  If this is not irony, I don't know what is.

Natassia: I think of it like the laws of nature...this idea of atonement. When something evil is done, there must be atonement for it. Even the Orientals had the same idea with the yin-yang thing. The Egyptians had it with the scales of justice. I think even Islam has such a concept.

I agree, but that does not answer why God's plan required someone to commit evil. 

Natassia: And yet no religion has provided the scales with which to weigh such debt. How is murder properly atoned for in the eyes of God? How is lying properly atoned for in the eyes of God? How about theft? Or what about the sins of the heart like lust and hate?

Islam has.  Atonement occurs in many ways.  Obviously, punishment according to the law is one way.  Other ways, as the Quran says, include asking for forgiveness, feeding the poor, freeing slaves, fasting, praying, giving charity etc. 

Natassia: The plan for salvation was contingent upon humanity's sinfulness. But since God always knew humans would be sinful, then it doesn't sound like He was dependent on anything. Omniscience, remember?

That's fine.  Of course the plan was contingent upon humanity sinfulness.  If they weren't sinful, they would not require salvation.  But there is a difference between salvation being contingent upon sinfulness and sinfulness being contingent upon salvation.  That is a big difference.  The Christian plan of salvation required sinfulness on the part of some people, which is why I also questioned Jesus could not have died in some other way, as long as death was the end result.  That is what I am concerned with. 

Natassia: If it weren't for humans sinning and then teaching the next generations to sin (and so forth), then salvation would not be necessary. The crucifixion is OUR FAULT!

Actually, according to your fellow Christian Douggg, we were born with a sinful nature.  So, how is that our fault?  It seems to me that it was really Adam and Eve's fault, since they were the ones who actually caused sin to permeate humanity in the first place. 

Natassia: Salvation is not guaranteed in Islam.

Says who?  The Quran says very clearly that if you believe in Allah and acknowledge that Muhammad (pbuh) is His messenger, then you will be saved:

O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination.(4:59)

The only difference is that a Muslim is also told to do good deeds and avoid bad deeds.  When a Muslim dies, his deeds are weighed against each other and if the bad deeds are more numerous, then the Muslim is sent to Hell...but not for eternity!  This is made clear by the saying of the blessed prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as mentioned in Sahih Bukhari:

"Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

The Prophet said, "When the people of Paradise will enter Paradise and the people of Hell will go to Hell, Allah will order those who have had faith equal to the weight of a grain of mustard seed to be taken out from Hell. So they will be taken out but (by then) they will be blackened (charred). Then they will be put in the river of Haya' (rain) or Hayat (life) (the Narrator is in doubt as to which is the right term), and they will revive like a grain that grows near the bank of a flood channel. Don't you see that it comes out yellow and twisted""

So, yes a Muslim is saved in the end.  The only difference between our view and yours is that if you were to ask a Muslim the question "are you saved", the response would be "InshaAllah" or "God willing", whereas the Christian response to such a question would be "Yes, definitely!"  That is because salvation in Islam is ultimately based on God's mercy, not on our own whims.  We will not say "Yes, definitely" because that would be assuming the role of God, who is the one who ultimately decides who is saved and who is not. That is not the same as being "unsure" of salvation. 

Natassia: You can hope and pray for it...fearing hell and begging for Jannah...Was Muhammad even sure? (Quran 46:9)

Yes, he was.  But, because he was humble and truly gracious to his Lord, he prayed, asked for forgiveness and shed tears profusely.  This is indicated by the testimony of Hazrat Aisha (ra):

Narrated Aisha:

The Prophet used to offer prayer at night (for such a long time) that his feet used to crack. I said, "O Allah's Apostle! Why do you do it since Allah has forgiven you your faults of the past and those to follow?" He said, "Shouldn't I love to be a thankful slave (of Allah)?' When he became old, he prayed while sitting, but if he wanted to perform a bowing, he wound get up, recite (some other verses) and then perform the bowing.

In addition, when he knew his death was near, he indicated that the Lord would welcome him with open arms:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

The Prophet delivered a sermon and said, "Allah gave a choice to one of (His) slaves either to choose this world or what is with Him in the Hereafter. He chose the latter." Abu Bakr wept. I said to myself, "Why is this Sheikh weeping, if Allah gave choice to one (of His) slaves either to choose this world or what is with Him in the Here after and he chose the latter?" And that slave was Allah's Apostle himself. Abu Bakr knew more than us. The Prophet said, "O Abu Bakr! Don't weep. The Prophet added: Abu- Bakr has favored me much with his property and company. If I were to take a Khalil from mankind I would certainly have taken Abu Bakr but the Islamic brotherhood and friendship is sufficient. Close all the gates in the mosque except that of Abu Bakr.

Natassia: That's what I never could understand about Islam. Can you sin or can't you? Are your good and bad deeds going to be weighed? How do you determine the individual weight of each deed so that you can keep track? If all you have to do is repent and make dua, then what is to keep you from sinning?

I have answered these questions.

Natassia: If a Christian or Jew will take your place in hell, then what is to keep you from sinning?

The fear of Allah and faith in His message.  The throwing of the unbelievers into Hell will be an act of mercy upon the believers who had a heavy debt of sinful behavior (#6668).  That does not mean that a Muslim can go on sinning, because Allah says not to sin.  So, if we do it, would would be disobeying Allah and that is never good.  Also, notice that in #6669, the sinner Muslim is asked by Allah if he acknowledges his sins.  When the Muslims admits his sins, instead of trying to make excuses, Allah will reward his humbleness by forgiving his sins:

Safwan b. Muhriz reported that a person said to Ibn 'Umar: How did you hear Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying something about intimate conversation? He said: I heard him say: A believer will be brought to his Lord, the Exalted and Glorious, on the Day of Resurrection and He would place upon him His veil (of Light) and make him confess his faults and say: Do you recognise (your faults)? He would say: My Lord, I do recognise (them). He (the Lord) would say: I concealed them for you in the world. And today I forgive them. And he would then be given the Book containing (the account of his) good deeds. And so far as the non-believers and hypocrites are concerned, there would be general announcement about them before all creation telling them that these (people, i. e. non-believers and hypocrites) told a lie about Allah.

Natassia: If Islam is the only guidance given by Allah, how do you know if you are doing things perfectly or not? Why must we follow Islam? Why won't Allah personally guide each one of us?

You follow to the best of your ability the Quran and Sunnah.  And, yes Allah does guide us as He wills.  But, that is based upon our own actions.  He only guides those who are faithful and truly yearn to do good and follow Him. 



-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Natassia
Date Posted: 20 July 2009 at 5:16pm
Originally posted by Akhe Abdullah

So what is your source of all this?Is this Jesus(As)sayings or someoneleses.Where did it come from?This is what the Qur'an says Jesus(As)says: Surah Al Ma'idah :117) Never said I to them Aught except what Thou Didst command me To say,to wit,'Worship Allah,my Lord and your Lord';And I was a witness Over them whilst I dwelt Amongst them; when Thou Didst take me up Thou wast the Watcher Over them, and Thou Art a witness to all things.
 
Out of a desire to avoid being banned from this site, I will not tell you my opinion of that verse.  I will also not tell you why I think such a verse was "revealed" in the first place.
 
Yes, omniscience does not necessarily mean predetermination. I agree. SOURCE: My brain.
 
However, the crucifixion was for our sake. SOURCE: John 3:14-18, Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45
 
If atonement for our individual sins were left up to us, then we'd all go to hell, and then eternal destruction. SOURCE: Isaiah 64:6, Psalm 14:1-3, Psalm 53:1-3, Ecclesiastes 7:20, Revelation 21:8
 
According to Christianity, the soul is not eternal. We are not guaranteed eternal life...even if it is torture in hell. Eternal life is a gift. SOURCE: Romans 6:23, Revelation 20:14

Basically, what Jesus did was to fulfill the Law perfectly and offer his life as ransom for ours. It was like he said, "Father, please take my life and spare theirs from eternal destruction. I will go to hell for their sakes." God accepted Jesus' offering. SOURCE: Matthew 5:17, Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45, Daniel 7:13-14, Matthew 26:63-64, Matthew 28:16-20, Revelation 5

When we sin, we dig our own spiritual grave. SOURCE: Romans 6:23
 
God offered a way out of it. We need only to believe in that way out. SOURCE: John 3:14-16
 
True faith is rewarded with the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit is what guides each person to live a life free from slavery to sin. SOURCE: John 14:15-27, John 16:5-15, Acts 1:4-8, Acts 2, 1 Corinthians 6:19, Galatians 5:21-25


Posted By: Natassia
Date Posted: 20 July 2009 at 6:08pm

@ islamispeace

Name one person who has not sinned. Either sin matters or it doesn't. If it doesn't matter, then hell is pointless. If it does matter, than it just can't be written off without some sort of price being paid. Sin has to cost something...otherwise it doesn't matter.

All babies are sinless because they lack the Knowledge of Good and of Evil, and they cannot make decisions. They act purely on instinct. The plan is in place BECAUSE OF SIN. We are the problem, and the "plan" is the solution. However, it is a solution only to those who desire a personal solution.


I agree, but that does not answer why God's plan required someone to commit evil.

The sinless are automatically saved from destruction. Jesus came for the sick not the righteous, remember? (Matthew 9:12, Mark 2:17, Luke 5:31)

 
Islam has. Atonement occurs in many ways. Obviously, punishment according to the law is one way. Other ways, as the Quran says, include asking for forgiveness, feeding the poor, freeing slaves, fasting, praying, giving charity etc.

Yes, but how small can a lie be to be atoned for by just giving a thirsty dog some water? If I free two slaves rather than just one, then will my act of theft I committed yesterday be forgiven along with my lie?

 
That's fine. Of course the plan was contingent upon humanity sinfulness. If they weren't sinful, they would not require salvation. But there is a difference between salvation being contingent upon sinfulness and sinfulness being contingent upon salvation. That is a big difference. The Christian plan of salvation required sinfulness on the part of some people, which is why I also questioned Jesus could not have died in some other way, as long as death was the end result. That is what I am concerned with.

Like I said before, Jesus came for the sick, not the healthy. If you are sick, you need a doctor. If you are well, then you don't. God's plan was to save us from ourselves. If we weren't so busy trying to self-destruct, we wouldn't need God to save us. God always knew how it was going to happen...and it happened just as the scriptures said it would (at least according to Christianity anyway). God didn't NEED it to happen any certain way...we did.

 
Actually, according to your fellow Christian Douggg, we were born with a sinful nature. So, how is that our fault? It seems to me that it was really Adam and Eve's fault, since they were the ones who actually caused sin to permeate humanity in the first place.

How much of our sinfulness is nature vs. nurture? How much of our sinfulness can we trace to the teachings of our parents and society? Just as it was Adam's fault that humans are all born on earth rather than the garden in heaven (yes, that's in the Quran), so it is also the fault of the first humans who sinned that the rest of us humans are doomed to follow in their footsteps. It is not that our nature is automatically sinful, but our nature is automatically equipped with the capability of sinning (it's called Free Will). Name one human with the capability of sinning who hasn't sinned (other than Jesus).

 
O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination.(4:59)

That doesn't guarantee anything. Besides, the Quran says that Christians and Jews and Sabiens who believe in Allah and the Last Day will go to heaven, and then recants such a statement in 3:85 and 9:29-30.

 
The only difference is that a Muslim is also told to do good deeds and avoid bad deeds. When a Muslim dies, his deeds are weighed against each other and if the bad deeds are more numerous, then the Muslim is sent to Hell...but not for eternity!

And yet it seems to say that Christians and Jews who say they will only be in hell for a time are fooled. (Quran 3:24) So, what is it that keeps someone from an eternity in hell? Is it belief in Allah? No, that can't be right. Even the Jews believe in God...and yet they will go to hell. So, it must be belief in Muhammad. Wow. Muhammad, then, is the savior of mankind because it is belief in him that will save you from hell.

 
So, yes a Muslim is saved in the end. The only difference between our view and yours is that if you were to ask a Muslim the question "are you saved", the response would be "InshaAllah" or "God willing", whereas the Christian response to such a question would be "Yes, definitely!" That is because salvation in Islam is ultimately based on God's mercy, not on our own whims. We will not say "Yes, definitely" because that would be assuming the role of God, who is the one who ultimately decides who is saved and who is not. That is not the same as being "unsure" of salvation.

If you have faith in God, then you have faith in His salvation and mercy. There is no "InshaAllah." There is only "God will because He has promised, and I believe in His Word." You either trust in His Word or you don't. There is no room for doubt.

 
Yes, he was. But, because he was humble and truly gracious to his Lord, he prayed, asked for forgiveness and shed tears profusely. This is indicated by the testimony of Hazrat Aisha (ra):

Narrated Aisha:

The Prophet used to offer prayer at night (for such a long time) that his feet used to crack. I said, "O Allah's Apostle! Why do you do it since Allah has forgiven you your faults of the past and those to follow?" He said, "Shouldn't I love to be a thankful slave (of Allah)?' When he became old, he prayed while sitting, but if he wanted to perform a bowing, he wound get up, recite (some other verses) and then perform the bowing.

So, Muhammad was indeed a sinner? Why should Allah simply forgive his past faults and his future faults? Why would Allah do that? Because he is merciful? What?! Mercy means injustice?

(Read Quran 46:9 again. Was Muhammad lying there when he recited that verse?) I read somewhere that even Abu Bakr didn't know if he would go to heaven or not. It sounds like a whole lot of uncertainty. If the Quran says that even Muhammad didn't know his own fate, then how is it that the Hadith may contradict it?

None of what you provided says that the sins of Muslims matter. All that is required is that they confess their sins on Judgment Day and Allah will automatically forgive them. So, there is no consequence for such sins as long as someone is a Muslim. Allah "conceals those sins" and "forgives them." WHY would he do such a thing? What happens to the spiritual debt? Allah just writes it off? Brushes sins aside as if they don't matter?!

 
You follow to the best of your ability the Quran and Sunnah. And, yes Allah does guide us as He wills. But, that is based upon our own actions. He only guides those who are faithful and truly yearn to do good and follow Him.

What you said makes no sense. Either we need Allah or we don't. If you are already doing all the work yourself, then what's the point of Allah? If you are faithful and doing good deeds and already following Allah, then why do you need his guidance?



Posted By: martha
Date Posted: 20 July 2009 at 7:27pm
Originally posted by islamispeace

Originally posted by martha

Originally posted by islamispeace

Originally posted by martha

Wa-laikum as-salaam brother,
 
The war in heaven...
You could say Lucifer, (Satan) thought he had a chance to succeed. I always tried to look at it before that he was no different to any disobedient child,lol. And if you look at any dictator throughout history then they certainly felt/feel they have a good chance of success by bullying and evil deeds. And we know what ultimately befalls them. Disobedience to any of Allahs laws always results in their downfall...just like Lucifer(satan, shaytan)


Thanks.  This helps to clarify the Mormon viewpoint. 
 
 
 
 That's good then. Mormons are Christians but not everyone understands that
 



I guess they are as much Christian as Bahai's are Muslim.  The Mormon religion is different in many ways than it is similar, as you have actually shown.  I don't mainstream Christians would agree with the Mormon views on salvation, and the questions I presented were posed to those Christians, in all honesty.  Of course, I don't agree with the Mormon stance.  It does have its own theological problems, but you have clarified certain aspects.  Now if only the mainstream Christians here would answer my questions, I would be set! LOL

 
Salaams,Yes, lets hope you get some other replies. In the least it is always good to know some beliefs of other religions. THankyou for responding to the wrong kind of ex- Christian, lolLOL 


-------------
some of us are a lot like cement:- all mixed up and permanently set


Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 21 July 2009 at 6:57am
< ="Content-" content="text/; charset=utf-8">< name="ProgId" content="Word.">< name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12">< name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 12"><>

So tell me in Christianity, if a person is a mass murderer is he forgiven because he believes in Jesus as his "lord?" What about the people who committed genocide in Rawanda??

To me you are saying that our actions, if we are Christian, have no bearing. So Christians do not fear repercussions for bad and terrible actions?

How can you then avoid arrogance? If you know you are ‘forgiven” does it matter WHAT you do?



-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi


Posted By: Natassia
Date Posted: 21 July 2009 at 7:26am

@ Hayfa

In Christianity, a true believer in the salvation won't be a mass murderer. The gospel is this: REPENT and BELIEVE in the salvation from God. If you have a relationship with God, and He has bestowed upon you the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then how can you logically go around murdering people?

From Paul's letter to the Galatians:

So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

Also...

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.

From Matthew's gospel, Jesus speaking:

"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' "

Arrogance? It is only the truly humble who can accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior and King.



Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 21 July 2009 at 1:05pm
[Natassia]Yes, omniscience does not necessarily mean predetermination. I agree. SOURCE: My brain

[Ahke Abdullah]Salams,Not a reliable source,funny though.What does omniscience mean anyway?I know what omniscient means:having infinite awarness,uderstanding and insight,possessed of universal or complete knowledge.Allah is AL-Alim(All Knowing)When one converts to Al Islam all of his past sins are forgiven.


Posted By: Natassia
Date Posted: 21 July 2009 at 4:20pm

@ Ahke Abdullah

Well, since omniscient means all knowing and predetermination means determining in advance. Just because God knows that I will drive my car to Roanoke tomorrow doesn't mean God decided that I would do so. (And a brain can be a reliable source if what comes out of it is logical.)

"When one converts to Islam all his past sins are forgiven," you said. Well, why?



Posted By: martha
Date Posted: 21 July 2009 at 8:43pm
Perhaps I am being ignorant here, but a person who goes to Friday prayer is said to have his sins between that Friday and last forgiven.
I really don't understand this at all
Confused
Can someone help me out please.


-------------
some of us are a lot like cement:- all mixed up and permanently set


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 21 July 2009 at 8:51pm

Natassia: Name one person who has not sinned. Either sin matters or it doesn't. If it doesn't matter, then hell is pointless. If it does matter, than it just can't be written off without some sort of price being paid. Sin has to cost something...otherwise it doesn't matter.

You are simply making up your own rules.  You seem to forget that there are degrees of sin.  There are some sins that are worse than others.  For instance, Islam states that worshiping others besides God is the worst sin possible.  And if a person dies in that state, worshiping idols (or the Messiah), they will not be forgiven and will end up in Hell.  However, if a person dies doing some lesser sin, like lying or stealing, but was still a believer in God alone and did not worship others, he will eventually end up in Heaven.  However, because he may not have sought forgiveness for his lesser sins, through charity or fasting or accepting the earthly punishment, he would make a "pit-stop" so to speak in Hell.  So, you see, the sins do get paid for.  It depends on the individual and other factors, but ultimately it is Allah's decision.  Some people he may forgive during judgment, whereas others He may not and as a result they may serve some time in Hell.  It is really very simple, not like the complicated plan in Christianity.

Natassia: All babies are sinless because they lack the Knowledge of Good and of Evil, and they cannot make decisions. They act purely on instinct. The plan is in place BECAUSE OF SIN. We are the problem, and the "plan" is the solution. However, it is a solution only to those who desire a personal solution.

But, according to the doctrine of original sin, the babies too are tainted.  That is why the plan was put in motion, to wash away that sin.  So, the question is since God does not allow sin in His presence, what does He do with the babies?  Do their sins get washed away in a ceremony in the afterlife?

Natassia: The sinless are automatically saved from destruction. Jesus came for the sick not the righteous, remember? (Matthew 9:12, Mark 2:17, Luke 5:31)


You are not answering the question.  I already know why Jesus came.  I want to know why his plan required evil on the part of some people.  I want to know why his plan was contingent upon evil deeds by certain people. 
 
Natassia: Yes, but how small can a lie be to be atoned for by just giving a thirsty dog some water? If I free two slaves rather than just one, then will my act of theft I committed yesterday be forgiven along with my lie?
 
You are still forgetting that there are degrees of sin and degrees of punishment as well as redemption.  For instance, if a thief is caught in the act and it is proven that he is guilty and acted not out of desperation (such as because he was hungry) but simply out of greed, then the punishment he receives his having his hand amputated.  Since he got the punishment in this life, that sin was erased and he will not be held accountable for it in the next life.  If, however, the thief was not caught but felt bad about it and as a result, gave back what he stole and offered to make amends to the person he stole from, and never committed the sin of theft again, that sin would be forgiven.

Natassia: Like I said before, Jesus came for the sick, not the healthy. If you are sick, you need a doctor. If you are well, then you don't. God's plan was to save us from ourselves.

The Pharisees and Romans had to be evil to kill the Messiah, plain and simple.  The New Testament says that Jesus was unjustly killed.  Do you acknowledge that the plan of salvation required evil?  The answer should be obvious.

Natassia: If we weren't so busy trying to self-destruct, we wouldn't need God to save us. God always knew how it was going to happen...and it happened just as the scriptures said it would (at least according to Christianity anyway). God didn't NEED it to happen any certain way...we did.

That is exactly my point.  If God didn't need the Pharisees and Romans to kill the Messiah in order for the plan to work, then why didn't He arrange for some other way for the Messiah to die?  Why make evil one of the factors for the plan to work?
 
Natassia: How much of our sinfulness is nature vs. nurture? How much of our sinfulness can we trace to the teachings of our parents and society?

If you were raised by idol-worshipers, chances are that you would also be an idol-worshiper.  But, when you grow up and are capable of making your own decisions, it would be up to you make the right choices.  Take the example of Abraham (pbuh).  His people were idol-worshipers and for a time, he was confused.  He saw the sun and thought that was god, but when the sun set, he realized it was not.  The same with the moon and the stars.  He saw the fallacy of worshiping idols and heavenly bodies and as result, God chose him as His prophet to his people.

Natassia: Just as it was Adam's fault that humans are all born on earth rather than the garden in heaven (yes, that's in the Quran), so it is also the fault of the first humans who sinned that the rest of us humans are doomed to follow in their footsteps.

The two are not related.  This is a false analogy.  Adam and Eve sinned because they were humans.  If you or I had been in their shoes, we probably would have eaten from the tree as well.  That is because all of us have free will.  This is not the same as saying because Adam and Eve sinned, that made us sinners as well. 

Natassia: It is not that our nature is automatically sinful, but our nature is automatically equipped with the capability of sinning (it's called Free Will). Name one human with the capability of sinning who hasn't sinned (other than Jesus).

You are not making any sense here.  Our nature is not automatically sinful, but it is automatically equipped with the capability of sinning?  That would mean that we are sinful by nature.  Free will means being able to do both good or evil and having the choice between the two.  If you were automatically equipped with a sinful nature, you would not have much of a choice.
 
Natassia: That doesn't guarantee anything.
  Besides, the Quran says that Christians and Jews and Sabiens who believe in Allah and the Last Day will go to heaven, and then recants such a statement in 3:85 and 9:29-30.

It does and there is nothing you can do about it.  The Jews and Christians it speaks of in Sura Maidah were those who did not stray from the true religion.  They were those who refused to break the commandments or worship others besides Allah (such as with modern-day Christians).  Do you realize that there was a group of Jews known as the Sadducees who did not believe in the afterlife?  Do you think they were included in the verse you mentioned? 

Natassia: And yet it seems to say that Christians and Jews who say they will only be in hell for a time are fooled. (Quran 3:24)

Do not quote the Quran if you don't understand what it is saying.   The verse was alluding to their false belief that they would be in Hell for a certain number of days.  That is because they thought that they were Godly, even when they committed the worst sins.  The commentary on this verse states:

"These people [the Christians and Jews] considered themselves to be God's favourites and cherished the illusion that, regardless of what they did, they were bound to enter Paradise. They took the view that since they were believers, were descended from pious people, followed noble Prophets, and were disciples and admirers of holy men, Hell would not dare touch them. They also thought that even if they were thrown into Hell they would remain there for a few days only, to be purged of the impurity of the sins which had afflicted them, and would then be sent straight to Paradise. Such notions had made them so bold that even when they committed the most atrocious crimes and the most mortal of sins, and brazenly deviated from Truth and rectitude, their hearts remained utterly unmoved by the fear of God." http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=3&verse=21&to=30 - 1

Natassia: So, what is it that keeps someone from an eternity in hell? Is it belief in Allah? No, that can't be right. Even the Jews believe in God...and yet they will go to hell.  So, it must be belief in Muhammad. Wow. Muhammad, then, is the savior of mankind because it is belief in him that will save you from hell.

When you should refer to the Quran, you don't do it.  Why will the Jews go to Hell?  Because they have altered the word of God, killed some of his prophets (something even Jesus mentions) and also rejected His final prophet.  Why will the Christians go to Hell?  Because they altered the word of God and worshiped a man as God.  This is all in the Quran.

Natassia: If you have faith in God, then you have faith in His salvation and mercy. There is no "InshaAllah." There is only "God will because He has promised, and I believe in His Word." You either trust in His Word or you don't. There is no room for doubt.

There you go again, making up your own rules.  Like I said before, the humble will say that they will be saved according to God's will ("InshaAllah"), even though they will be saved in the end.  The difference is that because of their unforgiven sins, they may have to go to Hell for a short time, after which they will be released, because that will be Allah's will.  So, it really depends on whether the question is "are you saved in the end?" or just "are you saved?" 
 
Natassia: So, Muhammad was indeed a sinner?

Only as much as Abraham, Moses, Jesus etc.  Do you see a pattern?  The prophets were also capable of sinning, but as I have pointed out, there are degrees of sin.  The prophets were protected by Allah from committing the major sins, like adultery, murder or shirk, the latter of which is the worst of all.  They could still commit minor sins due to carelessness or forgetfulness, and it is those of Muhammad's sins which were forgiven.  

Natassia: Why should Allah simply forgive his past faults and his future faults? Why would Allah do that? Because he is merciful? What?! Mercy means injustice?

Because he was the final prophet, but also because of the enormous responsibilities that were placed on him.  God required more acts of worship from Muhammad (pbuh) than he does from the rest of us.  He required him to pray more, fast longer and give more in charity than others.  He was also required to live humbly, not in opulent palaces like the leaders of his day and the leaders of today as well:

Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Abstain from Saum-Wisal. They (his Companions) said: Messenger of Allah, but you observe Saum Wisal. Upon this he said: You are not like me in this matter, for I spend my night (in a state) that my Lord feeds me and provides me drink. Devote yourselves to the deeds (the burden of which) you can bear.

Saum-Wisal referred to fasting beyond sunset, which the Prophet did, but it was forbidden for the rest of us, since it would be a burden most if not all of us could not bear. 

Once when Umar visited the Prophet, he saw him laying on a makeshift bed:

Underneath his head there was a leather pillow stuffed with palm fibres, and leaves of a saut tree were piled at his feet, and above his head hung a few water skins. On seeing the marks of the mat imprinted on his side, I wept. He said.' 'Why are you weeping?' I replied, "O Allah's Apostle! Caesar and Khosrau are leading the life (i.e. Luxurious life) while you, Allah's Apostle though you are, is living in destitute". The Prophet then replied. 'Won't you be satisfied that they enjoy this world and we the Hereafter?' "

That is why his sins were forgiven.

Natassia: (Read Quran 46:9 again. Was Muhammad lying there when he recited that verse?) I read somewhere that even Abu Bakr didn't know if he would go to heaven or not. It sounds like a whole lot of uncertainty. If the Quran says that even Muhammad didn't know his own fate, then how is it that the Hadith may contradict it?

With all due respect, I have read the Quran several times.  I don't need a non-Muslim to give me lessons.  Sura 46:9 is very clear:

Say: "I am no bringer of new-fangled doctrine among the messengers, nor do I know what will be done with me or with you. I follow but that which is revealed to me by inspiration; I am but a Warner open and clear."

What this means is that he only knew what is revealed to him by God.  He does not have infinite knowledge, which is a misconception that many people who did not believe in him had.  The commentary on this verse offers a more detailed answer:

Then it is said: Tell them also : "I do not know what shall befall you tomorrow nor what shall befall me. I only follow that which is revealed to me." That is, "I am not a knower of the unseen so that everything of the past and present and future should be known to me, and I should have the knowledge of everything in the world. Not to speak of your future, I do not even know my own future. I only know that of which I am given knowledge by revelation. More than that I have never claimed to know, nor has there ever been a Messenger in the world, who made that claim. It is not a Messenger's job to tell the whereabouts of the lost articles, or tell whether a pregnant woman will deliver a boy or a girl, or whether a sick patient will live or die." In conclusion, it is said: "Say to them: I am no more than a plain warner." That is, "I do not possess Divine powers so that I may show you the wonderful miracles that you demand from me every next day. My only mission is that I should present the right way before the people, and should warn of an evil end those who do not accept it. " http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=46 - 2

Natassia: None of what you provided says that the sins of Muslims matter. All that is required is that they confess their sins on Judgment Day and Allah will automatically forgive them. So, there is no consequence for such sins as long as someone is a Muslim. Allah "conceals those sins" and "forgives them." WHY would he do such a thing? What happens to the spiritual debt? Allah just writes it off? Brushes sins aside as if they don't matter?!

That will be one of the ways Allah will forgive.  Some people may achieve salvation that way, whereas others will achieve it through serving time in Hell.  Obviously, we are not told who is who.  Therefore, the educated Muslim would continue to do good and fear Allah. 

Natassia: What you said makes no sense. Either we need Allah or we don't. If you are already doing all the work yourself, then what's the point of Allah? If you are faithful and doing good deeds and already following Allah, then why do you need his guidance?

Stop for a second and try to read what I said carefully.  Guidance comes from Allah.  You are good because of Allah.  The evil comes from yourself.  The good comes from Allah.  But, in order to earn Allah's guidance, you must demonstrate faith and the determination to do good and avoid evil, through your free will.  If one becomes arrogant in their self-righteousness (like by looking down on others who may not be as faithful or good), then it is quite possible that Allah will abandon them, since arrogance is one of the worst sins.  Basically, they start doing good only to be seen.  Do you see the difference?  Guidance can also be taken away.



-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Natassia
Date Posted: 22 July 2009 at 12:09am
@ islamispeace

So, there is a "sin scale"? Well, then some sins are worse than others; however that must mean they all must cost something. Shirk costs eternal torment. Disbelief costs eternal torment. Lying costs torment for...? 2 days? 3 years? How does that work exactly? Or if a Muslim frees a slave, then they won't have to be tormented? Well, what if they are too poor to afford slaves in the first place? This is sounding extremely complicated and confusing. Can you please provide a written Sin Scale for me along with the various punishments that go along with each sin and then the possible good deeds that I can do to make up for them in order to avoid hell?

It really sounds to me like you are your own savior. What you do determines what happens to you later. You can save yourself from hell by sticking to the rules as best you can and then performing good deeds to make up for the times you don't. I mean, at that point, what do you need Allah for?

Babies are not "tainted." Humans are not born with sin. They are born from sinful parents, and it is the sinful teachings of parents that "taint children." Humans have the ability (once they reach a certain age) to exercise free will apart from primitive instinct. It is Free Will which exposes us to sin...without it, we could not sin.

God's plan is constructed BECAUSE of sin. It's like the "What came first: the chicken or the egg?" question, except in this case we know which came first...Sin. Without sin, we would not need salvation.

You wrote: You are still forgetting that there are degrees of sin and degrees of punishment as well as redemption. For instance, if a thief is caught in the act and it is proven that he is guilty and acted not out of desperation (such as because he was hungry) but simply out of greed, then the punishment he receives his having his hand amputated. Since he got the punishment in this life, that sin was erased and he will not be held accountable for it in the next life. If, however, the thief was not caught but felt bad about it and as a result, gave back what he stole and offered to make amends to the person he stole from, and never committed the sin of theft again, that sin would be forgiven.

Why is a sin automatically forgiven just because someone feels bad about what they did? Oh, wait, you said they must give back what they stole and offer to make amends to the person...THAT is called atonement. So, atonement is required for sins in Islam...or no?

The Pharisees and Romans were evil, that is WHY they killed the Messiah. God knew they would always do such a thing, and so the ransom offered by the Messiah was accepted by God.

Sin--->plan of salvation NOT plan of salvation--->sin.

You wrote: That is exactly my point. If God didn't need the Pharisees and Romans to kill the Messiah in order for the plan to work, then why didn't He arrange for some other way for the Messiah to die? Why make evil one of the factors for the plan to work?

Perhaps because God doesn't want to move us around like pieces on a chessboard. Perhaps because God wants humans to be free to make their own choices. Perhaps because justice requires perfect atonement for sin, and since God KNEW the Pharisees and Romans would slaughter the perfect Lamb of God, then God in His mercy accepted the willing sacrifice of Christ for the sins of the world.

So, Allah chose Abraham based on Abraham's merits. Because Abraham was a righteous man based on his personal beliefs and logical brain, then Allah chose him? Hmmm...sounds to me like Allah is wrapped around the finger of Muslims...and the decision of Allah was dependent upon the beliefs and actions of man.

Adam and Eve sinned because they were humans? Are you saying that Allah has created man sinful? Adam and Eve sinned and started a snowball effect. I am not a sinner BECAUSE Adam and Eve were. I am a sinner because I choose to be. But for me to sin means I have to be born with the ability to sin. According to the Genesis story, it is this ability that has been passed on.

How am I not making sense? Just because I have the ABILITY to do something doesn't mean that I will do it. If you are a male, your body is naturally equipped to rape...it doesn't mean that you will ever rape someone. Free will is the ability to sin...God is the creator of all that is good, but free will allows you to pervert that which is good. It doesn't necessarily mean that you will.


If Jews and Christians were following the "true religion" they wouldn't be Jews or Christians. They'd be Muslims just like how Islam says Abraham and Ishmael were. You can't have it both ways. Either the Judeo-Christian religions ARE Islam or they are not. If they are, then it is inaccurate to call the followers of such a religion Jews or Christians because they would in fact be Muslims. If they are not Islam, then it is inaccurate to say that the Jews and Christians who go to heaven are the ones following the true religion.

You wrote: Do not quote the Quran if you don't understand what it is saying. The verse was alluding to their false belief that they would be in Hell for a certain number of days. That is because they thought that they were Godly, even when they committed the worst sins. The commentary on this verse states:

"These people [the Christians and Jews] considered themselves to be God's favourites and cherished the illusion that, regardless of what they did, they were bound to enter Paradise. They took the view that since they were believers, were descended from pious people, followed noble Prophets, and were disciples and admirers of holy men, Hell would not dare touch them. They also thought that even if they were thrown into Hell they would remain there for a few days only, to be purged of the impurity of the sins which had afflicted them, and would then be sent straight to Paradise. Such notions had made them so bold that even when they committed the most atrocious crimes and the most mortal of sins, and brazenly deviated from Truth and rectitude, their hearts remained utterly unmoved by the fear of God." http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=3&verse=21&to=30 - So, is commentary now required to make sense of the timeless, perfect, unchanging words of Allah? Words described to be perfectly clear and understandable?

Not all Jews have killed prophets. Not all Jews have altered the word of God. How about Jews born in the 7th century AD to Jewish parents who never killed anyone and never altered any scriptures? Those Jews believed in God. So again, it comes down to belief in Muhammad. It is belief in MUHAMMAD that saves a Jew...not belief in Allah. What a sad state of affairs.

I am humble. Are you insinuating that because I believe God will save me FOR SURE that I am not humble? I'm not making rules. You either know that you are saved from hell or you don't. What is this wishy-washy-ness? Where's the basic logic? So, are you saying that Muslims don't really know if God will save them from hell because they might be punished for some sins that they didn't have a chance to ATONE for?

By the way, Jesus never sinned. Perhaps that is why Allah saved him from a cruel death and whisked him up to heaven to remain with him until the final day of judgment. Perhaps that is why Jesus had the ability to cure the sick, raise the dead, and give clay birds life.

So, Muhammad's sins were forgiven because of what Muhammad did? The abilities and personal strengths of Muhammad were Muhammad's saving grace?

With all due respect, Quran 46:9 makes it VERY clear that even Muhammad did not know the future...even of his own soul.

Natassia: None of what you provided says that the sins of Muslims matter. All that is required is that they confess their sins on Judgment Day and Allah will automatically forgive them. So, there is no consequence for such sins as long as someone is a Muslim. Allah "conceals those sins" and "forgives them." WHY would he do such a thing? What happens to the spiritual debt? Allah just writes it off? Brushes sins aside as if they don't matter?!

You wrote: That will be one of the ways Allah will forgive. Some people may achieve salvation that way, whereas others will achieve it through serving time in Hell. Obviously, we are not told who is who. Therefore, the educated Muslim would continue to do good and fear Allah.  

This all sounds very confusing. Muslims are given no guarantees. You might be shown mercy or you might not. Wow.

Okay, let's break this down:

1. Good is from Allah, not myself.

2. Evil is from me, not Allah.

3. Guidance comes from Allah.

4. Allah causes me to be good.

5. I must be good in order to prove that I have faith.

6. If I suddenly stop being good, then Allah will leave me.

But if #4 is already happening, then how could #6 ever truly happen? If Allah is what makes me good, and he is guiding me...then how can I suddenly do evil? And why would he abandon me? If I am lost and no longer on the straight path, then that is when I would need Allah the most! And why must I do #5 if Allah is omniscient? And where does #2 come from? How does evil come from me? Did Allah make me evil? If I am Allah's creation (and how could a perfect creator ever create something imperfect?), then how could he make me a certain way knowing that it would lead me to hell?



Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 22 July 2009 at 8:15am
Natassia, < ="Content-" content="text/; charset=utf-8">< name="ProgId" content="Word.">< name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12">< name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 12"> file:///C:%5CUsers%5CPINKPA%7E1%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml - file:///C:%5CUsers%5CPINKPA%7E1%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_themedata.thmx - file:///C:%5CUsers%5CPINKPA%7E1%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml - <>

- Natassia,

So you are saying that the people who kill are not 'really' Christians?  Interesting.. so the fact that most "Christians" sin all the time (just look at all the adultery, open sex, murder, robbery (2 million Americans in prison), leaving parents to fend for themselves... lust, pornography.. now all of these people are not "Christian?" Interesting so really there are only a handful as you said, we are all sinners.. so... those people are not  Christian?  Interesting… Interesting..  

file:///C:%5CUsers%5CPINKPA%7E1%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml - file:///C:%5CUsers%5CPINKPA%7E1%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml - file:///C:%5CUsers%5CPINKPA%7E1%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml - You, I believe , BELIEVE, PRAY and REPENT. Guess what,  so do Muslims. There is no difference in this regard. We must believe in God, do good, repent when we fail. 
file:///C:%5CUsers%5CPINKPA%7E1%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml - - Repenting it to help us get closer to our SOURCE.  When I repent, I am self-reflecting. That is what repentance is partially about. So I can improve. That is the nature to try and improve.  To get closer to our Creator. 

file:///C:%5CUsers%5CPINKPA%7E1%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml - file:///C:%5CUsers%5CPINKPA%7E1%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml - file:///C:%5CUsers%5CPINKPA%7E1%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml - file:///C:%5CUsers%5CPINKPA%7E1%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml - file:///C:%5CUsers%5CPINKPA%7E1%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml - file:///C:%5CUsers%5CPINKPA%7E1%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml -  


uggh cannot get rid of these st**id lines!!! lol

file:///C:%5CUsers%5CPINKPA%7E1%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml -

-

file:///C:%5CUsers%5CPINKPA%7E1%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml -



-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi


Posted By: Natassia
Date Posted: 22 July 2009 at 9:00am
@ Hayfa
 

It is easy to label oneself anything. I called myself a Christian for 10 years...never realizing that I wasn't one. People who are members of a church frequently call themselves Christian...that doesn't mean they are. It is Christ who makes someone a Christian. You cannot make yourself one by trying to follow a set of rules.

As Jesus said, you will know a tree by its fruits. If someone is going around murdering people and yet claiming to be a Christian--what do you think? Is murder breaking Jesus' commands or following them? Christ said, "If you love me you will keep my commandments." Everyone makes mistakes, but if you truly love someone are you going to do something to hurt them?

To purposefully sin after believing Christ died for your sins is like crucifying Jesus all over again.

My actions are irrelevant for my salvation; however they do prove to myself and others if my faith is what it needs to be for salvation. If I am a lying, stealing, cheating woman...then do I really have faith or is my faith "dead"? Even the demons believe Jesus did what he did...and yet they do not accept him as their Lord and Savior. That's the difference.

You forget something. It is not just belief in one God and good deeds that determine your fate...it is belief in Muhammad. He is what sets Islam apart from Judaism. Judaism already condemns sin and professes belief in a "oneness" God (whatever that really means). Judaism already requires that its followers do good deeds and avoid evil. The one thing Judaism denies is Muhammad.

Therefore, salvation in Islam is contingent on Muhammad.

 

file:///C:/Users/PINKPA~1/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_colorschememapping.xml - You, I believe , BELIEVE, PRAY and REPENT. Guess what, so do Muslims. There is no difference in this regard. We must believe in God, do good, repent when we fail.

Failure...as if God has expectations for His weak little creatures. How can an omniscient deity have any expectations? He already KNOWS everything.

file:///C:/Users/PINKPA~1/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_colorschememapping.xml -

file:///C:/Users/PINKPA~1/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_colorschememapping.xml - Repenting it to help us get closer to our SOURCE. When I repent, I am self-reflecting. That is what repentance is partially about. So I can improve. That is the nature to try and improve. To get closer to our Creator.

I agree with this. Repentence shows humility.

file:///C:/Users/PINKPA~1/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_colorschememapping.xml -

 

file:///C:/Users/PINKPA~1/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_colorschememapping.xml - And yes if I do bad, repent and seek to do good, then the reality is I am DOING GOOD. The reason there are different good and bad things is that we are not all born into the same circumstances. For instance, there are 27 million slaves currently enslaved in the world- and yes in the US as well. . So some people can DO GOOD and free the slave. I am born and live in a world that I do not own slaves (nor does my family). But I can do good by helping the poor. Because clearly we all are given differences in this world, we can do good with what God blessed us with.

You've still sinned. So what happens to that sin? It just goes away, like it never happened? God doesn't hold it against you? God doesn't demand justice?

file:///C:/Users/PINKPA~1/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_colorschememapping.xml -

 

file:///C:/Users/PINKPA~1/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_colorschememapping.xml - Why do you repent? If you are automatically forgiven what is the purpose for YOU to repent?

You repent once...when you acknowledge that you are a sinner and have lived a sinful life. After you accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, you become baptized in the Spirit and are made anew. From then on you live in the knowledge of that forgiveness and the gift of salvation. You simply maintain your faith in God. I have weak moments, but the desire to sin has left me. The desire to give in to temptation has left me. It's amazing really. And I attribute it all to God. I didn't do a thing. He changed me: what I want to do and why I want to do it.

file:///C:/Users/PINKPA~1/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_colorschememapping.xml -

 

file:///C:/Users/PINKPA~1/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_colorschememapping.xml - Say a Christian person, commits a sin, say, a parent who is an alcoholic and neglects their children. So they pray, repent and seek strength, correct?? And try to not do it again... but they may fail again or it may change.

You cannot be a slave to two masters. When you are addicted to something, say alcohol, then alcohol has become your master. You have to ask yourself, "Do I truly have faith in God? Do I truly believe Jesus was brutally crucified and that he offered his life in place of mine? If I truly believe that, then what the h*ll am I doing?!"

See how it works? But that faith in Jesus gives you such strength, knowing that your past, present, and future sins have been forgiven: It makes me love Jesus all the more. Have you never read the story about the woman who washed the feet of Jesus with her tears and wiped them with her hair?

file:///C:/Users/PINKPA~1/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_colorschememapping.xml -

 

file:///C:/Users/PINKPA~1/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_colorschememapping.xml - I guess I am not seeing that much difference in terms of the general idea. Belief- follow the tenents - pray- repent. file:///C:/Users/PINKPA~1/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_colorschememapping.xml - The main difference is that you believe you need belief in Jesus as God or Son of God, (I am not sure which). We believe that Jesus is a Prophet, a Messenger of God. But we belief in only God, who did not produce a ‘son.’

No, the main difference is that Muslims believe they can earn salvation and Christians believe it is a gift from God that must be accepted without arrogantly thinking that we can do anything to earn it.



Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 22 July 2009 at 10:05am
Originally posted by martha

Perhaps I am being ignorant here, but a person who goes to Friday prayer is said to have his sins between that Friday and last forgiven.
I really don't understand this at all[IMG]http://www.islamicity.com/forum/smileys/smiley5.gif" height="17" width="17" align="absmiddle" alt="Confused" />

Can someone help me out please.
As Salamu Alaikum.Friday to Friday plus Three days.


Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 22 July 2009 at 10:19am
As Salamu Alaikum,Islamispeace,Hayfa.I have read both of your post,good Job!


Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 22 July 2009 at 11:37am
[QUOTE=Natassia] <FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">@ islamispeace

<P dir=ltr><It really sounds to me like you are your own savior. What you do determines what happens to you later. You can save yourself from hell by sticking to the rules as best you can and then performing good deeds to make up for the times you don't. I mean, at that point, what do you need Allah for.[Akhe Abdullah]We seek refuge in Allah from the evils in which He has Created,We seek refuge in Allah from the acursed Shaytan.Only Allah can forgive sins and Accept repentence(AT-Tawwab).You being Chirstian should know that Jesus(As)can not forgive sins even on earth he could only pray for you.All good deeds are from Allah and all bad is from yourself.Surah 25:70-71) Unless he repents,believes and work righteous deeds,for Allah will change the evil of such persons Into good,and Allah is Oft-Forgiving(AL-Gaffar),Most Merciful(AL-Rahim),And whoever repents and does good Has truly turned to Allah with an (acceptable)conversion[/


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 22 July 2009 at 6:00pm
Natassia: Lying costs torment for...? 2 days? 3 years? How does that work exactly?

It should be obvious by now that it is Allah who determines the length of the punishment.  You are asking absurd questions.  Obviously, none of us can speak for Allah.

Natassia:
Well, what if they are too poor to afford slaves in the first place? This is sounding extremely complicated and confusing.

Only if you have not done the research.  Islam has the answers.  You just need to seek them out before making up your mind.  The answer to your question is found in the teachings of the Prophet:

(from Sahih Bukhari, 3:31:157)
Narrated Abu Huraira:

While we were sitting with the Prophet a man came and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I have been ruined." Allah's Apostle asked what was the matter with him. He replied "I had sexual intercourse with my wife while I was fasting." Allah's Apostle asked him, "Can you afford to manumit a slave?" He replied in the negative. Allah's Apostle asked him, "Can you fast for two successive months?" He replied in the negative. The Prophet asked him, "Can you afford to feed sixty poor persons?" He replied in the negative. The Prophet kept silent and while we were in that state, a big basket full of dates was brought to the Prophet . He asked, "Where is the questioner?" He replied, "I (am here)." The Prophet said (to him), "Take this (basket of dates) and give it in charity." The man said, "Should I give it to a person poorer than I? By Allah; there is no family between its (i.e. Medina's) two mountains who are poorer than I." The Prophet smiled till his pre-molar teeth became visible and then said, 'Feed your family with it."

So, there you go.  I find it strange that you are able to find Islamic sources when they somehow prove to you that Islam is false, but you have trouble finding the same sources when they refute your claims.  Isn't that strange or is it just me?

Natassia:
It really sounds to me like you are your own savior. What you do determines what happens to you later. You can save yourself from hell by sticking to the rules as best you can and then performing good deeds to make up for the times you don't. I mean, at that point, what do you need Allah for?

Of course what you do determines what happens later.  Is that a new concept for you?  If you deny God, you will go to Hell.  If you believe in Him, you will go to Paradise.  Everyone knows that. 

You save yourself from Hell by believing in Allah.  So, Allah is central to salvation.  You can try to misconstrue this simple fact any way you want, but the reality is that Islam acknowledges that Allah is the key to salvation.  The most important rule to follow is the 1st commandment.  There is no other god, but God!  Therefore, God is central.

Natassia:
Babies are not "tainted." Humans are not born with sin. They are born from sinful parents, and it is the sinful teachings of parents that "taint children." Humans have the ability (once they reach a certain age) to exercise free will apart from primitive instinct. It is Free Will which exposes us to sin...without it, we could not sin.

Well then you are contradicting standard Christian doctrine.  Do you believe in original sin?  What denomination do you belong to?

I agree with what you said.  The Islamic perspective states that all humans are born with a clean slate and only capable of choosing good or evil once they are able to make their own decisions.

Natassia:
God's plan is constructed BECAUSE of sin. It's like the "What came first: the chicken or the egg?" question, except in this case we know which came first...Sin. Without sin, we would not need salvation.

Again, I agree.  I did not question that.

Natassia:
Why is a sin automatically forgiven just because someone feels bad about what they did? Oh, wait, you said they must give back what they stole and offer to make amends to the person...THAT is called atonement. So, atonement is required for sins in Islam...or no?

Of course!  But, just so you don't misconstrue this and try to justify the crucifixion, atonement is done by the individual.  As the Quran states, everyone is responsible for their own actions.  

Natassia:
The Pharisees and Romans were evil, that is WHY they killed the Messiah. God knew they would always do such a thing, and so the ransom offered by the Messiah was accepted by God.

You are going around in circles here and not answering the question.  They were evil, yes.  But, why did the plan require evil to be done in the first place?  How does it sound to say that God's plan was achieved because of evil people?  Why, then would we not feel a sigh of relief that the Pharisees and Romans did evil by killing the Messiah?   We should be thankful that they committed evil, should we not?

Natassia:
Perhaps because God doesn't want to move us around like pieces on a chessboard. Perhaps because God wants humans to be free to make their own choices. Perhaps because justice requires perfect atonement for sin, and since God KNEW the Pharisees and Romans would slaughter the perfect Lamb of God, then God in His mercy accepted the willing sacrifice of Christ for the sins of the world.

So, then we should be thankful that the Pharisees and Romans were evil.

Natassia:
So, Allah chose Abraham based on Abraham's merits. Because Abraham was a righteous man based on his personal beliefs and logical brain, then Allah chose him? Hmmm...sounds to me like Allah is wrapped around the finger of Muslims...and the decision of Allah was dependent upon the beliefs and actions of man.

Your entire premise is a straw man.  Allah guides those who are worthy of guidance.  Abraham was chosen because he had demonstrated obedience and goodness.  And remember that without Allah, Abraham would never have survived in a land of pagans.  They did try to kill him, but Allah's power was too much for the disbelievers.

Natassia:
Are you saying that Allah has created man sinful?

No, Allah has created man to be imperfect and with a free will.  This should be obvious to any spiritual person.

Natassia:
Adam and Eve sinned and started a snowball effect. I am not a sinner BECAUSE Adam and Eve were. I am a sinner because I choose to be. But for me to sin means I have to be born with the ability to sin. According to the Genesis story, it is this ability that has been passed on.

You are contradicting yourself.  If you have been born with the ability to sin, that means God created you that way.  It sounds to me like you are the one who is saying that God created man sinful. 

I agree that you sin because you choose to.  Of course, this contradicts the doctrine of original sin.  I am glad you reject this doctrine.

Natassia:
How am I not making sense? Just because I have the ABILITY to do something doesn't mean that I will do it. If you are a male, your body is naturally equipped to rape...it doesn't mean that you will ever rape someone.

How is it that a man is equipped to rape?  Because he has a penis?  This is absurd.  I would say that no man is born with the ability to rape.  The urge to rape comes about from an unhealthy view on sex and women.  Not every man has those urges.  It comes about from the environment one lives in.  Perhaps he grew up in a house which objectified women. 

Natassia:
If Jews and Christians were following the "true religion" they wouldn't be Jews or Christians. They'd be Muslims just like how Islam says Abraham and Ishmael were. You can't have it both ways.  Either the Judeo-Christian religions ARE Islam or they are not. If they are, then it is inaccurate to call the followers of such a religion Jews or Christians because they would in fact be Muslims. If they are not Islam, then it is inaccurate to say that the Jews and Christians who go to heaven are the ones following the true religion.

No one is suggesting that it was both ways.  That is your own assumption.  Of course, they were Muslims. They submitted to the will of God.  So, the Quran refers to them as "Jews" or "Christians" simply to make a point.  How would we know who the Quran was talking about if it referred to them as Muslims?  The verse serves to remind the disbelieving Jews and Christians of their roots, the roots of monotheism and service to God, which they have betrayed. 

Natassia:
So, is commentary now required to make sense of the timeless, perfect, unchanging words of Allah? Words described to be perfectly clear and understandable?

It is perfectly clear to us Muslims!  But for your benefit, a commentary helps.  There is nothing wrong in explaining the Quran to those who are not knowledgeable.  One has to be knowledgeable first in order to understand the crystal-clear message of the Quran. 

Natassia: Not all Jews have killed prophets. Not all Jews have altered the word of God. How about Jews born in the 7th century AD to Jewish parents who never killed anyone and never altered any scriptures? Those Jews believed in God.

If they believed in Allah and ALL his prophets, including Muhammad, then they would be saved.  The Jews who were born before Islam and who believed in Allah and did not disobey him or alter His word would be saved.  Those Jews before Islam who did kill the prophets and disobeyed God and altered His word, and did not repent, would be doomed to Hell.

Natassia:
So again, it comes down to belief in Muhammad. It is belief in MUHAMMAD that saves a Jew...not belief in Allah. What a sad state of affairs.

Not at all.  Belief in Muhammad is secondary.  If one believed in Muhammad but disbelieved in God, he would be a disbeliever.  Conversely, if one believed in God but rejected Muhammad as a prophet, he would also be a disbeliever, since it is God who chose Muhammad.  There is nothing complicated about this.  You are making a mountain out of a pebble. 
 
Natassia:
I am humble. Are you insinuating that because I believe God will save me FOR SURE that I am not humble? I'm not making rules. You either know that you are saved from hell or you don't. What is this wishy-washy-ness? Where's the basic logic? So, are you saying that Muslims don't really know if God will save them from hell because they might be punished for some sins that they didn't have a chance to ATONE for?

We put great emphasis on God's will.  That is why when we speak of the future, we always say "God willing".  Am I saved?  Yes, God willing.  You see?

Natassia:
By the way, Jesus never sinned. Perhaps that is why Allah saved him from a cruel death and whisked him up to heaven to remain with him until the final day of judgment. Perhaps that is why Jesus had the ability to cure the sick, raise the dead, and give clay birds life.

Ezekiel also raised people from the dead.  So, what does that mean?  Jesus was not perfect.  I am sure that at some point in his life, he did something wrong.  The Gospels try very hard to try to paint him in a perfect light, but even they show that he was nothing more than human, and to be human is nothing compared to the majesty of God. 

Natassia:
So, Muhammad's sins were forgiven because of what Muhammad did? The abilities and personal strengths of Muhammad were Muhammad's saving grace?

They certainly helped to elevate him above others.  He was the best of humanity, and the best of Allah's servants and worshipers.  Because he did more to please Allah, he was awarded in various ways, one of which was the forgiving of all of his sins, past and present.  And yet, he still did more as an act of thanksgiving to his Lord. 

Natassia:
With all due respect, Quran 46:9 makes it VERY clear that even Muhammad did not know the future...even of his own soul.

Like I said, I don't need Quran lessons from a Christian.  Muhammad was simply refuting a misconception the pagans had about him; that he knew everything.  The point he was making was that all that he knows is what is revealed to him.  He was making a general statement.  You can try all you want to misconstrue that and rant about it, but the reality is clear. 

Natassia:
This all sounds very confusing. Muslims are given no guarantees. You might be shown mercy or you might not. Wow.

I have already explained this matter.  Muslims are told that they will be saved in the end.  Case closed.  Think of it what you will.

Natassia: 1. Good is from Allah, not myself.

Very good!

Natassia: 2. Evil is from me, not Allah.

Yes, keep going.

Natassia: 3. Guidance comes from Allah.

Yes!  Yes!

Natassia: 4. Allah causes me to be good.

Yes, almost there!  But, why do I get the feeling that you are going to screw up eventually?  Wink

Natassia: 5. I must be good in order to prove that I have faith.

And to be worthy of Allah's guidance.

Natassia: 6. If I suddenly stop being good, then Allah will leave me.

He may leave you.  It is up to Him.  Obviously, the decision rests with Him.  If you become arrogant and suddenly reject God, He certainly may abandon you and thereby doom you to Hell. 

Natassia: But if #4 is already happening, then how could #6 ever truly happen?  If Allah is what makes me good, and he is guiding me...then how can I suddenly do evil?

No, you screwed up!  LOL
LOL

Go back to number 2!  Did you already forget that evil comes from you?  Remember, free will?  Just because He guides you does not mean He takes away your free will.  He shows you the path, but you are the one who must walk it. 

Natassia: And why must I do #5 if Allah is omniscient?

So that when He punishes or rewards you, you will know why.  Its simple!  Its not for His benefit, but for ours.  Based on your argument, He should just put the ones who will be good in Heaven and those who will be bad in Hell from the start, without the earthly life.  But then, would we not ask Him to give us a chance to prove ourselves?

Natassia: And where does #2 come from? How does evil come from me?

Free will, Natassia, free will.  You can choose evil if you want to.  

Natassia: Did Allah make me evil?

No, He made you imperfect and with free will.  There is a difference.  Only He is perfect.

Natassia: If I am Allah's creation (and how could a perfect creator ever create something imperfect?),

Why not?  If He wants to make you imperfect, why couldn't He?  Are you implying that in your view, we were created as perfect?  If so, then how could we sin, even if we had free will?

Natassia: then how could he make me a certain way knowing that it would lead me to hell?

He gives you ample time and opportunity to find salvation.  It's your fault if you don't.  Why do you think He has sent thousands of prophets to serve as spiritual guides for humanity? 

He made you an imperfect creature to show that you are below Him.  He is supreme.  You are not.  If you were perfect, then there would be no need for a Heaven or Hell. You would not be in need of any pleasure and you would be impervious to pain and torment.



-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 22 July 2009 at 7:15pm
[Islamispeace] I find it strange that you are able to find Islamic sources when they somehow prove to you that Islam is false, but you have trouble finding the same sources when they refute your claims. Isn't that strange or is it just me?                             [Akhe Abdullah]As Salamu Alaikum,Islamispeace.It's real strange,But we all have to start from somewhere Natassia,good Q&A!


Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 22 July 2009 at 7:29pm
[QUOTE=islamispeace] . 

<p dir="ltr">Natassia: <font size="3" color="#ff0000" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">But if #4 is already happening, then how could #6 ever truly happen?  <font size="3" color="#ff0000" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">If Allah is what makes me good, and he is guiding me...then how can I suddenly do evil?

<p dir="ltr">No, you screwed up![Akhe Abdullah]The greather your Iman(faith)the greater your shaytan.This is true for any who have faith in Allah shaytan has a job to do and that is to lead astray as many as he can.


Posted By: Natassia
Date Posted: 22 July 2009 at 10:12pm

@ islamispeace

The hadith you posted made things even more confusing.

So, if a rich man commits a sin, he has to manumit a slave. If a poor man commits the same sin, he has to feed his family some dates? This is not justice. A poor man is actually being treated differently than a rich man for committing the same sin.

And you told me that only Allah knows how long someone is in torment, and there really is no way for a Muslim to know if they will be tortured in hell...because there is no way to know the individual weight of each good or bad deed. So, you go through life hoping Allah will be merciful...but never really being sure that he will. That's amazing.

You wrote: Of course what you do determines what happens later. Is that a new concept for you? If you deny God, you will go to Hell. If you believe in Him, you will go to Paradise. Everyone knows that.

You save yourself from Hell by believing in Allah. So, Allah is central to salvation. You can try to misconstrue this simple fact any way you want, but the reality is that Islam acknowledges that Allah is the key to salvation. The most important rule to follow is the 1st commandment. There is no other god, but God! Therefore, God is central.

Well, you've not told the whole truth. Jews believe in one God. Christians believe in one God. Neither of them can go to Paradise (Quran 3:85, 9:29-30). How about Zoroastrians and Sikhs? How about people who follow the extinct Atenism? They are all monotheists. So, Allah is not central to salvation. Someone else is, and that someone else is Muhammad.

You wrote: Well then you are contradicting standard Christian doctrine. Do you believe in original sin? What denomination do you belong to?

"Standard Christian doctrine"? Who gets to say what that is? I don't belong to a denomination. Am I supposed to?

You wrote: Of course! But, just so you don't misconstrue this and try to justify the crucifixion, atonement is done by the individual. As the Quran states, everyone is responsible for their own actions.

I see. But you told me that Allah was not going to make everyone go to hell...that all some people had to do was confess their sins on the Last Day and they would be automatically forgiven by Allah who would "conceal their sins." Now, where's the accountability in that?

You wrote: You are going around in circles here and not answering the question. They were evil, yes. But, why did the plan require evil to be done in the first place? How does it sound to say that God's plan was achieved because of evil people? Why, then would we not feel a sigh of relief that the Pharisees and Romans did evil by killing the Messiah? We should be thankful that they committed evil, should we not?

I wonder how it is best to explain this...Okay, humans think in terms of timelines. We can't comprehend something that hasn't happened yet because we cannot see the future. We also tend to be restricted to a cause-effect way of looking at things. God is omniscient, so it is like He sees the timeline from the very beginning to the very end all at once. It was never that His plan required that the Pharisees and Romans do evil, it was simply that He incorporated their deeds into His plan because He always knew what they would do. You are trying to say that because the Romans did what they did, that is why we are saved. Wrong. We should instead say, because of the mercy and power of God, an evil act was used for good.

You wrote: Your entire premise is a straw man. Allah guides those who are worthy of guidance. Abraham was chosen because he had demonstrated obedience and goodness. And remember that without Allah, Abraham would never have survived in a land of pagans. They did try to kill him, but Allah's power was too much for the disbelievers.

Straw man? Not really. I'm trying to figure out Islamic theology. Either it is Allah that made Abraham good or it was Abraham who made himself good. How does someone become worthy of guidance except on their own merit? Therefore, Allah only does things based on the personal strengths of individuals, and the more moral strength a person has, the more Allah will guide them. This makes zero sense if all morality comes from Allah in the first place. In other words, you have one of two choices:

Abraham's righteousness made him worthy of Allah's choice

or

Allah's choice of Abraham made him righteous.

One is dependent on the power of Abraham, the other is dependent on the power of Allah.

And how can a perfect Creator create an imperfect creation and then punish it when it acts imperfectly as it was designed to do? How can the perfect Creator torment his own creation for all eternity because it exercised the free will given to it by the Creator in the first place? What's the point of eternally tormenting someone for doing something you always knew it would do before it was even born? That sounds sadistic.

Free will gives you the ability to sin.

Having a penis gives you the ability to rape.

However, having all of these things does not mean you will use them in such a negative manner. That's where God comes in. With God, man can use free will to do good. With God, man can use his body to bring pleasure to his wife, not pain. Without God, man is depraved, selfish, wicked. Without God, man gives in to the desires of the flesh.

Free will is not an evil or bad thing. A penis is not an evil or bad thing. It all depends on how you use it...and without God, man is doomed to use things that are good to do evil. We twist and warp and pervert God's gifts. The urge to rape does not come from one's environment. It comes from within.

You wrote: No one is suggesting that it was both ways. That is your own assumption. Of course, they were Muslims. They submitted to the will of God. So, the Quran refers to them as "Jews" or "Christians" simply to make a point. How would we know who the Quran was talking about if it referred to them as Muslims? The verse serves to remind the disbelieving Jews and Christians of their roots, the roots of monotheism and service to God, which they have betrayed.

Okay, you've made some assumptions here. "the Quran refers to them as 'Jews' or 'Christans' simply to make a point." What? Who said that? Allah? Muhammad? The Quran itself? How can Allah use the titles "Jews" and "Christians" to sometimes mean Jews and Christians and other times to mean Muslims? This sounds warped. If Jews and Christians (the "real" ones) were always Muslims, then why weren't they just called Submitters (in their corresponding languages)? Why would Jews be named after Judah and Christians named after Christ if they were supposed to be submitting to GOD, not Judaism or Jesus?

I'm going to underline the contradictions here:

Natassia: Not all Jews have killed prophets. Not all Jews have altered the word of God. How about Jews born in the 7th century AD to Jewish parents who never killed anyone and never altered any scriptures? Those Jews believed in God.

If they believed in Allah and ALL his prophets, including Muhammad, then they would be saved. The Jews who were born before Islam and who believed in Allah and did not disobey him or alter His word would be saved. Those Jews before Islam who did kill the prophets and disobeyed God and altered His word, and did not repent, would be doomed to Hell.

Natassia: So again, it comes down to belief in Muhammad. It is belief in MUHAMMAD that saves a Jew...not belief in Allah. What a sad state of affairs.

Not at all. Belief in Muhammad is secondary. If one believed in Muhammad but disbelieved in God, he would be a disbeliever. Conversely, if one believed in God but rejected Muhammad as a prophet, he would also be a disbeliever, since it is God who chose Muhammad. There is nothing complicated about this. You are making a mountain out of a pebble.

This is not a pebble. Either salvation comes solely from belief in Allah, or salvation comes from belief in both Allah and Muhammad. You have explained that salvation requires belief in both.

That is a big deal. You have now placed Muhammad at equal importance to Allah.

And why are you talking about Ezekial? He's not in the Quran. There's no way to verify that Dhul Kifl is Ezekial (as some Muslims claim), and there certainly aren't any stories about him raising the dead. And according to the Tanakh, God commanded Ezekial to prophesy, and when he did, God raised the dead...not Ezekial. Jesus, however, simply commanded life into dead bodies. There was no praying or begging. Jesus COMMANDED the dead to rise.

I really would like to address your "best example of humanity" comment. Maybe in another post.

(And I really do wonder what your definition of "perfect" is. Oh, and I would really like to know where evil originated. You said Free Will. But that doesn't explain the origin of evil. You speak of it like it is a tangible thing.)



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 23 July 2009 at 9:16pm
Natassia: The hadith you posted made things even more confusing.

LOL Well of course it did!  Everything Islam teaches is either wrong or confusing to you!  I do not expect you to accept what I show you.  I know that you will try to misconstrue it whichever way you can.  So, lets see why you are confused, shall we?

Natassia:
So, if a rich man commits a sin, he has to manumit a slave. If a poor man commits the same sin, he has to feed his family some dates? This is not justice. A poor man is actually being treated differently than a rich man for committing the same sin.

Each according to his abilities.  Its very simple.  Who says its not justice?  You?  Well, I am sorry.  We are not here to please you.  If Allah says it is justice, then it is.  The poor man was not burdened with an act of atonement he could not do.  Not only is this justice, it is fairness.  Allah will forgive anyone and allows them to atone in ways which are fair and within their means. 

At first, you were questioning what happens when a person can't free a slave.  You thought this was evidence that the Islamic system is flawed.  When I showed you that this was not the case, you found new ways to try to misconstrue the system!  Now you question whether this is justice at all!  Wow!

Natassia:
And you told me that only Allah knows how long someone is in torment, and there really is no way for a Muslim to know if they will be tortured in hell...because there is no way to know the individual weight of each good or bad deed. So, you go through life hoping Allah will be merciful...but never really being sure that he will. That's amazing.

What's amazing is your lack of comprehension.  As I have said, Muslims believe in eventual salvation.  Period.  You can always have an idea about how good a person you are or not.  That should offer some insight into your future.  Obviously, if someone goes through life lying, cheating, fornicating, gambling, drinking and doing very little if any acts of worship like praying, fasting and helping the poor, that person can be assured of a hellish afterlife.  But, even if this person has even a little faith and dies in that state, he can be assured of eventually being saved, InshaAllah.

Natassia:
Well, you've not told the whole truth. Jews believe in one God. Christians believe in one God.

Are we back on this again?
  You are truly an amateur at this.  We have already discussed this.  Jews may believe in God, but what kind of belief is it when they kill the prophets of God and reject others, such as Muhammad?  Christians believe in God, but what kind of belief is it when they believe God was a man named Jesus, who ate, drank and went to the bathroom?  That is why they are not saved.  And don't patronize me by quoting Quranic verses.  As I said, you are in no position to give me lessons.

Natassia:
How about Zoroastrians and Sikhs? How about people who follow the extinct Atenism? They are all monotheists. So, Allah is not central to salvation. Someone else is, and that someone else is Muhammad.

You should go study the other religions before you make silly statements.  Sikhism has elements of Hinduism, which is a pagan religion.  I don't find that to be exactly monotheistic.   

Also, belief in God is not just acknowledging that God exists.  It also includes following His commandments and believing in everything He has ordained.  So, if one believes in God but does not believe in angels, whom God has created, that is an act of disbelief in God, because one would be denying what God created.  In the same sense, if one rejects some or all the prophets, that is also an act of disbelief, since it was He who sent them.  That is why the Quran says:

After this it is ye, the same people, who slay among yourselves, and banish a party of you from their homes; assist (Their enemies) against them, in guilt and rancour; and if they come to you as captives, ye ransom them, though it was not lawful for you to banish them. Then is it only a part of the Book that ye believe in, and do ye reject the rest? but what is the reward for those among you who behave like this but disgrace in this life?- and on the Day of Judgment they shall be consigned to the most grievous penalty. For Allah is not unmindful of what ye do. (2:85)

  How can one say that they believe in God but then reject a lot of what God has ordained?  That is called hypocrisy, and the hypocrite's place in Hell is eternal and lower than even the disbelievers.   

Natassia:
"Standard Christian doctrine"? Who gets to say what that is? I don't belong to a denomination. Am I supposed to?

So, you are one of those liberal Christians.  The mainstream Christians read the Bible you do and they believe in original sin.  I assumed you were one of them.  But, you didn't answer my question.  You just answered with more questions.  Do you believe in original sin?

Natassia:
I see. But you told me that Allah was not going to make everyone go to hell...that all some people had to do was confess their sins on the Last Day and they would be automatically forgiven by Allah who would "conceal their sins." Now, where's the accountability in that?

Obviously, Allah will decide who gets to walk that path.  If He decides to deal with them in that manner, obviously He knows something about them that we don't.  Perhaps it will be those people who while their sins were heavy, they did their best to avoid sinning.  Perhaps they truly tried but kept falling into temptation.  Perhaps, as a result, they were constantly praying for forgiveness.  Allah knows best.

Natassia:
I wonder how it is best to explain this...

I wonder if you even truly understand your own explanation.  Not that I don't appreciate your efforts.  At least you are trying.  Some of the others I posed this question to tried to ignore it
.

Natassia:
God is omniscient, so it is like He sees the timeline from the very beginning to the very end all at once. It was never that His plan required that the Pharisees and Romans do evil, it was simply that He incorporated their deeds into His plan because He always knew what they would do.

Exactly.  God utilized evil in His plan.  He could just as easily have not utilized it, but He did.  It doesn't sound too good to say that God used evil to make His plan go forward, does it?  It sure does not to me, at least.

Natassia:
You are trying to say that because the Romans did what they did, that is why we are saved. Wrong. We should instead say, because of the mercy and power of God, an evil act was used for good.

But it was what they did that allowed the plan to succeed.  So, should we not be thankful for their evil?  Essentially, you are saying that a little evil was done for a greater good?

Natassia:
How does someone become worthy of guidance except on their own merit? Therefore, Allah only does things based on the personal strengths of individuals, and the more moral strength a person has, the more Allah will guide them.

Yes, that is how Allah rewards them in this life, and ensures that they will also be rewarded in the next life.  Its awesome.

Natassia: This makes zero sense if all morality comes from Allah in the first place.

Yes, and He teaches that to us through His prophets and messengers.  Abraham was not the first prophet.  The message was given to humanity from the beginning.  As time goes on, some humans forget the message and stray from the true path, such as the people of Abraham.  But, he saw the folly of paganism and challenged it.  And then Allah chose Him to be His Khalil.  SubhanAllah!

Natassia:
Abraham's righteousness made him worthy of Allah's choice or Allah's choice of Abraham made him righteous.One is dependent on the power of Abraham, the other is dependent on the power of Allah.

See above.

Natassia: And how can a perfect Creator create an imperfect creation and then punish it when it acts imperfectly as it was designed to do?

Because He showed them what is right and what is wrong. He then told them to avoid what is wrong.  What is so difficult to comprehend here? 

And once again, you did not answer my question.  Are you implying that we were created in a perfect state? 

Natassia: Having a penis gives you the ability to rape.

No, having an unhealthy view on sex and women gives you the ability to rape. 

Natassia: How can Allah use the titles "Jews" and "Christians" to sometimes mean Jews and Christians and other times to mean Muslims?

Why not?  If Allah was speaking to the Jews and Christians of Muhammad's time to remind them of their roots, it would make sense to refer to their group.  It was implied that the Jews and Christians who were referred to as believers were Muslims, since they did submit to the will of God. 

Natassia: If Jews and Christians (the "real" ones) were always Muslims, then why weren't they just called Submitters (in their corresponding languages)? Why would Jews be named after Judah and Christians named after Christ if they were supposed to be submitting to GOD, not Judaism or Jesus?

That is what they called themselves!  So, Allah was referring to them the way they referred to themselves.  The Quran refers to the Jews as 'the Children of Israel' and the Christians as "an-Nasariyah", the word Arab Christians used for themselves.  Notice that there is nothing in it about Christ. 

Natassia: This is not a pebble. Either salvation comes solely from belief in Allah, or salvation comes from belief in both Allah and Muhammad. You have explained that salvation requires belief in both.

Hypocrites think they believe in Allah and yet reject much of what Allah revealed and said.  Refer back to the ayat I presented above.  If Allah said that Muhammad is His messenger, who are you to reject him?  And if you do reject him, despite that Allah chose Him, how can you maintain that you still believe in Allah?   

Natassia: That is a big deal. You have now placed Muhammad at equal importance to Allah.

Like always, you have misconstrued the reality. 

Natassia: And why are you talking about Ezekial? He's not in the Quran. There's no way to verify that Dhul Kifl is Ezekial (as some Muslims claim), and there certainly aren't any stories about him raising the dead. And according to the Tanakh, God commanded Ezekial to prophesy, and when he did, God raised the dead...not Ezekial. Jesus, however, simply commanded life into dead bodies. There was no praying or begging. Jesus COMMANDED the dead to rise.

Jesus said that he can't do anything by himself.  That was the same as Ezekiel.  Of course, Ezekiel didn't raise the dead himself.  None of the prophets performed miracles by themselves.  God performed the miracles through them as signs for the people.  Jesus was no different and he even said that.

Natassia: I really would like to address your "best example of humanity" comment. Maybe in another post.

Oh I can't wait!  I have been through this already with dozens of people like you.  If your arguments will be as pathetic and weak as your black stone rant, which I refuted in the other thread, then you should quit right now! 

Natassia: (And I really do wonder what your definition of "perfect" is. Oh, and I would really like to know where evil originated. You said Free Will. But that doesn't explain the origin of evil. You speak of it like it is a tangible thing.)

What, you have your own rules for what perfection is also?  You really like to make up your own rules, huh?  What is perfection?  It means not having any flaws.  Who is perfect?  Only God.  If you think otherwise, you are a blasphemer and you have no right to tell other people how to follow God.



-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Natassia
Date Posted: 24 July 2009 at 9:07am

You wrote: Each according to his abilities. Its very simple. Who says its not justice? You? Well, I am sorry. We are not here to please you. If Allah says it is justice, then it is. The poor man was not burdened with an act of atonement he could not do. Not only is this justice, it is fairness. Allah will forgive anyone and allows them to atone in ways which are fair and within their means.

At first, you were questioning what happens when a person can't free a slave. You thought this was evidence that the Islamic system is flawed. When I showed you that this was not the case, you found new ways to try to misconstrue the system! Now you question whether this is justice at all! Wow!

You've committed a logical fallacy called "begging the question."

One must first assume that Allah says it is justice in order to believe that it is justice. And then you have to assume that the word of Allah is the truth.

You've also committed a logical fallacy called "double-think" because you've changed the definition of the word "justice."

The Islamic system is flawed because it is not just.

You wrote: What's amazing is your lack of comprehension. As I have said, Muslims believe in eventual salvation. Period. You can always have an idea about how good a person you are or not. That should offer some insight into your future. Obviously, if someone goes through life lying, cheating, fornicating, gambling, drinking and doing very little if any acts of worship like praying, fasting and helping the poor, that person can be assured of a hellish afterlife. But, even if this person has even a little faith and dies in that state, he can be assured of eventually being saved, InshaAllah.

And this is justice?

Obviously the afterlife of the believing (yet lying, cheating, fornicating, etc.) Muslim is not completely hellish since it doesn't last forever and eventually the person is rewarded with heaven.

But the afterlife of the disbelieving (yet not lying, not cheating, not fornicating, etc.) Christian is completely hellish since it does last forever.

You wrote: Are we back on this again? You are truly an amateur at this. We have already discussed this. Jews may believe in God, but what kind of belief is it when they kill the prophets of God and reject others, such as Muhammad? Christians believe in God, but what kind of belief is it when they believe God was a man named Jesus, who ate, drank and went to the bathroom? That is why they are not saved. And don't patronize me by quoting Quranic verses. As I said, you are in no position to give me lessons.

You are being illogical. Not all Jews kill prophets. They only reject the prophets of other religions such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. They follow the teachings of the prophets of Judaism--all the way up to Malachi. Now you are condemning them for adhering to Judaism despite the fact that this is what makes them JEWS in the first place.

Christians believe in one God. Period. They believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Lamb of God, and the Word of God. Whatever they believe about Jesus, it still does not negate the fact that they recognize and worship only ONE God. Their definition of the nature of God simply differs from yours.

You wrote: You should go study the other religions before you make silly statements. Sikhism has elements of Hinduism, which is a pagan religion. I don't find that to be exactly monotheistic.

And Islam has elements of Arabian paganism. It is undeniable. Any self-respecting historian and scholar will admit this.

You wrote: Also, belief in God is not just acknowledging that God exists. It also includes following His commandments and believing in everything He has ordained.

I agree with this statement. Even the demons believe in the existence of God. So what it comes down to is believing in the word of God. Now, here's the tricky part. WHAT is the word of God? Muslims believe that the Quran is the word of God. However, other monotheists do not. And why should they? Just because the Quran claims to be the word of God doesn't make it so. The Baha'i claim to have the word of God that Muslims and Christians and Jews reject. Most Christians claim to have the word of God that Muslims and Jews reject.

You wrote: So, you are one of those liberal Christians. The mainstream Christians read the Bible you do and they believe in original sin. I assumed you were one of them. But, you didn't answer my question. You just answered with more questions. Do you believe in original sin?

I am not a liberal. I am a conservative Republican in fact. The mainstream Christians' definition of "original sin" may not be accurate...but either way, the belief in "original sin" is not a requirement for salvation. All Christians will agree with that. I don't believe babies are automatically sinful. God filled John the Baptist from the womb with the Holy Spirit. How could he also be sinful?

"Allah knows best."

It always comes back to that, doesn't it? (And that "begs the question" as well.)

You wrote: God utilized evil in His plan. He could just as easily have not utilized it, but He did. It doesn't sound too good to say that God used evil to make His plan go forward, does it? It sure does not to me, at least.

I'm laughing as I read this. Tell me, is the killing of babies evil? Most people would say yes. And yet, Allah utilized such an evil in his plan to eradicate Sodom. You must be careful when you attempt to judge Good and Evil.

Sex is a good thing, but it is not always right and it can be used for evil--such as rape or prostitution.

Crucifixion is an evil thing, but it can be used for good if God chooses to save humanity through it.

You wrote: But it was what they did that allowed the plan to succeed. So, should we not be thankful for their evil? Essentially, you are saying that a little evil was done for a greater good?

See my previous answer. No one should be thankful to people for doing evil. We should be thankful to God for His mercy in forgiving us our sins. If God accepts the offering of someone in the place of others, should we be scornful or grateful? The death of an innocent animal would be deemed as "evil" and yet such a thing was done to atone for Israel's sins. The stoning of a human being would be deemed as "evil" and yet such a punishment is prescribed for adultery in both the Torah and the Hadith. So, the actions of the Jews and Romans was evil, and yet God accepted the offering of the Messiah as atonement for sins. Just because God made something good out of something evil doesn't mean that we should be thankful for the evil. We should be thankful to God for being so good.

You wrote: Yes, and He teaches that to us through His prophets and messengers. Abraham was not the first prophet. The message was given to humanity from the beginning. As time goes on, some humans forget the message and stray from the true path, such as the people of Abraham. But, he saw the folly of paganism and challenged it. And then Allah chose Him to be His Khalil. SubhanAllah!

So saith Muhammad.

You wrote: Because He showed them what is right and what is wrong. He then told them to avoid what is wrong. What is so difficult to comprehend here?

And once again, you did not answer my question. Are you implying that we were created in a perfect state?

But see, Allah shows me that fornication is wrong, and yet he shows me that Muslim men may sleep with their slaves. He shows me that adultery is wrong, and yet he shows me that Muslim men may sleep with their married captives. He shows me that having more than four wives is wrong, and yet he shows me that Muhammad could have nine at one time. He shows me that Jews and Christians will not bear the burdens of anyone's sins but their own, and yet he shows me that a Jew or Christian will take the place of a Muslim in hell as mercy for that Muslim.

I believe we are created with the ability to be perfect...and yet because we also have the ability to be imperfect it creates a state of tension.  Humans inevitably choose imperfection...not that God created us that way in the first place.

You wrote: No, having an unhealthy view on sex and women gives you the ability to rape.

If you can't have an erection, how can you rape someone? It requires having a physical body part. Otherwise you resort to using other tools of some sort. To be a rapist (as in forced sexual intercourse) you must have the sexual organ with which to do it. And there have been men who have raped only once in their lives and all the other times engaged in normal consensual sex. What happened in their cases?

You wrote: Why not? If Allah was speaking to the Jews and Christians of Muhammad's time to remind them of their roots, it would make sense to refer to their group. It was implied that the Jews and Christians who were referred to as believers were Muslims, since they did submit to the will of God.

You are having to force context that is not in the Quran into Allah's timeless words. Or are they not timeless? Or are only certain words timeless?

You wrote: That is what they called themselves! So, Allah was referring to them the way they referred to themselves. The Quran refers to the Jews as 'the Children of Israel' and the Christians as "an-Nasariyah", the word Arab Christians used for themselves. Notice that there is nothing in it about Christ.

If this is what they have always called themselves, then why would Allah say that at one point they did follow the true religion? And why are translators translating these words falsely? Why would Allah lump all Christians together and all Jews together in 9:29-30? He didn't say "some Christians" or "only those Christians who believe in these things." No, he said "the Jews believe this...and the Christians believe that..." Period.

You wrote: Hypocrites think they believe in Allah and yet reject much of what Allah revealed and said. Refer back to the ayat I presented above. If Allah said that Muhammad is His messenger, who are you to reject him? And if you do reject him, despite that Allah chose Him, how can you maintain that you still believe in Allah?

Muhammad said that Gabriel said that Allah said that Muhammad is his messenger.

If I believe that Muhammad was lying but still believe in God and worship God, how can God be angry with me?

You wrote: Jesus said that he can't do anything by himself. That was the same as Ezekiel. Of course, Ezekiel didn't raise the dead himself. None of the prophets performed miracles by themselves. God performed the miracles through them as signs for the people. Jesus was no different and he even said that.

He can't do anything by himself because the Father is IN him and he and the Father are one. Everything he did came from the Father because Jesus came from the Father. That's why Jesus could COMMAND life whereas all other prophets could only pray for it.

Jesus is elevated to the status of God just as Muhammad elevated himself to the status of Allah when he said: "to obey the Messenger is to obey Allah."

You wrote: Oh I can't wait! I have been through this already with dozens of people like you. If your arguments will be as pathetic and weak as your black stone rant, which I refuted in the other thread, then you should quit right now!

I never ranted. I simply provided some facts. I'm sorry if you didn't like them.

One question to start off: Is morality absolute in Islam? Without knowing this, I cannot proceed.

You wrote: What, you have your own rules for what perfection is also? You really like to make up your own rules, huh? What is perfection? It means not having any flaws. Who is perfect? Only God. If you think otherwise, you are a blasphemer and you have no right to tell other people how to follow God.

Flaws? As in physical flaws? Spiritual flaws? Am I flawless because I have two arms, but the child born without any is flawed? I'm talking about perfection in the eyes of God, not the eyes of humans. Can you explain what that is from an Islamic point-of-view?



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 24 July 2009 at 8:23pm
Natassia: You've committed a logical fallacy called "begging the question."

One must first assume that Allah says it is justice in order to believe that it is justice. And then you have to assume that the word of Allah is the truth.

Uh, I explained further why I think it is justice.  I didn't just assume. 

The poor man was not burdened with an act of atonement he could not do. Not only is this justice, it is fairness. Allah will forgive anyone and allows them to atone in ways which are fair and within their means. 

Natassia: You've also committed a logical fallacy called "double-think" because you've changed the definition of the word "justice."

Double-think refers to accepting two beliefs which are contradictory.  I did not do that, nor did I "[change] the definition of justice".  It would be injustice if the rich man was not required to atone for his sins whereas the poor man was, or vice-versa.  Clearly, that is not the case.  Regardless of one's status, they are required to atone for their sins.  The only difference is that not everyone is able to atone in the same way.  That is a fact of life.  A poor man cannot free a slave.  It would be unjust to require that from a poor person.  So Islam, in its practicality, offers other ways. 

Natassia: The Islamic system is flawed because it is not just.

Justice is in the eye of the beholder.  Can you provide me with a universal charter on justice?  Does every nation, race or ethnic group have the same version of justice? 

Do you regard the Christian system to be just?  Tell me why Jesus released the adulteress?  How was that just?  (We will not even get into the fact that the story is made up; I am bringing it up for argument's sake).

Natassia: And this is justice?

Why not?  He will pay for the sins he did not atone for, will he not?  However, his eventual saving grace will be his faith in Allah. 

Natassia: Obviously the afterlife of the believing (yet lying, cheating, fornicating, etc.) Muslim is not completely hellish since it doesn't last forever and eventually the person is rewarded with heaven.

Nevertheless, it will be partially hellish.  He will be punished for his sins and then he will be freed because he did have faith.

Natassia: But the afterlife of the disbelieving (yet not lying, not cheating, not fornicating, etc.) Christian is completely hellish since it does last forever.

Because of the lies they uttered against Allah. 

I assume, by your words, that you believe that every good person goes to Heaven, regardless of religion.  Is this correct?  So, do you believe that a good Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Sikh, and Atheist will also go to Heaven?

Natassia: You are being illogical. Not all Jews kill prophets.

I never said they did.  Obviously, modern Jews had nothing to do with Jesus' attempted execution, for example.  But, they do still reject him as a false prophet, don't they?  They do still regard the execution as proof that Jesus was a false prophet.  Do you believe that they can still go to Heaven with such a mindset?  Of course, there were many Jews in Jesus' time who followed him.  There were many Jews before Jesus who did not kill the prophets and followed them.  They were true believers and they will be in Heaven, inshaAllah.

Natassia: They only reject the prophets of other religions such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc.

And this brings up the "chosen people" status.  They would like us to believe that God prefers them over all other nations.  I just had this discussion with the apocalyptic fanatic Douggg on another thread.  

By believing that Allah only sent Hebrew prophets, and considers the Jews to be the "chosen people", in effect superior to all other people, they utter yet another lie against Allah.  This is another factor of their disbelief.

Natassia: Now you are condemning them for adhering to Judaism despite the fact that this is what makes them JEWS in the first place.

I am condemning them for the corruption they have added to the Word of God.  God does not prefer one race over all others.  God sent prophets to all races.  It is not up to the Jews to reject them simply because they were not Jews.

Natassia: Christians believe in one God. Period. They believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Lamb of God, and the Word of God. Whatever they believe about Jesus, it still does not negate the fact that they recognize and worship only ONE God. Their definition of the nature of God simply differs from yours.

So, do you believe that Jews can go to Heaven even if they do not accept Jesus as their savior?  Does the same apply for Muslims, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians, who also profess the belief in one God? 

Regarding your claim that Christians worship one God followed by the period, I would actually add ellipses.  You know, "Christians believe in one God...They believe in Jesus Christ and so on."  The Christian concept of monotheism is pathetically skewed.  God sends Himself in an inferior form (the Son) and prays to His superior form (the Father).  Yeah, that's monotheism alright!

Natassia: And Islam has elements of Arabian paganism. It is undeniable. Any self-respecting historian and scholar will admit this.

LOL Those same historians and scholars will admit that Christianity borrowed elements of pagan religions to invent the myth of the savior coming to die for everyone's sins. 

Islam is pure monotheism.  The supposedly "pagan" elements within it were originally monotheistic, but which had been adopted by the pagans when paganism became dominant in Arabia.  Of course, they all added some things to those monotheistic elements with pagan elements.  For instance, some pagan women used to do tawaf nude.  Do you see Muslims doing that?

Natassia: WHAT is the word of God? Muslims believe that the Quran is the word of God. However, other monotheists do not. And why should they? Just because the Quran claims to be the word of God doesn't make it so. The Baha'i claim to have the word of God that Muslims and Christians and Jews reject. Most Christians claim to have the word of God that Muslims and Jews reject.

So, whats your point?  Are you arguing on behalf of a universalist, "every religion is a path to God," theology? 

Natassia: I am not a liberal. I am a conservative Republican in fact. The mainstream Christians' definition of "original sin" may not be accurate...but either way, the belief in "original sin" is not a requirement for salvation. All Christians will agree with that. I don't believe babies are automatically sinful. God filled John the Baptist from the womb with the Holy Spirit. How could he also be sinful?

So, do you accept the concept or not? 

Original sin is the key to the whole crucifixion scenario.  If one does not believe in it, then one has no reason to believe that the crucifixion serves any purpose.  Paul was big on the whole thing.   

Natassia: It always comes back to that, doesn't it? (And that "begs the question" as well.)

Well, does He not know best?  Do you feel that you know all the secrets of the universe, and what the future holds?  Don't you feel that Allah indeed knows best?  Careful how you answer.  You don't want to elevate yourself to His level.  That's dangerous territory.

Natassia: I'm laughing as I read this. Tell me, is the killing of babies evil? Most people would say yes. And yet, Allah utilized such an evil in his plan to eradicate Sodom. You must be careful when you attempt to judge Good and Evil.

And I'm laughing at your pathetic false analogy.  God's actions are not the same as the actions of humans, are they?  How many babies were actually there, if any?  If you recall the account in Genesis, Abraham asks God if He would spare the city if there were 50 righteous people living there.  The number was eventually reduced to 10.  So, clearly there were not many babies there, if there were any at all.  But, the point is that God knows what He is doing.  He has forbidden us to kill babies.  But, of course, babies die all the time, whether from disease or other reasons which are under the control of God. 

I think it would have been more appropriate if you had alluded not to when God personally destroyed cities, but to when He ordered His followers to destroy cities and eliminate all within.  But then, you would not bring that up, would you?  It's in the Bible isn't it?  How many nations were eliminated by the Israelites under the supposed orders of God?  How many of the victims were babies? 

To come back to the original point, I am glad you admit that the crucifixion was evil and that God used it for the fulfillment of His plan of salvation.  

Natassia: Sex is a good thing, but it is not always right and it can be used for evil--such as rape or prostitution.

Crucifixion is an evil thing, but it can be used for good if God chooses to save humanity through it.

Another false analogy!  Sex has infinitely more benefits.  Without it, we could not survive.  This is a matter of fact  Crucifixion was a form of torture and execution, and only once was it supposedly used for the greater good (if you believe that)!  This is a matter of faith.  They are not the same.

Natassia: No one should be thankful to people for doing evil. We should be thankful to God for His mercy in forgiving us our sins. If God accepts the offering of someone in the place of others, should we be scornful or grateful? The death of an innocent animal would be deemed as "evil" and yet such a thing was done to atone for Israel's sins. The stoning of a human being would be deemed as "evil" and yet such a punishment is prescribed for adultery in both the Torah and the Hadith. So, the actions of the Jews and Romans was evil, and yet God accepted the offering of the Messiah as atonement for sins. Just because God made something good out of something evil doesn't mean that we should be thankful for the evil. We should be thankful to God for being so good.

It seems to me that it was unnecessary to even use the evil of people to the benefit of the plan of salvation.  The same end could have been achieved through some other means. 

Natassia: So saith Muhammad.

And every other prophet before him.  And it makes perfect sense.

Why is it that everything he said is automatically rejected by you?  Biased, are we Natassia? 

Natassia: But see, Allah shows me that fornication is wrong, and yet he shows me that Muslim men may sleep with their slaves. He shows me that adultery is wrong, and yet he shows me that Muslim men may sleep with their married captives. He shows me that having more than four wives is wrong, and yet he shows me that Muhammad could have nine at one time. He shows me that Jews and Christians will not bear the burdens of anyone's sins but their own, and yet he shows me that a Jew or Christian will take the place of a Muslim in hell as mercy for that Muslim.

More false analogies.

Natassia: I believe we are created with the ability to be perfect...and yet because we also have the ability to be imperfect it creates a state of tension.  Humans inevitably choose imperfection...not that God created us that way in the first place.

Now this is called double-thinking!  You can't be perfect and imperfect at the same time, nor can you have the ability to be perfect and imperfect at the same time.  The two contradict each other.  None of us can be perfect.  It is impossible.

Natassia: If you can't have an erection, how can you rape someone? It requires having a physical body part. Otherwise you resort to using other tools of some sort. To be a rapist (as in forced sexual intercourse) you must have the sexual organ with which to do it. And there have been men who have raped only once in their lives and all the other times engaged in normal consensual sex. What happened in their cases?

Obviously, they gave into their unhealthy views just that once.  Are you saying that even a male infant has the ability to be a rapist (not that he could because he is so little and not even aware of his surroundings)?  After all, male infants have a penis. 

Are you saying that every woman is therefore a potential whore? 

Natassia: You are having to force context that is not in the Quran into Allah's timeless words. Or are they not timeless? Or are only certain words timeless?

When you don't have a valid response, you make silly statements.  Obviously, those words still apply today since they will remind modern Jews and Christians of their roots, just as they did to those in Muhammad's time.   

Natassia: If this is what they have always called themselves, then why would Allah say that at one point they did follow the true religion?

When did I say always?  I don't think the original followers of Jesus called themselves by the blasphemous term "Christians".  This was a later invention. 

Natassia: And why are translators translating these words falsely

Hmmm, I don't know.  Maybe for convenience?  LOL

Natassia: Why would Allah lump all Christians together and all Jews together in 9:29-30? He didn't say "some Christians" or "only those Christians who believe in these things." No, he said "the Jews believe this...and the Christians believe that..." Period.

Period nothing.  Obviously, they would not be able to fight the Jews and Christians of the past!  This was a reference to the contemporaries of the early Muslims, who obviously were unbelievers.  It was specifically revealed, if my memory serves me correctly, after the Byzantines executed a Muslim messenger and attacked a small Muslim army.

Natassia: Muhammad said that Gabriel said that Allah said that Muhammad is his messenger.

And he proved it in many ways.  See, this is why people who reject him as God's messenger are doomed.  They disbelieve in him even though he provided evidence of the divine hand that was guiding him.   

Natassia: If I believe that Muhammad was lying but still believe in God and worship God, how can God be angry with me?

Because you would be lying yourself, and thus you are a hypocrite, which is even worse than being an unbeliever.  You would be lying about Muhammad and also about God, the latter of which is the worst possible thing to do.

Natassia: He can't do anything by himself because the Father is IN him and he and the Father are one. Everything he did came from the Father because Jesus came from the Father. That's why Jesus could COMMAND life whereas all other prophets could only pray for it.

Nonsense.  This is the kind of self-contradictory nonsense Christians want other people to believe.  Jesus can't do anything himself, and yet he is still God!  The Father is in him, and yet Jesus prays to Him! 

Natassia: Jesus is elevated to the status of God just as Muhammad elevated himself to the status of Allah when he said: "to obey the Messenger is to obey Allah."

Wrong again.  Jesus (pbuh) never elevated himself to the level of God.  That was the work of blasphemours and heretics after him.  Muhammad (pbuh) never elevated himself to the level of God.  When he said that to obey him is to obey God, he was saying that whatever laws he was bringing, were coming from God.  So therefore, to follow those laws which Muhammad (pbuh) had enacted and told the Muslims to follow, was to follow God because they were His laws.  Your repeated attempts at twisting the facts exposes how little you know and it also exposes to what lengths you will go to utter lies against God and His last messenger. 

Natassia: I never ranted. I simply provided some facts. I'm sorry if you didn't like them.

LOL You are so full of yourself, its amazing!  I refuted the "facts" you brought.  I exposed your shabby research skills and how you probably plagiarized someone else's rants (from a like-minded website).  I also notice that you have not responded to that post.  I would really like you to take a stab at the challenges I set for you!

Natassia: One question to start off: Is morality absolute in Islam?

Could you be more specific?  This is a very vague question (perhaps this was intentional on your part).

Natassia: Flaws? As in physical flaws? Spiritual flaws? Am I flawless because I have two arms, but the child born without any is flawed? I'm talking about perfection in the eyes of God, not the eyes of humans. Can you explain what that is from an Islamic point-of-view?

Flaws as in having no weakness, like God.  God has no flaws.  He does not need to eat, drink, sleep, rest, go to the bathroom, feel any urges, feel any temptations to commit a sin, feel any pain or weakness, etc.  That is perfection.  Do you think humans are perfect?  

What is perfection in the eyes of God, in your view? 



-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Natassia
Date Posted: 24 July 2009 at 10:40pm
@ islamispeace
 

You wrote: The poor man was not burdened with an act of atonement he could not do. Not only is this justice, it is fairness. Allah will forgive anyone and allows them to atone in ways which are fair and within their means.

Don't you get it? To require a different price for the same good is not just? That would be like me walking into a store to purchase a hamburger and the guy charges me $25.00 because I am wealthy but only charges the poor man standing next to me $1.25. That is wrong.

The sin remains the same and yet the punishment for it differs based on how blessed someone is? What is that?!

You wrote: Double-think refers to accepting two beliefs which are contradictory. I did not do that, nor did I "[change] the definition of justice". It would be injustice if the rich man was not required to atone for his sins whereas the poor man was, or vice-versa. Clearly, that is not the case. Regardless of one's status, they are required to atone for their sins. The only difference is that not everyone is able to atone in the same way. That is a fact of life. A poor man cannot free a slave. It would be unjust to require that from a poor person. So Islam, in its practicality, offers other ways.

I apologize. The word I wanted to use was double-SPEAK. You use the word "justice" but mean it differently than the traditional (and modern) definition of the word. You are saying that Allah's justice is limited to the convenience level of humans. Wow. That causes me to lose respect for Allah, to be perfectly honest with you.

You wrote: Justice is in the eye of the beholder. Can you provide me with a universal charter on justice? Does every nation, race or ethnic group have the same version of justice?

Do you regard the Christian system to be just? Tell me why Jesus released the adulteress? How was that just? (We will not even get into the fact that the story is made up; I am bringing it up for argument's sake).

Justice = equal treatment in the eyes of the law. A man is subjected to the same laws as a woman. A believer is subjected to the same laws as a non-believer.

Ah yes, the story in John. Nevermind that the point of the story was to address the hypocrisy of sinners who stand in judgment over other sinners. Well, for argument's sake then...

Christianity is not a political ideology, nor is it meant to be applied as a governing law or legislation. In other words, the theology of Christianity is based on a personal relationship with God...not the establishment of a State. It teaches the individual believer how to live a righteous life in Christ...and how to treat others. However, throughout the Bible you will find clues as to what justice means to God:

Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly. (Leviticus 19:15)

It is unthinkable that God would do wrong, that the Almighty would pervert justice. (Job 34:12)

It is not good to be partial to the wicked or to deprive the innocent of justice. (Proverbs 18:15)

Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow. (Isaiah 1:17)

They trample on the heads of the poor as upon the dust of the ground and deny justice to the oppressed. Father and son use the same girl and so profane my holy name. (Amos 2:7)

Hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts. (Amos 5:15)

This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor. In your hearts do not think evil of each other.' (Zechariah 7:9-10)

Humans are not to go around punishing people for sin. Sin is a transgression of moral law. Sin is not necessarily a crime. Just as a Muslim is thought to commit a sin if they neglect their prayers, it is not considered a crime under shariah law. The Torah (along with the Oral Law) was the Israelite's first constitution and set of moral and criminal laws. They defined sin as well as provided a penal code for the Hebrews. However, the crime & punishment laws did not apply to Gentiles. There is no crime and punishment in Christianity. So what God urges us to do is administer justice in our courts and in our laws. And justice means fairness. Separation of Church and State is perfectly compatible with Christianity.

You wrote: Why not? He will pay for the sins he did not atone for, will he not? However, his eventual saving grace will be his faith in Allah.

And yet a Christian cannot atone for his sins. This is not just. There is nothing just about an eternal, physical torture chamber for human beings.

You wrote: I assume, by your words, that you believe that every good person goes to Heaven, regardless of religion. Is this correct? So, do you believe that a good Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Sikh, and Atheist will also go to Heaven?

No one is good but God. Eternal life is a gift, and the wages of sin is death. You don't want God? He's not going to force Himself on you. You think you can earn your way to heaven? That's an insult to God's glory, perfection, and holiness.

You wrote: I never said they did. Obviously, modern Jews had nothing to do with Jesus' attempted execution, for example. But, they do still reject him as a false prophet, don't they? They do still regard the execution as proof that Jesus was a false prophet. Do you believe that they can still go to Heaven with such a mindset? Of course, there were many Jews in Jesus' time who followed him. There were many Jews before Jesus who did not kill the prophets and followed them. They were true believers and they will be in Heaven, inshaAllah.

So Allah sends people to ETERNAL PHYSICAL TORTURE for their mindset?

You wrote: And this brings up the "chosen people" status. They would like us to believe that God prefers them over all other nations. I just had this discussion with the apocalyptic fanatic Douggg on another thread.

By believing that Allah only sent Hebrew prophets, and considers the Jews to be the "chosen people", in effect superior to all other people, they utter yet another lie against Allah. This is another factor of their disbelief.

Don't get me started on Judaism. I'm not a fan of -isms at all, in fact. However, I could have sworn that the Quran calls Muhammad the best of humanity...and says that believers are the best of all people. So the Jews feel they have a special status for being Jewish, and the Muslims believe they have a special status for being a part of the Islamic Ummah. I see nothing different here except that one is an ethnicity & religion and the other is a religion & political ideology.

You wrote: I am condemning them for the corruption they have added to the Word of God. God does not prefer one race over all others. God sent prophets to all races. It is not up to the Jews to reject them simply because they were not Jews.

Ah ah ah. You are making an unsubstantiated claim. If corruption has been added to the Word of God (as you call it), please tell me what it is that is corrupted. Show me which parts have been corrupted and explain why you believe they are wrong.

You wrote: So, do you believe that Jews can go to Heaven even if they do not accept Jesus as their savior? Does the same apply for Muslims, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians, who also profess the belief in one God?

Without a Savior, all of us are lost. We cannot earn salvation. To think so is arrogant and insulting to God (considering He is our Savior). I believe all people who would accept the gospel and salvation through Christ will be exposed to it somehow...whether on earth or in the grave. Everyone else will be judged based on the sins they have committed according to the Law of God. So, you have a choice: guaranteed salvation or judgment.

You wrote: Regarding your claim that Christians worship one God followed by the period, I would actually add ellipses. You know, "Christians believe in one God...They believe in Jesus Christ and so on." The Christian concept of monotheism is pathetically skewed. God sends Himself in an inferior form (the Son) and prays to His superior form (the Father). Yeah, that's monotheism alright!

LOL! Oh the double-standard.

Muslims believe in one God...They believe in Muhammad and so on. What is your shahadah? Ah yes, Allah AND Muhammad. What is it the Quran says? "To obey the Messenger is to obey Allah?" Why are Jews condemned? For not believing in Muhammad and 'Isa. Why are Christians condemned? For not believing in Muhammad and for believing in Jesus.

If Allah chose to raise up a human being to be his exalted servant for all humanity to be subservient to...would you have a problem with it? Of course not, because this is what you believe about Muhammad. He has been exalted above all the other Prophets as the Final Messenger and Seal of the Prophets. He has been exalted as the best of humanity for all people to emulate. By believing in his revelations: the Quran and Hadith, you can go to heaven. By following in his footsteps, you are obeying Allah.

You wrote: Those same historians and scholars will admit that Christianity borrowed elements of pagan religions to invent the myth of the savior coming to die for everyone's sins.

Explain that one...and Zeitgeist doesn't count since it has been debunked more times than I can count.

And tu quoque doesn't work on me. Islam incorporates paganism.

You wrote: Islam is pure monotheism. The supposedly "pagan" elements within it were originally monotheistic, but which had been adopted by the pagans when paganism became dominant in Arabia. Of course, they all added some things to those monotheistic elements with pagan elements. For instance, some pagan women used to do tawaf nude. Do you see Muslims doing that?

Talk about BEGGING THE QUESTION! How were the supposedly "pagan" elements originally monotheistic? You have no proof that there ever was monotheism originally in Arabia until AFTER the birth and spread of Judaism. You have no proof Abraham ever set foot in the Arabian peninsula, and you have no proof that Ishmael was the father of the Arabs or even a monotheist himself.

You wrote: So, whats your point? Are you arguing on behalf of a universalist, "every religion is a path to God," theology?

No, I'm asking you to back up your claim that the Quran is the Word of God since by it you condemn disbelieving monotheists (and others) to hell.

You wrote: So, do you accept the concept or not?

Original sin is the key to the whole crucifixion scenario. If one does not believe in it, then one has no reason to believe that the crucifixion serves any purpose. Paul was big on the whole thing.

How can original sin be the "key" to the whole crucifixion scenario when the term isn't even in the Bible?

I do not believe that humans are born unrighteous/sinful. I believe that humans are born from sinful parents and are born with the ABILITY to sin (aka Free Will.) Find me one man who has not sinned. Remember that "fabricated" story in John about the adulteress? Guess what, there is truth in it. No man (or woman) is without sin. The only one believed to have lived perfectly according to God's Law is Jesus Christ.

You wrote: Well, does He not know best? Do you feel that you know all the secrets of the universe, and what the future holds? Don't you feel that Allah indeed knows best? Careful how you answer. You don't want to elevate yourself to His level. That's dangerous territory.

God knows ALL. However, I don't use it as a cop out for questions I can't answer.

You wrote: And I'm laughing at your pathetic false analogy. God's actions are not the same as the actions of humans, are they? How many babies were actually there, if any? If you recall the account in Genesis, Abraham asks God if He would spare the city if there were 50 righteous people living there. The number was eventually reduced to 10. So, clearly there were not many babies there, if there were any at all. But, the point is that God knows what He is doing. He has forbidden us to kill babies. But, of course, babies die all the time, whether from disease or other reasons which are under the control of God.

Woo-hoo. You've quoted Genesis in order to back up your claim that God's actions are not the same as humans' actions. If that's the case...care to explain how there couldn't be ANY righteous people (including small children and babies) living in Sodom if there is no Original Sin? (I have an answer to that question; I'm just curious to hear yours.)

So, from what you've said, you cannot determine that the death of a baby or a child is necessarily "evil," correct? Especially if it is the will of God?

You wrote: I think it would have been more appropriate if you had alluded not to when God personally destroyed cities, but to when He ordered His followers to destroy cities and eliminate all within. But then, you would not bring that up, would you? It's in the Bible isn't it? How many nations were eliminated by the Israelites under the supposed orders of God? How many of the victims were babies?

To come back to the original point, I am glad you admit that the crucifixion was evil and that God used it for the fulfillment of His plan of salvation.

Oh, we can talk about Numbers and Judges all day if you'd like. I think the Israelites were just as wicked as many of their pagan neighbors...especially when they started sacrificing their own children to Molech and participating in temple prostitution.

The crucifixion of Christ was an evil act that the Almighty God was able to use to bring good for all humanity. God was not dependent on it. We are. If He had not forgiven us based on what Christ did, then we would all stand condemned on the day Christ died.

You wrote: Another false analogy! Sex has infinitely more benefits. Without it, we could not survive. This is a matter of fact Crucifixion was a form of torture and execution, and only once was it supposedly used for the greater good (if you believe that)! This is a matter of faith. They are not the same.

You don't understand, do you? I'm saying that something which is good may be used for evil, and something that is evil can be used for good. Killing a human being is an evil act; however sometimes it is the right thing to do if you are protecting an innocent child from a rapist.

You wrote: It seems to me that it was unnecessary to even use the evil of people to the benefit of the plan of salvation. The same end could have been achieved through some other means.

You keep repeating this point when I have refuted it already. God is dependent on nothing. If God chooses to allow us to exercise our free will and does not want to impede our exercise of it in any way...and yet He wants to provide a means of salvation that MAKES SENSE and fulfills the Law and the Prophets....then He might use the evil actions of humans in His plan.

Think about this story: David committed a heinous act when he slept with Bathsheba and had her husband killed...and he was punished for it. However, the product of their marriage was Solomon....the wisest king to rule the earth. Your mind is stuck in that one-way timeline, cause-and-effect thing. God sees all and knows all. How can you think to know the mind of God and determine His "dependence" on things?

Perhaps I can provide a Quranic example. Before Allah created Adam, he announced that he was making a viceroy for earth. The angels questioned his judgment because they knew humans would be violent. Allah rebuked the angels because they did not know all that he knows. So, he created Adam and put him in a garden in heaven, not earth. He also placed a tree in that garden and told Adam not to eat of it. Well, Adam did. And when he did, he was thrown to earth to live there in enmity.

Was Allah dependent on the disobedience of Adam in order to ensure that he would be a viceroy for earth?

You wrote: And every other prophet before him. And it makes perfect sense.

Why is it that everything he said is automatically rejected by you? Biased, are we Natassia?

I reject someone who preaches one thing and does another.

Natassia: But see, Allah shows me that fornication is wrong, and yet he shows me that Muslim men may sleep with their slaves. He shows me that adultery is wrong, and yet he shows me that Muslim men may sleep with their married captives. He shows me that having more than four wives is wrong, and yet he shows me that Muhammad could have nine at one time. He shows me that Jews and Christians will not bear the burdens of anyone's sins but their own, and yet he shows me that a Jew or Christian will take the place of a Muslim in hell as mercy for that Muslim.

You wrote: More false analogies.

They are not false analogies. They are not analogies at all. You said Allah shows us what is right and wrong. I'm saying he has provided a pretty confusing picture.

You wrote: Now this is called double-thinking! You can't be perfect and imperfect at the same time, nor can you have the ability to be perfect and imperfect at the same time. The two contradict each other. None of us can be perfect. It is impossible.

Ah, see...you claim that we are born imperfect. I claim that we make ourselves imperfect. Free will gives us the ability to be perfect or imperfect. How we exercise free will determines our perfection or imperfection. You say it is impossible to be perfect. Why? Is that because of Original Sin or is that Allah's fault for making us imperfect in the first place (which is the definition of Original Sin! lol)

God said: Be perfect. Humans said: I can't because I don't want to be.

You wrote: Obviously, they gave into their unhealthy views just that once. Are you saying that even a male infant has the ability to be a rapist (not that he could because he is so little and not even aware of his surroundings)? After all, male infants have a penis.

Are you saying that every woman is therefore a potential whore?

Man, do you even know what the definition of "ability" means? It means having the capability to do something. A man is physically capable of raping a woman because he has a penis. He may not necessarily be emotionally or spiritually capable of it. And that's where the goodness of God comes in.

You wrote: When you don't have a valid response, you make silly statements. Obviously, those words still apply today since they will remind modern Jews and Christians of their roots, just as they did to those in Muhammad's time.

More conjecture. Nothing to back it up.

You wrote: When did I say always? I don't think the original followers of Jesus called themselves by the blasphemous term "Christians". This was a later invention.

I guess the 1st century Acts of the Apostles was a complete fabrication then...as were the epistles of Paul written before 60 AD.

You wrote: Obviously, they would not be able to fight the Jews and Christians of the past! This was a reference to the contemporaries of the early Muslims, who obviously were unbelievers. It was specifically revealed, if my memory serves me correctly, after the Byzantines executed a Muslim messenger and attacked a small Muslim army.

No. The story goes that some non-Muslim Arabs (Jordanian area) executed some Muslim "missionaries." When Muhammad heard about it, he sent like 3,000 soldiers to fight...and they met up with about 100,000 (?) Byzantine soldiers. That was the Battle of Mutah. Yeah, that didn't turn out so good.

But, see, that story is not in the Quran. Should it be?

You wrote: And he proved it in many ways. See, this is why people who reject him as God's messenger are doomed. They disbelieve in him even though he provided evidence of the divine hand that was guiding him.

How? The Quran says he was just a warner...nothing more. What evidence of divine guidance?

You wrote: Because you would be lying yourself, and thus you are a hypocrite, which is even worse than being an unbeliever. You would be lying about Muhammad and also about God, the latter of which is the worst possible thing to do.

How does that make me a liar and a hypocrite? A hypocrite is someone who says, for example, that they don't believe in something and yet they really do...or says they do believe in something and yet they really don't.

I say I don't believe in Muhammad, and I really don't. I say I do believe in God, and I really do. How does that make me a hypocrite and a liar?

You're changing the definition of words again.

You wrote: Nonsense. This is the kind of self-contradictory nonsense Christians want other people to believe. Jesus can't do anything himself, and yet he is still God! The Father is in him, and yet Jesus prays to Him!

Wow...spiritual stagnation is quite something to witness. God is spirit. Therefore God can be in someone and yet not BE that someone. The Spirit of God was in Christ. That doesn't mean the Spirit of God is Christ.

And Christians would like everyone to be freed by believing in the gospel. However, we won't fight you for rejecting it or kill people for leaving Christianity.

You wrote: Wrong again. Jesus (pbuh) never elevated himself to the level of God. That was the work of blasphemours and heretics after him. Muhammad (pbuh) never elevated himself to the level of God. When he said that to obey him is to obey God, he was saying that whatever laws he was bringing, were coming from God. So therefore, to follow those laws which Muhammad (pbuh) had enacted and told the Muslims to follow, was to follow God because they were His laws. Your repeated attempts at twisting the facts exposes how little you know and it also exposes to what lengths you will go to utter lies against God and His last messenger.

Whoa-ho-ho. To say that the words you speak are God's words...and the commands you give are God's commands...and salvation is contingent on belief in you...well, you're either God or you're a mad-man.

And there you go with unsubstantiated claims. Which parts of the gospels and epistles are heretical and blasphemous? Would you doubt the sincerity of Muhammad's companions and earliest followers?

Natassia: One question to start off: Is morality absolute in Islam?

You wrote: Could you be more specific? This is a very vague question (perhaps this was intentional on your part).

How is this vague? It is a yes or no question. Morality is absolute in Christianity. Morality is relative in atheism, nihilism, and secular humanism. So, what about Islam?

You wrote: Flaws as in having no weakness, like God. God has no flaws. He does not need to eat, drink, sleep, rest, go to the bathroom, feel any urges, feel any temptations to commit a sin, feel any pain or weakness, etc. That is perfection. Do you think humans are perfect?

What is perfection in the eyes of God, in your view?

Having to eat is a flaw? That's just the nature of having a physical body. It's not a flaw. To say so is to question the Designer. Are you calling His design flawed? Humans are imperfect when they sin. Feeling pain, sorrow, anguish, etc. are not flaws.

P.S. This is getting to be a bit long and tedious. Can we condense it or something?



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 26 July 2009 at 4:16pm
LOLNatassia: Don't you get it? To require a different price for the same good is not just? That would be like me walking into a store to purchase a hamburger and the guy charges me $25.00 because I am wealthy but only charges the poor man standing next to me $1.25. That is wrong.

The sin remains the same and yet the punishment for it differs based on how blessed someone is? What is that?!

What I get is that you don't understand that God is both just and fair.  He is just because He requires all people, regardless of status, to atone for their sins.  He is fair because He allows people to atone based on their abilities.  Notice also that in the hadith I quoted, the person was told first to free a slave.  Only when he demonstrated that this was beyond his means was he told to do something else. 

Your version is a mixture of injustice, unfairness and contradictions.  It is sort of like a trinity!  Wink

Natassia:
I apologize. The word I wanted to use was double-SPEAK. You use the word "justice" but mean it differently than the traditional (and modern) definition of the word. You are saying that Allah's justice is limited to the convenience level of humans. Wow. That causes me to lose respect for Allah, to be perfectly honest with you.

LOL You really are full of yourself, aren't you?  Do you think that Allah cares if He has your respect or not? 

Like I said before, there is no universal charter on justice.  Every society has its own views on it.  Therefore, your assertion that I am contradicting the "traditional (and modern) definition" is a petty assumption and nothing more.

Natassia:
Justice = equal treatment in the eyes of the law. A man is subjected to the same laws as a woman. A believer is subjected to the same laws as a non-believer.

Every person is required to atone for their sins, regardless of status.  The only difference is that they can do so based on their means.  This is both just and fair.  And again, every society has its own views on justice. 

Natassia:
Christianity is not a political ideology, nor is it meant to be applied as a governing law or legislation. In other words, the theology of Christianity is based on a personal relationship with God...not the establishment of a State. It teaches the individual believer how to live a righteous life in Christ...and how to treat others.

So, Christianity is an incomplete message, not to mention extremely vague.  How does one go about establishing "a personal relationship with God".  Does He send correspondences to us?  How do we know when we have established this relationship?

Natassia:
Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly. (Leviticus 19:15)

Exactly.  Judge your neighbor fairlySince you are quoting the Old Testament, I assume you believe it still applies in full.  Well then:

10 " 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10) [the very next chapter!]


Natassia:  The Torah (along with the Oral Law) was the Israelite's first constitution and set of moral and criminal laws. They defined sin as well as provided a penal code for the Hebrews. However, the crime & punishment laws did not apply to Gentiles. There is no crime and punishment in Christianity. So what God urges us to do is administer justice in our courts and in our laws. And justice means fairness. Separation of Church and State is perfectly compatible with Christianity.

So, God treats Jews differently than Gentiles!  So much for justice and fairness!

Yet again, you contradict yourself.  Somewhere above, you criticized Islam because "
Allah's justice is limited to the convenience level of humans".  Yet now you say that in Christianity, God limits justice to human justice, based on human laws.  Well done, Natassia! 

Natassia: And yet a Christian cannot atone for his sins. This is not just. There is nothing just about an eternal, physical torture chamber for human beings.

Oh he can atone, but if he does not atone for the ultimate sin, that of worshiping the Messiah as God, then he might as well not atone for the other sins anyway. 

Natassia:
No one is good but God. Eternal life is a gift, and the wages of sin is death. You don't want God? He's not going to force Himself on you. You think you can earn your way to heaven? That's an insult to God's glory, perfection, and holiness.

You did not answer the question.  What happens to those people who do not accept the gift of eternal life?  Where do they go? 

Natassia:
So Allah sends people to ETERNAL PHYSICAL TORTURE for their mindset?

Another straw-man and another unanswered question. 

Natassia:
Don't get me started on Judaism. I'm not a fan of -isms at all, in fact. However, I could have sworn that the Quran calls Muhammad the best of humanity...and says that believers are the best of all people. So the Jews feel they have a special status for being Jewish, and the Muslims believe they have a special status for being a part of the Islamic Ummah. I see nothing different here except that one is an ethnicity & religion and the other is a religion & political ideology.

Yet, any person can join the Ummah.  The Ummah is all-inclusive.  Yet, the Bible maintains that Jews are God's people and Jesus goes so far as to call a Gentile woman a "dog". 

Natassia:
Ah ah ah. You are making an unsubstantiated claim. If corruption has been added to the Word of God (as you call it), please tell me what it is that is corrupted. Show me which parts have been corrupted and explain why you believe they are wrong.

For starters, consider that modern scholarship believes that the Torah was written or edited by more than individual.  Yet, tradition states that Moses wrote the Torah.  Who edited the Torah and why?  And this is just the Old Testament.  Don't even get me started on the New Testament!

Natassia:
Without a Savior, all of us are lost. We cannot earn salvation. To think so is arrogant and insulting to God (considering He is our Savior). I believe all people who would accept the gospel and salvation through Christ will be exposed to it somehow...whether on earth or in the grave. Everyone else will be judged based on the sins they have committed according to the Law of God. So, you have a choice: guaranteed salvation or judgment.

Lost how?  Be specific.  What is your scriptural basis for what you just said?  Where is the justice in treating those who believed the Gospel and those who didn't differently?  What happens to those who undergo judgment?

Natassia:
LOL! Oh the double-standard.

ROTFL!  Oh, the tu quoque!  My alleged "double-standard" has nothing to do with the misguided monotheism of Christianity, does it?  The fact still remains that Christianity has a skewed version of monotheism.

Natassia:
Muslims believe in one God...They believe in Muhammad and so on. What is your shahadah? Ah yes, Allah AND Muhammad. What is it the Quran says? "To obey the Messenger is to obey Allah?"

Wrong again!  The shahada states "I testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is His messenger".  There is nothing in there about Muhammad being equal to Allah!  The Prophet even warned his followers to not overly praise him as you Christians have done with Jesus:

Narrated ‘Umar: “I heard the Prophet saying, “Do not exaggerate in praising me as the Christians praised the son of Mary, for I am only a Slave. So, call me the Slave of Allah and His Apostle.” (Bukhari)

My point about Christianity remains unanswered.  Let me repeat it:

The Christian concept of monotheism is pathetically skewed. God sends Himself in an inferior form (the Son) and prays to His superior form (the Father). Yeah, that's monotheism alright!

Natassia:
Explain that one...and Zeitgeist doesn't count since it has been debunked more times than I can count.

Who or what is Zeitgeist?  In any case, for starters consider the similarities between the Eucharist and a comparable ritual in Mithraism.  Mithras made a similar analogy with his body and blood as Jesus did. 

Natassia:
And tu quoque doesn't work on me. Islam incorporates paganism.

Ironically, it doesn't work with me either!  LOL

Natassia:
Talk about BEGGING THE QUESTION! How were the supposedly "pagan" elements originally monotheistic? You have no proof that there ever was monotheism originally in Arabia until AFTER the birth and spread of Judaism. You have no proof Abraham ever set foot in the Arabian peninsula, and you have no proof that Ishmael was the father of the Arabs or even a monotheist himself.

Let us look at the words of Josephus, who wrote almost 500 years before Islam:

"But as for the Arabians, they circumcise after the thirteenth year, because Ishmael, the founder of their nation, who was born to Abraham of the concubine, was circumcised at that age; [...]  They are an Arabian nation and name their tribes from these (the sons of Ishmael), both because of their own virtue, and because of the dignity of Abraham their father." (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 50, Chapter 12)

So, the Arabs did trace their roots to Ishmael and also followed the same customs, such as circumcision, and this was hundreds of years before Islam. 

Concerning the Kaabah, it had been mentioned by the 1st century BC Greek historian Diodorus as well as Claudius Ptolemy, a 2nd century AD historian.  As far as its status as a place of pilgrimage, consider Psalm 84:

"1 How lovely is your dwelling place,
       O LORD Almighty! [...]

5 Blessed are those whose strength is in you,
       who have set their hearts on pilgrimage.  6 As they pass through the Valley of Baca,
       they make it a place of springs;
       the autumn rains also cover it with pools."


It refers to God's "dwelling place" and pilgrimage in the "Valley of Baca".  The Jewish Encyclopedia gives interesting information about "Baca":

"A valley mentioned in Ps. lxxxiv. 7 [6 A. V.]. Since it is there said that pilgrims transform the valley into a land of wells, the old translators gave to "Baca" the meaning of a "valley of weeping"; but it signifies rather any valley lacking water. Support for this latter view is to be found in II Sam. v. 23 et seq.; I Chron. xiv. 14 et seq., in which the plural form of the same word designates a tree similar to the balsam-tree; and it was supposed that a dry valley could be named after this tree. König takes "Baca" from the Arabian "baka'a," and translates it "lacking in streams." The Psalmist apparently has in mind a particular valley whose natural condition led him to adopt its name.

Natassia: No, I'm asking you to back up your claim that the Quran is the Word of God since by it you condemn disbelieving monotheists (and others) to hell.

For starters, its challenge for people to imitate it has gone unfulfilled.  It makes prophecies which came true.  The man who claimed it came from God made many prophecies which came true.  He performed many miracles in front of many people.  Hmmm.  Yeah, you're right.  It's not the Word of God!  Confused

What is your evidence that the Bible is the Word of God?

Natassia:
How can original sin be the "key" to the whole crucifixion scenario when the term isn't even in the Bible?

Yes, the term "original sin" is not literally in the Bible.  But the concept is there.  Like I said, Paul was very big on the whole thing.  The term itself was coined afterwards. 

Natassia:
I do not believe that humans are born unrighteous/sinful. I believe that humans are born from sinful parents and are born with the ABILITY to sin (aka Free Will.)

So then where does the crucifixion come in? 

Natassia:
God knows ALL. However, I don't use it as a cop out for questions I can't answer.

No, you just don't answer the questions!  LOL

Natassia:
Woo-hoo. You've quoted Genesis in order to back up your claim that God's actions are not the same as humans' actions. If that's the case...care to explain how there couldn't be ANY righteous people (including small children and babies) living in Sodom if there is no Original Sin? (I have an answer to that question; I'm just curious to hear yours.)

Even a five year old would have figured it out by now.  Sin comes by choice.  It is completely possible that Sodom did not have any righteous people because they all chose to sin. 

Natassia:
So, from what you've said, you cannot determine that the death of a baby or a child is necessarily "evil," correct? Especially if it is the will of God?

I am saying that what God does is not your concern.  What is your concern is that He says that you should not harm babies and children, even though they die all the time from natural causes which are under God's control.

Natassia:
Oh, we can talk about Numbers and Judges all day if you'd like. I think the Israelites were just as wicked as many of their pagan neighbors...especially when they started sacrificing their own children to Molech and participating in temple prostitution.

You are not answering the question.  What is that now , four times?  What is your explanation for the slaughter of infants under the supposed orders of God?

Natassia:
The crucifixion of Christ was an evil act that the Almighty God was able to use to bring good for all humanity. God was not dependent on it. We are. If He had not forgiven us based on what Christ did, then we would all stand condemned on the day Christ died.

How would we all stand condemned for Christ's death? 

Natassia:
You don't understand, do you? I'm saying that something which is good may be used for evil, and something that is evil can be used for good. Killing a human being is an evil act; however sometimes it is the right thing to do if you are protecting an innocent child from a rapist.

I understand that you like to use illogical analogies to support your premise. 

You claim that killing a human being can sometimes be a good thing.  In other words, in your view, it would be "just".  Of course, not everyone would consider that just.  There are some people who believe that killing is never justified.  This is more evidence that "justice" is not seen in one universal way by all people and that there is no "tradition or modern definition" of the word. 

Natassia:
You keep repeating this point when I have refuted it already. God is dependent on nothing. If God chooses to allow us to exercise our free will and does not want to impede our exercise of it in any way...and yet He wants to provide a means of salvation that MAKES SENSE and fulfills the Law and the Prophets....then He might use the evil actions of humans in His plan.

How does the Christian plan "make sense"?  How does it fulfill the "law and the Prophets"?  This is all very vague.

Natassia:
Was Allah dependent on the disobedience of Adam in order to ensure that he would be a viceroy for earth?

No, but then at that point, there was no need for a plan of salvation was there?  Only when Adam was placed on earth did God provide a path to salvation.  The plan was not dependent on Adam's sin. 

Natassia:
Ah, see...you claim that we are born imperfect. I claim that we make ourselves imperfect. Free will gives us the ability to be perfect or imperfect. How we exercise free will determines our perfection or imperfection. You say it is impossible to be perfect. Why? Is that because of Original Sin or is that Allah's fault for making us imperfect in the first place (which is the definition of Original Sin! lol)

Original sin refers to the belief that sin came into the world through the actions of Adam and Eve.  This is not the same as saying that humans are imperfect creatures who have freewill.  Yes, Allah did create us to be imperfect.  If it was possible for us to be perfect, then surely in the thousands of years of human history, there would have been many or at least a handful who demonstrated that perfection.  Jesus would not count because you believe he is God, and we don't know much about his life prior to his ministry anyway. 

I believe that we are all born with a clean slate.  This contradicts original sin.  I believe that since we have freewill, we can choose good or evil.  But, because of various factors, such as our environments and of course the whispers of Satan, many of us choose evil.  God understands that we are not perfect.  That is why He is always ready to forgive.  We just have to ask and atone.  But, ultimately, we have to have faith in Him and what He has revealed  also. 

Natassia:
God said: Be perfect. Humans said: I can't because I don't want to be.

Where does He say to be perfect?  How could He ask this of us? 

Natassia:
I guess the 1st century Acts of the Apostles was a complete fabrication then...as were the epistles of Paul written before 60 AD.

Yep!  Paul was a false claimant.  He is the one who invented most of the concepts found in Christianity, especially original sin.

Natassia:
No. The story goes that some non-Muslim Arabs (Jordanian area) executed some Muslim "missionaries." When Muhammad heard about it, he sent like 3,000 soldiers to fight...and they met up with about 100,000 (?) Byzantine soldiers. That was the Battle of Mutah. Yeah, that didn't turn out so good.

Get your facts straight.  It was a Byzantine official, Sharhabil, who executed the messenger.  Instead of punishing this official, the Byzantines sent an army to protect him.  That is when the ambush occurred and the Muslims had to withdraw.  Yes that was the battle fo Mutah.

Natassia:
But, see, that story is not in the Quran. Should it be?

It doesn't have to be.  We have the information at our fingertips.  It has always been known that the verse in question was revealed in a particular context.

Natassia:
How? The Quran says he was just a warner...nothing more. What evidence of divine guidance?

For one thing, everytime his enemies tried to kill him or hurt him, he always seemed to escape their clutches. 

Natassia:
How does that make me a liar and a hypocrite? A hypocrite is someone who says, for example, that they don't believe in something and yet they really do...or says they do believe in something and yet they really don't.

Because you accuse someone of lying but are lying yourself.  That's a hypocrite. 

Natassia:
I say I don't believe in Muhammad, and I really don't. I say I do believe in God, and I really do. How does that make me a hypocrite and a liar?

I was referring to your claim that Muhammad was a liar.  My point was that your assertions against him are themselves lies.  And I don't think you believe in God.  You believe in a watered-down version of Him, invented in your mind.  In essence, you have developed a belief in God based on your own understandig, and not
on what He actually revealed.  That is an element of disbelief.

Natassia:
Wow...spiritual stagnation is quite something to witness. God is spirit. Therefore God can be in someone and yet not BE that someone. The Spirit of God was in Christ. That doesn't mean the Spirit of God is Christ.

So, are you saying that Jesus is not God?  Hallelujah! 

Natassia:
And Christians would like everyone to be freed by believing in the gospel. However, we won't fight you for rejecting it or kill people for leaving Christianity.

Oh no, you Christians are perfect little angels.  You would never harm anyone.  The 2,000 years of violence and killings were just isolated incidents.
LOLLOL


 
Natassia: Whoa-ho-ho. To say that the words you speak are God's words...and the commands you give are God's commands...and salvation is contingent on belief in you...well, you're either God or you're a mad-man.

Every prophet said that, including Jesus, except for the "salvation is contingent on belief in you" part.  That was just an intentional misquotation on your part.  You can either believe it or not. 

Natassia:
And there you go with unsubstantiated claims. Which parts of the gospels and epistles are heretical and blasphemous? Would you doubt the sincerity of Muhammad's companions and earliest followers?

I already mentioned one, the Pericope de Adultera.  There are many others.  Muhammad's companions did not contradict each other. 

Natassia:
How is this vague? It is a yes or no question. Morality is absolute in Christianity. Morality is relative in atheism, nihilism, and secular humanism. So, what about Islam?

Again, be specific.  What do you mean by "absolute"?  Based on your reference to atheism, I would say morality is absolute in Islam, but I would like to know specifically what you mean.  If you mean that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, then yes morality is absolute.

Natassia:
Having to eat is a flaw? That's just the nature of having a physical body. It's not a flaw. To say so is to question the Designer. Are you calling His design flawed? Humans are imperfect when they sin. Feeling pain, sorrow, anguish, etc. are not flaws.

God made us the way we are.  He did not make us like Him.  He does not need to eat.  A being that has to eat to keep going is imperfect.  A being that feels pain is imperfect.  The design is not flawed.  He made us that way for a reason. 

Natassia:
P.S. This is getting to be a bit long and tedious. Can we condense it or something?

Hey, you are the one who introduced new topics.  I am having too much fun now!  Actually, when I was writing this, I accidently pushed the wrong button and lost everything (I was about half-way done).  I was so ticked off, but I got a hold of myself and rewrote the whole thing again.  I still had a lot of fun!








-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Natassia
Date Posted: 27 July 2009 at 12:21am

Look, everything you are describing to me about Allah's justice sounds like the point-of-view of what a human would think is justice. A human who is poor wouldn't think it fair to have to free two slaves for his heinous sin when his rich neighbor could afford to free 10 slaves. That is HUMAN thinking.

So, a human would think: since I don't believe that it is fair for me to have to pay such a huge price because it is too difficult for me, then a truly merciful God would let me off the hook with a tiny penalty. Sorry dude, but that's insane.

Why is a message only complete if it gives humans a penal code? That's nuts. Penal codes need to evolve with societies and education and technology.

A complete message is one that gives humans the way to MORALITY. If a person is moral, then they can come up with a moral penal code for their society.

Does God send correspondences? That's the Holy Spirit. God has most definitely communicated with me and put words in my head.

Man...Muslims and the Torah! There is criminal law and there is moral law in the Torah. Moral law states that adultery is a sin. Criminal law states how to determine guilt and then what punishment to apply. God's moral Law has always remained the same. Adultery has always been wrong, even before the Israelites had the Torah. God's moral Law applies to all humanity. The Torah applies only to the Jews. If you want to know about how they interpret and apply it, then speak to a Jew.

The Israelites bound themselves in a covenant with God. They didn't have to, but they chose to. So, once they went into this "contract" with the Lord, they were bound by His Laws. The Laws were given to them to separate them from the surrounding pagan nations that participated in all sorts of immoralities. The reason why they were to be separated was because Israel was to be a light for all nations. They failed of course, as God always knew they would. However, the Messiah--brought forth out of Israel--did not fail and is a light unto the world.

If worshiping the Messiah is worse than committing adultery or murder, than God is not just.

You wrote: I never said they did. Obviously, modern Jews had nothing to do with Jesus' attempted execution, for example. But, they do still reject him as a false prophet, don't they? They do still regard the execution as proof that Jesus was a false prophet. Do you believe that they can still go to Heaven with such a mindset? Of course, there were many Jews in Jesus' time who followed him. There were many Jews before Jesus who did not kill the prophets and followed them. They were true believers and they will be in Heaven, inshaAllah.

I wrote: So Allah sends people to ETERNAL PHYSICAL TORTURE for their mindset?

Jews reject Jesus as a false prophet--therefore they will be judged according to their adherence to the Law. Can they still go to Heaven? If they have followed the Law perfectly. So, do you care to answer my question now?

Okay, about monotheism vs. polytheism. First of all, I don't think God really cares what you call me. I certainly don't. In your eyes, my belief in the nature of God is polytheistic. In my eyes, I only believe in one God. Secondly, it's the FALSE gods and idols that God has a problem with. Jesus exists. Jesus is the Messiah. Jesus is the exalted servant of God. Jesus is the Word of God. Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus is in authority over me. So, if I believe in a triune nature of God, I seriously doubt an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent Creator is going to take exception to the way my brain works.

Re: Ishmael and the Arabs.

And so Josephus is an anthropology expert? Please. Josephus wrote all sorts of stuff...some of which were blatantly biased and some of which were blatantly forged. If the Arabs want Ishmael as their father, so be it. It still provides no historicity for their claims about the Ka'aba.

Do you have any idea what "tu quoque" means? It is a logical fallacy employed to avoid addressing the topic at hand. I brought up the topic that Islam incorporates paganism. In response, you pointed the finger at Christianity. Whether Christianity incorporates paganism or not, it does not negate the fact that Islam does. Please, research "logical fallacies" when you get a chance.

Oh no...not the Baca = Ka'aba thing. ((shakes head)) Wow. Talk about begging the question and deliberate distortion of scriptures in favor of making a mountain out of a superficial molehill based on the similarity in names. First of all, are you trying to say that this passage in Psalms is one of the "uncorrupted" ones? If so, then that must mean Allah dwells INSIDE the Ka'aba...and there must be an altar within it where you are to make sacrifices. Secondly, the destination of the pilgrimage was to ZION...not Mecca/Makkah/Bakkah. Thirdly, it must also mean that people dwell INSIDE the Ka'aba. Does anyone dwell inside of it or do they just visit it?

Baca has been translated either as ‘weeping’ or ‘balsam trees’ (which grow in dry places). It could be a real place, in which case it was a valley through which the pilgrims passed during their journey. Alternatively, it could be figurative. In this interpretation, even the dry, arid places through which the pilgrims pass are brought alive by their expectant joy as they near their destination. In either case, their pilgrimage is clearly to Jerusalem, as evidenced by the rest of the psalm. Why on earth would Jews, living in Israel and on their way to Jerusalem, take a huge detour through Mecca? ( http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/baca.html - )

(By the way, I never claimed that the Bible is the Word of God.)

There are no prophesies in the Quran except the one about the Byzantines and Persians...and that one flopped since victory did not happen for 14 years...not the 9 as had been prophesied.

The Quran says that Muhammad was just a warner when people asked him to perform miracles. So are you saying that now Muhammad was a miracle worker? That's odd. Which was it? Did he just bring a warning or did he work miracles to help convince people of his prophethood? If that is the case, then why didn't he work miracles for the pagans?

Original = first. So, the first sin was committed by Adam and Eve. Fine. They are the ones who brought the Knowledge of Good and of Evil to the rest of humanity. They learned the laws of morality and sin--the laws that condemn humans for their wickedness. When the law is in place, there are penalties for when it is broken. They chose the knowledge of the Law...a Law we, for some reason, can't seem to keep.

Crucifixion comes into the picture because we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I have sinned...many times. The price for my sin is death...eternal destruction. I'm not talking about death of the physical body. I'm talking--no more soul--the cessation of existence for all eternity.

And regarding Sodom, are you trying to say that there were no infants or toddlers? And I thought that in Islam, only children who had hit puberty were held accountable for sins. So are you saying that the city of Sodom hadn't propogated in, oh let's say--10 years?!

What is my explanation for the slaughter of innocents? A couple of possibilities: 1) God had the foreknowledge that every single one of those children was going to be a sexually immoral, violent, idol-worshipper. (Doesn't this remind you about the story of Musa, Allah's servant, and the boy he killed?) 2) The Israelites used God as validation for the slaughter when He in fact never commanded them to partake in it.

Here's the thing...the Israelites never did wipe out all those people. Those tribes rose up later to fight them again. So obviously, IF God had commanded them to slaughter all of them, the Israelites disobeyed and it ended up costing them dearly later.

How would we all stand condemned for Christ's death?

We stand condemned in our sins. And if we die in our sins, we do not have eternal life. Christ chose to pay a gruesome price in fulfillment of the Law so that we may have eternal life. If you refuse to accept his payment on your behalf, than you will be judged according to everything you've done. And if you have broken the Law, it doesn't matter how many good deeds you've done--you are still a sinner.

Killing can be justified by the law. Death is not an evil thing. MURDER is an evil thing. To kill someone breaking into your home to rape your wife is not wrong. Your act is justified in the eyes of God's Law because you love your wife and you seek to protect her.

Fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets...that's in Matthew 5, I believe. To go into all of that now is going to take forever. Perhaps start another post on it later?

So, what is "salvation" in Islam? What is it salvation from? What is the point of it? So, sin doesn't condemn you to hell? What does?

Sin did not come into the world because of Adam and Eve. Knowledge of it did. And it is the knowledge of what is evil and doing it anyway that condemns us.

Are you saying that there could be perfect, blameless human beings walking around today? Are you saying that all of us are capable of being perfect but it is the fault of our environment and satan that we are not?

Throughout the Tanakh, God says: Be holy for I am holy.

New Testament: Be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect.

If God did not create us with sin, then He can demand holiness from us.

(By the way, I love the Apostle Paul.)

You know, the hypocrisy of the early Muslims is amazing. They had no problem executing poets for speaking out against Muhammad. They had no problem killing pagan merchants and stealing their wares. They had no problem executing hundreds of men and boys for the "crimes" of a few. They had no problem threatening violence on Christians and Jews if they did not convert or pay the Jizyah tax...and when one of their own is killed in another nation, they go attack. Amazing.

And are you saying that the perfect words of Allah rely on the imperfect words of humans to provide it with proper context?

Muhammad didn't escape the clutches of the poisoned meat. He suffered illness for a good three years before dying in his sixties.

Muhammad did not tell the truth about the Judeo-Christian stories. They are distorted in the Quran...not to mention his incorporation of Gnostic stories...

When Christians are violent, they violate the commands in their scriptures. (Matt. 7:12)

When Muslims are violent, they are upholding the commands in their scriptures. (9:5, 9:29)

The Spirit of God is a different "person" than the Son of God just as they both are different persons than God the Father. But they are all one God.

SALVATION IN ISLAM IS CONTINGENT ON BELIEF IN MUHAMMAD. End of story.

The Pericope of Adultera...are you saying that a Holy Spirit-inspired believer could not have included the story to teach a moral lesson? Good grief, the gospels are about Christ's ministry and teachings and the gospel. If you can retain a godly moral lesson from a "fabricated" story...what does it hurt? It's about morality and salvation...not about having a perfect set of documents to follow. How is that story heretical or blasphemous? It follows right along with the teaching of Christ: do not go after the speck in your brother's eye when you've got a plank in your own.

Absolute morality: What is good has always been good. What is evil has always been evil.  So, is morality in Islam absolute?  If something is wrong and evil today, was it wrong and evil 1400 years ago?

Humans are physically not like God. However, we are spiritual beings and God is spirit. That is why the scriptures say we have been made in the image of God.



Posted By: martha
Date Posted: 27 July 2009 at 5:57am
Nastassia -'do not go after the speck in your brother's eye when you've got a plank in your own.'
 
LOL he, he.....I hadn't heard it put quite like that before. LOVE IT, lol. Must remember it


-------------
some of us are a lot like cement:- all mixed up and permanently set


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 28 July 2009 at 7:02pm
< ="Content-" content="text/; charset=utf-8">< name="ProgId" content="Word.">< name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11">< name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><>

First, let me apologize for the late response.  That's what happens when you get involved in more than one discussion simultaneously! 

Natassia: Look, everything you are describing to me about Allah's justice sounds like the point-of-view of what a human would think is justice. A human who is poor wouldn't think it fair to have to free two slaves for his heinous sin when his rich neighbor could afford to free 10 slaves. That is HUMAN thinking.

No, that is thinking that is both just and fair.  You can argue against it all you want but you yourself hold a premise which is based upon HUMAN thinking. 

Natassia: So, a human would think: since I don't believe that it is fair for me to have to pay such a huge price because it is too difficult for me, then a truly merciful God would let me off the hook with a tiny penalty. Sorry dude, but that's insane.

According to whom?  You?  Sorry miss, but I would be insane to accept your limited human vision!  Your entire premise is based upon nothing but your own view of the world, and you have the audacity to claim that it is actually God's view.  That's insane.

Natassia: Why is a message only complete if it gives humans a penal code? That's nuts. Penal codes need to evolve with societies and education and technology.

Because there is emphasis simply on man-made laws, and not those of God.  Do you think man-made laws can replace God's laws? 

Natassia: A complete message is one that gives humans the way to MORALITY. If a person is moral, then they can come up with a moral penal code for their society.

This is extremely vague.  What is morality?  Who decides what is moral and what is not moral?  If you going to go by man-made laws, then morality is going to be based upon an individual's whims.  For example, most western countries have some form of legalized abortion.  Now, I don't what your view is on this, but is an example of fluid morality.  Humans decided one day that to kill an infant is okay, despite the fact that God has made life sacred and the taking of innocent life is a major sin.  There is nothing more innocent than a baby.  This is one of the many bitter fruits of man-made laws.

Natassia: Does God send correspondences? That's the Holy Spirit. God has most definitely communicated with me and put words in my head.

Well, what do we have here?  Folks, we got a person who has communicated with God!  Clap 

Natassia: Man...Muslims and the Torah! There is criminal law and there is moral law in the Torah. Moral law states that adultery is a sin. Criminal law states how to determine guilt and then what punishment to apply. God's moral Law has always remained the same. Adultery has always been wrong, even before the Israelites had the Torah. God's moral Law applies to all humanity. The Torah applies only to the Jews. If you want to know about how they interpret and apply it, then speak to a Jew.

If you can't provide the correct interpretation, then don't quote it.  And once again, we see how you contradict yourself.  Why does God treat Jews differently than non-Jews?  And if adultery has always been wrong, explain why it is so tolerated in many societies, especially in the Western societies?  What else could we have expected if God decided that we should determine our own laws?

Natassia: The Israelites bound themselves in a covenant with God. They didn't have to, but they chose to. So, once they went into this "contract" with the Lord, they were bound by His Laws.


What?  My understanding was that God chose the Israelites.  You are making stuff up now. 

Natassia: The Laws were given to them to separate them from the surrounding pagan nations that participated in all sorts of immoralities. The reason why they were to be separated was because Israel was to be a light for all nations. They failed of course, as God always knew they would. However, the Messiah--brought forth out of Israel--did not fail and is a light unto the world.

Yeah, what about all the other nations in the world?  Did God forget about them? 

Natassia: If worshiping the Messiah is worse than committing adultery or murder, than God is not just.


In your little mind.  For sure, adultery and murder are major sins, but they can not be worse than worshiping others besides God.  Who told us that adultery and murder are wrong?  God!  So how does it sound to say that worshiping Baal or Hubal or Jesus is not that bad compared to adultery and murder? 

Natassia: Jews reject Jesus as a false prophet--therefore they will be judged according to their adherence to the Law. Can they still go to Heaven? If they have followed the Law perfectly. So, do you care to answer my question now?


You are pulling stuff out of nowhere.  What do you provide to support your contention?  What do you base this belief on?  Do you even regard the Bible as scripture?  I assume you are basing your belief on the Bible, but then how could you when the Bible is clear on the matter of salvation, especially if you accept the NT as well. 

To answer your question, the Jews who rejected Jesus as the Messiah and the prophet of God will be in Hell because they rejected God's chosen.  That is just as worse as not believing in God.  Moreover, they tried to have him killed.  Do you think that God will simply overlook this fact?  And again, why is He treating Jews different from Gentiles? 

Natassia: Okay, about monotheism vs. polytheism. First of all, I don't think God really cares what you call me. I certainly don't. In your eyes, my belief in the nature of God is polytheistic. In my eyes, I only believe in one God. Secondly, it's the FALSE gods and idols that God has a problem with. Jesus exists. Jesus is the Messiah. Jesus is the exalted servant of God. Jesus is the Word of God. Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus is in authority over me. So, if I believe in a triune nature of God, I seriously doubt an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent Creator is going to take exception to the way my brain works.


You are speaking for God.  God said very clearly that you shall gods before Him.  Jesus repeated that ad nauseum.  It sounds to me like you are trying to persuade yourself that what you believe is okay.  And Jesus has been turned into a idol.  People carry crosses with his image.  They put statues of him in their gardens.  They pray to him when they should pray to God, the one whom he prayed to.  People have turned him into a false god, against his wishes ironically. 

Natassia: And so Josephus is an anthropology expert? Please. Josephus wrote all sorts of stuff...some of which were blatantly biased and some of which were blatantly forged. If the Arabs want Ishmael as their father, so be it. It still provides no historicity for their claims about the Ka'aba.

Josephus is widely regarded as a trustworthy historian.  I am afraid your opinions don't hold much merit.  If you don't believe that the Arabs were the nation which sprang forth from Ishmael, then what nation did?  God did promise to Ishmael in the Bible that he would make a great nation from his offspring.  What nation was this?  It seems to me that the only people who resist the Ishmael-Arab link are Christians, like you.  Clearly, the Jews had no problem with that link.  Josephus confirmed this and the Book of Jubilees confirms this:

12. And Ishmael and his sons, and the sons of Keturah and their sons, went together and dwelt from Paran to the entering in of Babylon in all the land which is towards the East facing the desert. 13. And these mingled with each other, and their name was called Arabs, and Ishmaelites. (20:12-13)

The Book of Jubilees is dated to the 2nd century BC, which is even earlier than Josephus.  So, this means that the Ishmael-Arab link was known as early as 600-700 years before the advent of Islam.

Natassia: Do you have any idea what "tu quoque" means? It is a logical fallacy employed to avoid addressing the topic at hand. I brought up the topic that Islam incorporates paganism. In response, you pointed the finger at Christianity. Whether Christianity incorporates paganism or not, it does not negate the fact that Islam does. Please, research "logical fallacies" when you get a chance.

Tu quoque means "you too".  It is a fallacy by which a person claims that one's opponent has also made an erroneous or contradictory statement, but the fact remains that the person has not defended his/her position.  Your response to me what that I have a double-standard.  While this may or may not be true, you did not address the issue I had raised.  Instead, you said that I was guilty of double-standards.  Basically, you were saying "you believe the same thing with regard to Muhammad!"   

 

I responded to your assertion about Islam and paganism.  I didn't simply stop at saying that Christianity has been linked to paganism.  The point I was making was that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.  But, I did not simply stop there.  I addressed your assertion.  That is not a tu quoque.  You did not do the same when I made the claim about Jesus and Christianity. 

Natassia: Oh no...not the Baca = Ka'aba thing. ((shakes head)) Wow.

Oh, yes! 

Natassia: First of all, are you trying to say that this passage in Psalms is one of the "uncorrupted" ones?

LOLMan, I really know you Christians well!  I was expecting this sort of response.  The Quran does refer to the Psalms of David.  However, many of the Psalms we have today were not written by David.  So, can the complete version of Psalms we have today be considered as error-proof or divinely inspired?  Certainly not.  But, that does not mean that there is some truth in it.  The same goes for the rest of the Bible.

Natassia: If so, then that must mean Allah dwells INSIDE the Ka'aba...and there must be an altar within it where you are to make sacrifices. Secondly, the destination of the pilgrimage was to ZION...not Mecca/Makkah/Bakkah. Thirdly, it must also mean that people dwell INSIDE the Ka'aba. Does anyone dwell inside of it or do they just visit it?

Now is this your interpretation or that of the Jews?  The Kaaba is not literally the house of God, meaning that God actually dwells there.  It is understood to be a metaphor. 

The pilgrimage could not have been to Zion, or Jerusalem.  The "house" could not be the temple because it was not built by David's son, Solomon.  There was no temple there yet!  The psalm also talks about how the pilgrimage was perfomed in the valley of Baca, not in Zion

Natassia: Baca has been translated either as ‘weeping’ or ‘balsam trees’ (which grow in dry places). It could be a real place, in which case it was a valley through which the pilgrims passed during their journey. Alternatively, it could be figurative. In this interpretation, even the dry, arid places through which the pilgrims pass are brought alive by their expectant joy as they near their destination. In either case, their pilgrimage is clearly to Jerusalem, as evidenced by the rest of the psalm. Why on earth would Jews, living in Israel and on their way to Jerusalem, take a huge detour through Mecca?

Nice.  To "refute" me, you bring a quotation from a guy who is not even sure of what he is saying.  Baca "could be a real place" or it "could be figurative".  Convenient.  And as I said above, there was no "dwelling place" for God in Jerusalem because the temple had not been built yet. 

Natassia: (By the way, I never claimed that the Bible is the Word of God.)


Then why do you quote it as the word of God? 

Why are we even discussing all this then?  I agree that the Bible is not the word of God.   

But, then on what do you base your belief in God?  I am just curious.

Natassia: There are no prophesies in the Quran except the one about the Byzantines and Persians...and that one flopped since victory did not happen for 14 years...not the 9 as had been prophesied.

First, there were other prophecies.  More on that later.  Concerning the prophecy about the Byzantines and Persians, the verses (Ar-Rum, 1-3) predicted that the even though the Byzantines had been defeated (Damascus had fallen in 614, Jerusalem in 615), they would eventually defeat the Persians within "bida" years which means a few years (between 3-9 years).  This is true in that by 625, Heraclius had turned the tide against the Persians.  True, the war did not officially end until after 627, but that is not what the verses were talking about.  The first victory for the Byzantines came in 622 at the Battle of Issus, which would be 6 years after the verses were revealed (616).  This was the beginning of the Byzantine counteroffensive.  So, the verses were right.  The Byzantines did defeat the Persians.  By 622, the situation really appeared hopeless but Heraclius soon launched a series of attacks which completely took the Persians by surprise.  Regarding the campaign, Karen Armstong wrote:

"But recently the tide had turned in favour of Byzantium and in 625, the year of Uhud, Heraclius had driven the Persians back and begun to invade their own territory." (See Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet, p. 235)

So, by 625 (9 years after the verses were revealed), the Byzantines had gained the momentum and were advancing against the Persians.  The prophecy did come true.

Concerning the other prophecies, the Quran promised that the Muslims would enter Mecca again, and that they would also defeat the pagans.  All of this came true.

Natassia: The Quran says that Muhammad was just a warner when people asked him to perform miracles. So are you saying that now Muhammad was a miracle worker? That's odd. Which was it? Did he just bring a warning or did he work miracles to help convince people of his prophethood? If that is the case, then why didn't he work miracles for the pagans?

Like I have said, do not give me lessons on the Quran.  It does not say that Muhammad could not perform miracles.  It even mentions one: the splitting of the moon. 

Natassia: Original = first. So, the first sin was committed by Adam and Eve. Fine. They are the ones who brought the Knowledge of Good and of Evil to the rest of humanity. They learned the laws of morality and sin--the laws that condemn humans for their wickedness. When the law is in place, there are penalties for when it is broken. They chose the knowledge of the Law...a Law we, for some reason, can't seem to keep.

You are reinterpreting the concept.  Original sin is the belief that Adam and Eve brought sin into the world and that all of us were "tainted" by it.  We inherited sin and are thus "born" sinful. 

Natassia: Crucifixion comes into the picture because we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I have sinned...many times. The price for my sin is death...eternal destruction. I'm not talking about death of the physical body. I'm talking--no more soul--the cessation of existence for all eternity.


How is that a "penalty"?  This is actually what atheists would believe.  They figure that they will not be raised up and will simply decompose and that will be the end of it.  It is actually one reason to keep sinning, because there is no danger of being punished for it.  I am sure atheists would find your views appealing. 


Natassia: And regarding Sodom, are you trying to say that there were no infants or toddlers? And I thought that in Islam, only children who had hit puberty were held accountable for sins. So are you saying that the city of Sodom hadn't propogated in, oh let's say--10 years?!


The Sodomites were engaging in homosexuality, among other sins.  So, unless they had in vitro fertilization, they could not have children.  And even if they did, I have already pointed out that God's actions cannot be compared to the actions of humans.  What God does should not be of concern to you.


Natassia: What is my explanation for the slaughter of innocents? A couple of possibilities: 1) God had the foreknowledge that every single one of those children was going to be a sexually immoral, violent, idol-worshipper. (Doesn't this remind you about the story of Musa, Allah's servant, and the boy he killed?) 2) The Israelites used God as validation for the slaughter when He in fact never commanded them to partake in it.


I would say that it was the latter.  Another possibility is that the stories are simply made up, written hundreds of years after the fact. 


Natassia: Here's the thing...the Israelites never did wipe out all those people. Those tribes rose up later to fight them again. So obviously, IF God had commanded them to slaughter all of them, the Israelites disobeyed and it ended up costing them dearly later.


It sounds like you are now trying to justify the slaughter.


What difference does it make that they were not all destroyed?  Is several thousand not enough for you?  I don't think God would issue such orders.  If those people were sinful, He would have handled them Himself.


Natassia: We stand condemned in our sins. And if we die in our sins, we do not have eternal life. Christ chose to pay a gruesome price in fulfillment of the Law so that we may have eternal life. If you refuse to accept his payment on your behalf, than you will be judged according to everything you've done. And if you have broken the Law, it doesn't matter how many good deeds you've done--you are still a sinner.


But, you just said above that the price of sin is complete nonexistence.  Which is it?  How will we be judged?  What penalty will we be given?


Natassia: Killing can be justified by the law. Death is not an evil thing. MURDER is an evil thing. To kill someone breaking into your home to rape your wife is not wrong. Your act is justified in the eyes of God's Law because you love your wife and you seek to protect her.


I am not disagreeing with you.  I am saying that some people do regard any type of killing to be unjust.  This supports my contention that there is no universal charter on justice.  If God left it up to humans to decide, this is the result; a plethora of divergent and contradictory views.  That is the folly of man-made laws.  God's laws are perfect and for all times.


Natassia: Fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets...that's in Matthew 5, I believe. To go into all of that now is going to take forever. Perhaps start another post on it later?


Sure, no problem. 


Natassia: So, what is "salvation" in Islam? What is it salvation from? What is the point of it? So, sin doesn't condemn you to hell? What does?


Salvation is achieving closeness to God by submitting to Him.  As a result, He rewards us with Paradise, which not only is full of eternal bliss and pleasure but what I feel is the greates reward, that of seeing the Lord.  He will reveal Himself to the inhabitants of Paradise, and they will look upon Him in all His glory.  The point of it?  To get close to our Lord. 


There are variations of sin.  What condemns one to eternal Hell is one particular sin, the sin of shirk.  Other sins, like murder of adultery, may lead one to a temporary Hell, but only if one was a believer in the first place. 


Natassia: Sin did not come into the world because of Adam and Eve. Knowledge of it did. And it is the knowledge of what is evil and doing it anyway that condemns us.


How does simply having "knowledge" of evil condemn us?  I know how a rape occurs, but I have never actually done it.  How am I condemned?  Because I have the ability to do it?  And Adam and Eve committed a particular sin.  They ate from the tree and listened to Satan, in effect disobeying God.  How did that lead to "knowledge" of rape, murder etc?


Natassia: Are you saying that there could be perfect, blameless human beings walking around today? Are you saying that all of us are capable of being perfect but it is the fault of our environment and satan that we are not?


No, I was questioning your claim that we were created perfect.  We cannot be perfect.  God told Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree and not to listen to Satan's deceptions.  Obviously, He knew they were vulnerable to Satan's whispers.  There is a difference between being born "perfect" and being born "sinless".  Islam teaches that we are all born sinless, with a clean slate but that we are vulnerable to sin, because of environment and Satan's whispers.


Natassia: Throughout the Tanakh, God says: Be holy for I am holy.

New Testament: Be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect.

I thought you didn't regard the Bible as the word of God?  In any case, this would be asking humans to be like God, which is impossible (not to mention a tad blasphemous), and God would never ask us to do that.  Can you provide specific references, please?

Natassia: If God did not create us with sin, then He can demand holiness from us.

No, because He created us with free-will.  He can demand holiness (do you mean perfection?) from the angels because they have no free-will.  

Natassia: (By the way, I love the Apostle Paul.)

He contradicts you in many ways and vice-versa. 

And I love the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Natassia: You know, the hypocrisy of the early Muslims is amazing. They had no problem executing poets for speaking out against Muhammad. They had no problem killing pagan merchants and stealing their wares. They had no problem executing hundreds of men and boys for the "crimes" of a few. They had no problem threatening violence on Christians and Jews if they did not convert or pay the Jizyah tax...and when one of their own is killed in another nation, they go attack. Amazing.

Open a new thread.  We can discuss this.  Just a quick thought on the poets.  If a man goes to the enemy while hostilities are still active and while his group is in a treaty with the Muslims, that man is a traitor and enemy and should be treated as such, especially if his actions led to the killings of innocent people. 

Natassia: And are you saying that the perfect words of Allah rely on the imperfect words of humans to provide it with proper context?

What are you referring to?

Natassia: Muhammad didn't escape the clutches of the poisoned meat. He suffered illness for a good three years before dying in his sixties.

Hmm, begging the question.  What proof do you have?  What kind of poison takes three years to kill?  Show me proof that Muhammad suffered for three years from the same illness.  Why did he survive for three years and another person who ate the meat die almost instantly? 

Natassia: Muhammad did not tell the truth about the Judeo-Christian stories. They are distorted in the Quran...not to mention his incorporation of Gnostic stories...

More unproven assertions.  Can you prove that the Gnostic teachings were circulating in Arabia?  Why is it that there was no hint of any Gnostic texts until the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library?  The Judeo-Christian stories were the ones which embellished the truth.  The Quran came to correct those embellishments. 

Natassia: When Christians are violent, they violate the commands in their scriptures. (Matt. 7:12)

When Muslims are violent, they are upholding the commands in their scriptures. (9:5, 9:29)

Perhaps you can explain why Christian soldiers will bring the unbelievers before Jesus and slay them.  The parable is widely understood as referring to Jesus' bloody second coming. 

For the fifth (or sixth?) time now, do not give me lessons on the Quran.  And when you try to quote it, do so in context.  Read verses 1-4 and 6-7 to get the full picture. 

Natassia: The Spirit of God is a different "person" than the Son of God just as they both are different persons than God the Father. But they are all one God.

Riiiight...Do they have different personalities?  Are they equal to one another?  

Natassia: SALVATION IN ISLAM IS CONTINGENT ON BELIEF IN MUHAMMAD. End of story.

You can write in caps all you want.  It will not change anything.  Its just an appeal to emotion. 

Natassia: The Pericope of Adultera...are you saying that a Holy Spirit-inspired believer could not have included the story to teach a moral lesson? Good grief, the gospels are about Christ's ministry and teachings and the gospel. If you can retain a godly moral lesson from a "fabricated" story...what does it hurt? It's about morality and salvation...not about having a perfect set of documents to follow. How is that story heretical or blasphemous? It follows right along with the teaching of Christ: do not go after the speck in your brother's eye when you've got a plank in your own.

Prove to me that the person was "Holy Spirit-inspired".  Who was inspired or who was not?  If they were inspired, why did they make so many errors whether in copying or editing? 

So, now you are defending the intentional corruption of God's word?  That is amazing.  If the lesson was so important, why didn't Jesus actually say something?  He could have just said "let he who is without sin yada-yada" instead of waiting a couple of hundred years for a "Holy Spirit-inspired" scribe to come along and make up a story.   

I forgot to ask.  What happened to the man in the story? 

Natassia: Absolute morality: What is good has always been good. What is evil has always been evil.  So, is morality in Islam absolute?  If something is wrong and evil today, was it wrong and evil 1400 years ago?

Yes.  But Islam is a practical religion.  For instance, lying is considered a major sin.  However, there are instances where lying is permitted.  Consider if a German family was hiding Jews from the Nazis.  When the Gestapo knocked on their door and asked if they were hiding any Jews, would you expect the people to say "well, we can't tell a lie because it is a sin.  Yes, they are hiding in the cellar"?  I think because of the practicality of Islam, it is more akin to moral universalism.  Another example: eating pork or blood is forbidden and always has been.  But, if a person is starving and has no other options to survive, it is not considered a sin to eat the forbidden foods. 

Natassia: Humans are physically not like God.

Ameen.

Natassia: However, we are spiritual beings and God is spirit. That is why the scriptures say we have been made in the image of God.

So, do you consider it scripture or not?  Is the Bible the word of God or not?  If we were made in the image of God, would we not all look the same?  What about the whole male and female thing?




-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Natassia
Date Posted: 28 July 2009 at 11:06pm
@ islamispeace
 

Justice = This is the law, this is the punishment for it.  Period.

Not, this is the law, this is the punishment for it if you are rich, and this is the punishment for it if you are poor.

Not, this is the law only if you are female.

There is no logic behind that. Where's the LOGIC?

"A woman has a different law to follow."

Why?

"Because the law applies differently to women."

Circular reasoning.

You can try to justify it with:

1. Because women are deficient in religion.

2. Because women are deficient in intelligence.

3. Because women are dependent on men financially as well as for protection.

But these are all disproven by the woman who has never had a period, who has one of the highest IQs in the world, is financially dependent on no one because she earns a 7-figure salary, and protects herself by being an expert Judo fighter and carrying a concealed handgun.

So the only excuse you have left is...you guessed it: Allah knows best. Wow...and on to the illogical statement of: This is the law because Allah said it is, and it is perfect justice because it comes from Allah. If that is the case, then what is justice in America? Is it evil when we afford women equal rights and equal justice? It must be evil if it goes against the laws of Allah.

Do you really think God's timeless, never-ending laws should have instructions for how you should visit Muhammad? What is that? Obviously you have to use human logic to determine that this divine law no longer applies since Muhammad is dead.

God's Law is about MORALITY...not about determining crime and punishment. Where in the Quran does it say that it is against the law to speed on the highway? Yeah, God didn't think about that, did he? Where in the Quran does it mention DNA testing to determine paternity? It doesn't. In fact, Muhammad said that the child born in a marriage is automatically the product of that marriage if there were no witnesses to adultery. Nevermind that the milkman could have stolen a quickie one morning.

I have communicated with God. Is that so outrageous? When I pray, I communicate with Him. When He comforts me, He communicates with me. When He convicts me regarding a conflict in my life, He communicates with me. I have an interactive relationship with my God. Isn't that the way it should be?

What do you mean "not providing the correct interpretation"? What is the correct one? I'm not a Jew, therefore the application of Jewish criminal law has nothing to do with me. Please research the Noahide laws...there was nothing in there about punishment. Just morality. Any Jew will tell you that THOSE are the ones that apply to Gentiles (according to Judaism, anyway), not the Torah. However, the Torah does reiterate them.

Why does God treat Jews differently? Because He had a specific purpose for them. He chose the Israelites, but they had to agree to the covenant. And they did. They gave a verbal agreement. Haven't you read the Torah?

You made an interesting point, and I'm going to hold you to it:

You wrote: In your little mind. For sure, adultery and murder are major sins, but they can not be worse than worshiping others besides God. Who told us that adultery and murder are wrong? God! So how does it sound to say that worshiping Baal or Hubal or Jesus is not that bad compared to adultery and murder?

So, what we have here is your agreement that it is the Law which defines what God we are following. If a god tells us that it is okay to commit adultery, then we can rule it out as a false god, right? If we have a god telling you to commit murder, then we can rule it out as a false god, right?

So, now we have to define what is "adultery" and what is "murder." Care to do that for me?

Rejecting God's chosen is simply an expected response by someone who has rejected God. If you truly KNOW God, then you will KNOW His chosen. I agree with your similar statements. However, even in the Old Testament, it is your transgressions that condemn you to hell.

As heat and drought snatch away the melted snow, so Sheol snatches away those who have sinned. (Job 24:19)

Let death take my enemies by surprise; let them go down alive to Sheol, for evil finds lodging among them. (Psalm 55:15)

The Jews are just as cursed as the Gentiles are. By breaking one law, they become sinners and no better than anyone else. (Deuteronomy 27:26)  Like I've said elsewhere in this forum: The Jews were chosen for a specific purpose: the Messiah.

I think of it like this: If I want to eventually bring forth a perfectly white dog out of a pack of currently white dogs, am I going to want them to mix with the brown, tan, black, yellow, red, etc. dogs? No. God has set certain laws in place: both physical and spiritual, and I think He prefers to do things according to the rules. If He didn't, then He'd never let a hurricane devastate a country to the point that innocent babies and children were killed.  God made Israel holy so that the Messiah would also be holy.

Regarding: false gods....I don't have any. I haven't created any for myself. I worship ONE God and all that He is. I worship His "right hand." I worship His Word. I worship His Spirit. If you want to turn those into three gods, well then you are playing semantics and that petty stuff doesn't mean much to me.  All three "gods" (as you call them) are defined by the same Laws.

By the way, do you know when the Book of Jubilees was written? There's a reason Jews don't consider it part of their canon of scripture. There's a reason Christians don't either. Anyone can write stories to embellish on older ones--which is what the Book of Jubilees is--it is an embellishment....kind of like the Gospel of Barnabas. It's not even in the Greek Septuagint. So what Josephus did was quote a 2nd century BC book to validate his beliefs about the Arabs which he likely formulated based on their behavior and how it coincides with the description of Ishmael in Genesis. Again, Josephus was not an anthropologist, and the book of Jubilees was written thousands of years after Abraham.

Christianity does not incorporate paganism. Now, if human beings have chosen to create their own religion around Christ like Roman Catholicism and incorporate pagan traditions, then that is another story. However, you cannot prove that Christianity ITSELF incorporates paganism. Please, find where in the scriptures it tells Christians to do anything remotely "pagan" (as in, man-made and wicked)?

Regarding Psalms and the Ka'aba: Obviously you don't know Judaism, and you are not familiar with the Tanakh. God LITERALLY dwelled in the Temple. His glory was contained in the Ark of the Covenant. His presence was separated from the people by a heavy curtain. So, the verse about God dwelling within His house is NOT a metaphor--not by Jewish or Christian interpretation. Only Muslims interpret it that way.

If God dwells in His house, and the Ka'aba is His house, then God must dwell in the Ka'aba. If He doesn't, then your entire premise of this passage being about Mecca is false.

And regarding the argument about the temple having not been built: you never heard of the "Tent of Meeting"?

Look, either this passage is metaphorical or it is not. If it is metaphorical, then you can't prove it is about Mecca at all simply on the basis of a similarity in names. That's insane. How many people named "Immanuel" could then look at Isaiah and claim that it is about them? If it is literal, then you can't prove it is about Mecca because Zion has never been in Arabia. You are working backwords.

First, you claim that Mecca is the holy land, and the Ka'aba is the metaphorical house of Allah. Then, you look into the Jewish scriptures and pick out a passage that speaks of a valley named after "weeping" or "balsam trees." Because the name in HEBREW is similar to an ARABIC name, you've determined that it must be about Mecca. Anything else in the passage that would refute such a claim is denounced as fabricated.

Wow. That's like a scientist looking at a dog and a cat and determining that because they both have four legs and fur, then they must also have the same ancestor.

"Why do I quote the Bible as the word of God?" When have I done such a thing? You've asked me about Christian theology. Christian theology is based on the Bible, therefore I quote the Bible. There is a lot of wisdom to be found within those scriptures...and a basic "game plan" that makes a whole lot of sense to me. They also confirm what God has been putting upon my heart. So, whether they are the verbatim words of God (which I deny) or the words of men inspired by their belief in God (which I affirm)...the end result is the same.

My belief in God is based upon my personal, spiritual experiences in life. I know God exists because of what He has done for me in my life. It was He who directed me to particular passages in the Bible and instilled upon my heart the truth of them. Do I tell people that they must believe the way that I do? No. I can only give my testimony and leave the rest up to God. It was through God that I found Christ, and it was through Christ that I found healing, rest, and salvation.

Regarding the Byzantine/Persian "prophecy":  Since when did "turn the tide" mean victory? When DEFEAT occurs, it is after the tide has been turned and the enemy is DEFEATED....not still fighting.

The problem with the so-called prophesies that you mention, like conquering Mecca, is that there as always only two possible outcomes. Muhammad set his sights on Mecca. He amassed a large following and commanded fighters. He told them, "We will have Mecca again." He had already decided that he was going to make war on the pagans there. So, either the Muslims would lose and the "prophecy" would go unfulfilled, or the Muslims would win and the "prophecy" would be fulfilled. What Muhammad was telling his men was no more than military propaganda to raise morale. That's not a prophecy. If I know that I am going to take a test tomorrow, I can prophesy that I will pass. If I pass the test the next day, does that make me a prophet?

So, are you telling me that MUHAMMAD split the moon? Did he really SPLIT it?

There is no set definition for "original sin." Catholics believe one thing, Protestants another...orthodox, something else... ((shrug)) So, stop telling me that I have the wrong definition when there are multiple ones and the term is not even in the scriptures to begin with.

A sinful soul gets the death penalty...the ultimate punishment. (Unless, of course, you are a fan of torture. However, humans are the creators of torture. God is not a God of torture.)

Are you now telling me that ALL of the Sodomites were 100% homosexual? At some point, every single member of that city stopped having sex with the opposite sex?! Okay, let's think about that for a minute.

Let's say the city was first created by 100 individuals: 50 men, 50 women. They populated the city with children. The city grew and expanded (because that's what happens when humans propogate.) Then one day, everyone turned gay. Everyone. The teenagers, their parents, and their grandparents. No more propogation.

Wow. That's one helluva story.

Or do you think that a large group of homosexuals from a pagan nation all got together and decided to make Sodom a home for themselves and then God decided to wipe them out a few years later?

Regarding the slaughter of innocents: Am I trying to justify it? No. I'm just looking at it from a simplistic, cause-and-effect point-of-view and 20/20 hindsight. If you knew that your next-door neighbor's baby was going to grow up to kidnap, rape, torture, and murder your daughter...would you kill him before that happened?

See, here you said: "If they were sinful, God would have handled them Himself."

Well, with one sentence you have completely undermined shariah law. Congratulations.

Here's how it works: Physical life-->death-->the grave (Sheol/Hades)-->judgment-->eternal destruction. This eternal destruction is also where the grave and death itself are destroyed forever.

Okay, I understand the salvation by being close to God. I get that. It's this whole submitting part. I submit to God in my life. I pray that His will be done and that I live my life according to His will. I do my utmost to keep His commandments:

Do unto others as I would have them do to me.

Love the Lord my God with all my heart, and all my soul, and all my mind.

Love my neighbor as myself.

Honor my father and my mother.

Do not steal.

Do not bear false witness.

Do not commit adultery.

Do not murder.

However, Muslims believe that in order to submit to God, they must submit to the Sunnah of Muhammad. That's where I get tripped up. Muhammad's Sunnah = the will of Allah. Muhammad's way of life becomes divine...which must mean that Muhammad was divine. If he wasn't, then the Sunnah is imperfect...since only God is perfect, right? And if the Sunnah is imperfect, then the will of Allah is imperfect.

So, worshiping Jesus as my Lord and Savior makes me a worse sinner in the eyes of Allah than the serial rapist who believes in Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger? Dude. My brain, heart, nor soul can wrap around that.

How does knowledge convict us of sin? Think about it. If you know in your heart that torturing that young woman over there is wrong because it would cause her pain, and you know that you wouldn't like it if someone did that to you...well, then if you decide to torture her anyway, you've sinned. It doesn't take a written code to tell you that rape is wrong. However, if you have no concept of empathy or logic (like an animal, for example) then you cannot sin because what you are doing is instinctual and primitive. Except for perhaps the severely mentally retarded and very young children, all humans are instilled with the ability to empathize.

What Adam and Eve did was to disobey God. Disobeying God is a sin. He said, do not eat of that tree. They knew they shouldn't do that, but they did it anyway. When they ate of the tree, that is when they realized their sin of disobedience. Now all of us humans have the ability to know when we have done something wrong. Our own hearts will convict us of it. We can try to justify things in our minds (which is what Adam and Eve tried to do), but deep down we will always know that what we did was wrong.

You wrote: No, I was questioning your claim that we were created perfect. We cannot be perfect. God told Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree and not to listen to Satan's deceptions. Obviously, He knew they were vulnerable to Satan's whispers. There is a difference between being born "perfect" and being born "sinless". Islam teaches that we are all born sinless, with a clean slate but that we are vulnerable to sin, because of environment and Satan's whispers.

We are playing semantics with this word "perfect." So, I will drop this point since I think our definitions are different. What you have just told me is that God made Adam and Eve in such a way that would leave them vulnerable, and then He planted a tree, and then He allowed Satan to tempt them....all for what? Why make creatures vulnerable to an environment and a Satan He created only to torment them forever if they prove themselves vulnerable to the sin of idolatry?

The Bible is the words of men inspired by their belief in God and their interactions with Him. All of them agreed on the fact that God wants His people to be holy. That's something I can trust because God is holy, and it makes sense that we need to be holy if we want to be in His presence.

I am the LORD your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy.....therefore be holy, because I am holy. (Leviticus 11:44-45)

Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy. (Leviticus 19:2)

Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:48)

Just to name a few.

How can Paul contradict me? He came first. I can only contradict him. Have I contradicted him? ((shrug)) It's quite possible. I do wish you could provide a specific example though.

How did poetry lead to the killing of people? Obviously there must have been some truth to it if it stirred up the anger of the pagans. Look, I hear bad poetry, songs, books, speeches, etc. all the time. Does that mean I'm going to take a shotgun and go kill people? No. And if I did, should that poet be executed for my crimes?

What kind of poison takes three years to kill? Oh, any. A drug might not kill you but it can cause kidney, liver, and or heart damage that will kill you within a matter of a few years. Who said that the poison was spread throughout the meat evenly? Maybe his buddy got a huge amount of it and Muhammad only got a trace. Who knows. However, Muhammad himself admitted that it was the poison that was killing him. Or was he wrong?

I wonder if you have every heard of the Arabic Infancy Gospel? It originated in the 6th century. The Gnostic Gospels were circulating the Roman Empire by the late 2nd century. Would it be so hard to believe that such stories circulated to Syria and even Arabia by the 7th century? Let's not work backwards here.

You begged the question again. You said that the Quran came to correct the Judeo-Christian stories. If that's the case, what does that make the Gnostic Gospels and apocryphal writings that came after them? You are having to assume that the Judeo-Christian stories were corrupted, but the Gnostic Gospels somehow became less corrupted despite the fact that they were based on Hellenism and were not sanctioned by Christ's earliest followers.

I'm glad you brought up that parable in Luke. I am hoping you could break it down for me logically, verse-by-verse, and explain your interpretation. Let's start by assigning real people for the metaphorical characters and we can go from there.

I have read all of surah 9. I can logically prove to you that 9:5 is not about self-defense. It is about aggressive warfare taken out on people who are not currently attacking Muslims.

Do the "persons" of God have different personalities? They have different purposes and manifestations. Are they equal? Define equal (since Muslims have a funny way of looking at that word. They say men and women are equal--they're just different.)

What is it with this "corruption" word? I can't read anything written by a Muslim about Christianity or Judaism without seeing that word being thrown around. What do you mean by corruption? Do you mean that evil is interjected into something good? I mean, that's always what I've taken the word to mean. If I download a virus onto my computer, I've corrupted the system software. If I bribe a judge to give me a not-guilty verdict, I've corrupted the judicial system. So, care to explain this "corruption" word for me so that I don't misunderstand your meaning?

Jesus did make an important lesson which was reiterated by the adulteress story. See Matthew 7:1-5. Besides, have you really examined that story? Didn't you realize what was going on in it? If you read the Torah, you would know that the adulteress AND the adulterer are to be stoned by the community. If you recall, there's no mention of an adulterer in that story. So, it looks to me like they were breaking the law of the Torah, not to mention undermining the authority of the Romans.

The law says to not bear false witness against your neighbor. In other words, you cannot tell a falsehood that could potentially hurt someone. Would you agree that this is the same in Islam?

You wrote: So, do you consider it scripture or not? Is the Bible the word of God or not? If we were made in the image of God, would we not all look the same? What about the whole male and female thing?

The scriptures are what they are. Unfortunately, we humans try to make them out to be more, or sometimes less, than what they are. However, this is yet another concept (like the be holy one) that is reiterated throughout the scriptures.

I thought we both agreed that humans are physically not like God. We are in His image spiritually. However, let's not forget what an image is. An image is a likeness, but it is not the real thing. We are a shadow of what we potentially can be.



Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 29 July 2009 at 4:34am
we could have separate threads for all the different aspects... history, spirituality,  etc etc. 

-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 03 August 2009 at 7:24pm
< ="Content-" content="text/; charset=utf-8">< name="ProgId" content="Word.">< name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11">< name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11"> file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5COwner%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml - <> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } <>

- - Not

- But these are all disproven by the woman who has never had a period, who has one of the highest IQs in the world, is financially dependent on no one because she earns a 7-figure salary, and protects herself by being an expert Judo fighter and carrying a concealed handgun."

I have absolutely no idea what you are rambling about!  Who's talking about women?  You are going off on tangents.  Quite typical.

-   There is such a thing as Islamic Jurisprudence. -   Is driving too fast a bad thing in Islam? -   Is it literally written in the Quran? -   The Quran says that we should not do things which can bring harm to ourselves and to others. -   To say that it literally should say “you shouldn’t speed” is not only foolish, it is downright dumb. -   

-   Therefore, there is nothing in the Islamic texts which suggest that any worthwhile method which can ascertain the truth in a criminal investigation, besides eyewitness testimony, is not allowed. - Natassia: I have communicated with God. Is that so outrageous? When I pray, I communicate with Him. When He comforts me, He communicates with me. When He convicts me regarding a conflict in my life, He communicates with me. I have an interactive relationship with my God. Isn't that the way it should be? 

You said that God put words in your head. -   You are essentially claiming the same thing claimed by Moses, Jesus and Muhammad and indeed all the prophets. -   I am asking for proof from you. -   Has He said to you “Natassia, say this and do that”? -   But, these are just empty words based upon several assumptions. -   - Natassia: Why does God treat Jews differently? Because He had a specific purpose for them. He chose the Israelites, but they had to agree to the covenant. And they did. They gave a verbal agreement. Haven't you read the Torah?

Well, of course they agreed. -   The question is why God chose one particular race above all others. -   Were pagan nations in -   Were people living the in undiscovered regions of the world made aware of these laws? -  

Adultery, as defined in Islam, is having sexual intercourse with someone who is not one’s spouse or concubine (of course, concubines were only acquired in war against enemy nations). -   Murder is killing someone for reasons other than for crimes committed, or during a war etc. - Natassia: I think of it like this: If I want to eventually bring forth a perfectly white dog out of a pack of currently white dogs, am I going to want them to mix with the brown, tan, black, yellow, red, etc. dogs? No. God has set certain laws in place: both physical and spiritual, and I think He prefers to do things according to the rules. If He didn't, then He'd never let a hurricane devastate a country to the point that innocent babies and children were killed.  God made - Israel holy so that the Messiah would also be holy.

Why not? -   Just because the Messiah was supposed to be from among the Israelites, that means that God chooses only the Israelites, while forsaking the rest of humanity? -   Why not prepare the whole world for the Messiah, instead of waiting for several thousand years and then deciding to send him, even then only initially to the Jews, when most of the world had not even heard of him? - Natassia: Regarding: false gods....I don't have any. I haven't created any for myself. I worship ONE God and all that He is. I worship His "right hand." I worship His Word. I worship His Spirit. If you want to turn those into three gods, well then you are playing semantics and that petty stuff doesn't mean much to me.  All three "gods" (as you call them) are defined by the same Laws.

I respect you opinion. -   They are Jesus and the Holy Spirit. -   What about His “left hand”? - Natassia: By the way, do you know when the Book of Jubilees was written?

Didn’t I say it was written in the 2nd Century BC?

-   Are you that naïve? - -   You would have known that if you had done some research. -   Scholars do consider the book when looking for historical facts. -   Specifically with regard to the issue at hand, it shows that the Jews, as early as the 2nd century BC, considered the Arabs to be genealogically linked to Ishmael. - Natassia: So what Josephus did was quote a 2nd century BC book to validate his beliefs about the Arabs which he likely formulated based on their behavior and how it coincides with the description of Ishmael in Genesis. Again, Josephus was not an anthropologist, and the book of Jubilees was written thousands of years after Abraham.

Wow. -   You assume that the Book of Jubilees is wrong and that since Josephus made a similar claim, you believe he copied the Book of Jubilees and therefore assume that he is wrong. -   As I said, Josephus is widely considered by scholars and historians to be a reliable source of information from that time. -   The only reason you are questioning the historical evidence is because of your a priori assumptions. -     - Natassia: Christianity does not incorporate paganism. Now, if human beings have chosen to create their own religion around Christ like Roman Catholicism and incorporate pagan traditions, then that is another story. However, you cannot prove that Christianity ITSELF incorporates paganism. Please, find where in the scriptures it tells Christians to do anything remotely "pagan" (as in, man-made and wicked)?

Explain the similarities between the Eucharist and the Mithraic rituals, or do you not believe in the Eucharist? -   Your own modern version or the version that has been accepted since the Council of Nicea?

- -   God’s glory was held back by a curtain? -   As I said, there was no temple yet in the time of David. - valley of - -   The pilgrimage was not in - Jerusalem. - -   Both places are considered holy. - Natassia: If God dwells in His house, and the Ka'aba is His house, then God must dwell in the Ka'aba. If He doesn't, then your entire premise of this passage being about - Mecca is false.

God doesn’t have to anything, if He doesn’t want to. -   The Kaaba is a representation of the celestial “House of God”, not literally the place of His residence. -

- - Zion has never been in - -  

- - Mecca. Anything else in the passage that would refute such a claim is denounced as fabricated.

When did I say it was fabricated? -   I said that some of the Psalms were not written by David, but other anonymous individuals. - -   So is - Jerusalem. -  

-   And actually, evolutionary scientists do believe that all organisms have a single ancestor. - Natassia: "Why do I quote the Bible as the word of God?" When have I done such a thing? You've asked me about Christian theology. Christian theology is based on the Bible, therefore I quote the Bible.

It seems strange to me that you are trying to “teach” me “Christian” theology yet you don’t profess the same beliefs. -   I asked you those questions because I assumed you were a Bible-believing Christian. -   So then, why did you interject? -  

Oh, here we go with the self-contradictions. -   If it is simply the words of men, why should anyone believe it? -   The words of men would be contradictory. -   So, it means that all of us should be looking forward to a happy afterlife, even those who don’t even believe in it. -  

-   It is based on your own whims and desires. -   You are just some quack who claims to have received that guidance. -   Do you even believe that Satan exists?

still fighting.

You are getting so silly, it’s funny! -   What did that mean? -   Of course not! -   In the same context, the Quran stated that within a few years, the Byzantines would “defeat” the Persians. -   If you look at it from this point of view, the prophecy came true. -   By 625, the Persians were on the run and the Byzantines were advancing, having scored major victories in their invasion of - Persia. -   For anyone to have made that claim in 616, after the disasters which had befallen the Byzantines (the fall of Syria, Jerusalem, the capture of the “True Cross”, and the fall of Egypt later), it would have seemed like a hopeless prediction. -   - Natassia: "We will have - Mecca again." He had already decided that he was going to make war on the pagans there. So, either the Muslims would lose and the "prophecy" would go unfulfilled, or the Muslims would win and the "prophecy" would be fulfilled. What Muhammad was telling his men was no more than military propaganda to raise morale. That's not a prophecy. If I know that I am going to take a test tomorrow, I can prophesy that I will pass. If I pass the test the next day, does that make me a prophet?

The prophecies stated that all that would happen within Muhammad’s lifetime. -   That was an important condition which you are purposefully ignoring. - -  

- Yes.

-  

-

-  

- From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

-  

a consequence of this first http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm - sin , the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01129a.htm - Adam .

 

From the earliest times the latter sense of the word was more common, as may be seen by St. Augustine's statement: "the deliberate http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm - sin of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01129a.htm - first man is the cause of original sin" (De nupt. et concup., II, xxvi, 43). It is the hereditary stain that is dealt with here. As to the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm - sin of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01129a.htm - Adam we have not to examine the circumstances in which it was committed nor make the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05692b.htm - exegesis of the http://www.newadvent.org/bible/gen003.htm - third chapter of Genesis .

 

The Catholic concept of original sin was endorsed by Martin Luther and John Calvin.  This is about 90% of Christianity right here!  How could they deny it?  Paul made it explicitly clear that original sin was the real deal and that because of it, all are doomed unless they accept Christ. 

 

And as I pointed out, the term “original sin” may not be literally in the Bible.  But, the concept is there.  Paul is the source of the myth itself.  As his ideas became gradually accepted, eventually the term was adopted. 

 

Natassia: A sinful soul gets the death penalty...the ultimate punishment. (Unless, of course, you are a fan of torture. However, humans are the creators of torture. God is not a God of torture.)

 

Atheists will love this!  There is no reason not to sin!  What’s the worst that could happen?  You will simply cease to exist.  Atheists believe this already! 

 

But wait a minute.  Somewhere above, you quoted the Bible referring to “Sheol”.  What about that?  Contradictions, contradictions…

 

Natassia: Are you now telling me that ALL of the Sodomites were 100% homosexual? At some point, every single member of that city stopped having sex with the opposite sex?! Okay, let's think about that for a minute.

 

I am saying that at the time when God decided to destroy the city, most if not all of them were sinners (homosexuality apparently being the most perverse of their sins).  Were there any righteous people there?  Yes, Lot and his family.  And again, if there were children or babies there, God did what He did.  That is not your concern.

 

Natassia: Regarding the slaughter of innocents: Am I trying to justify it? No. I'm just looking at it from a simplistic, cause-and-effect point-of-view and 20/20 hindsight. If you knew that your next-door neighbor's baby was going to grow up to kidnap, rape, torture, and murder your daughter...would you kill him before that happened?

 

Well, I would move my daughter away so that he would not be able to reach her!  That sounds like the reasonable thing to do.  In any case, no one knows the future except God.  The nonsense in the Bible about God ordering the Israelites (who were supposed to be the light to the world as you put it) to massacre of thousands of innocents is not something God would do.  He would have destroyed the entire nation Himself, as He had done in the past.  Remember Noah’s people?  He could have ordered Noah to raise an army over time, and maybe even send the angels as He did against the Assyrians.  But, no.  He decided to send a flood.  See the pattern.  When a nation becomes too wicked, God decides whether to destroy it or not.  He does not order humans to do that.  If that were so, Allah would not have outlawed the killings of civilians, such as women and children the elderly and the animals.  And that reminds me.  In some cases in the Bible, God even orders the Israelite army to kill even the animals!  What was going to happen?  Were those animals going to grow up and trample an Israelite?

 

Natassia: See, here you said: "If they were sinful, God would have handled them Himself."

Well, with one sentence you have completely undermined shariah law. Congratulations.

 

Man, are you thick-headed.  If a nation is sinful, God deals with them Himself.  Noah’s people.  Sodom and Gamorrah.  Ad and Thamud.  Get it?  Shariah law has nothing to do with it.

 

Natassia: Here's how it works: Physical life-->death-->the grave (Sheol/Hades)-->judgment-->eternal destruction. This eternal destruction is also where the grave and death itself are destroyed forever.

 

And what happens in Sheol?  Do they just sleep until its time for judgment?  Or do they suffer?  Why would anyone care to live a righteous life when there is no price to pay?  Eternal destruction is not that bad.  Like I said, the Atheists already believe that they will simply cease to exist.  Why should anyone do good?

 

Natassia: Okay, I understand the salvation by being close to God. I get that. It's this whole submitting part. I submit to God in my life. I pray that His will be done and that I live my life according to His will. I do my utmost to keep His commandments:

Do unto others as I would have them do to me.Love the Lord my God with all my heart, and all my soul, and all my mind.Love my neighbor as myself.Honor my father and my mother.Do not steal.Do not bear false witness.Do not commit adultery.Do not murder.

Ironically, you forgot the number 1 commandment:  Thou shalt not have any other gods before me.  Jesus is not God.  The Holy Spirit is not God.  God is God. 

 

Natassia: However, Muslims believe that in order to submit to God, they must submit to the Sunnah of Muhammad. That's where I get tripped up. Muhammad's Sunnah = the will of Allah. Muhammad's way of life becomes divine...which must mean that Muhammad was divine. If he wasn't, then the Sunnah is imperfect...since only God is perfect, right? And if the Sunnah is imperfect, then the will of Allah is imperfect.

 

We’ve been over this.  Don’t keep repeating the same nonsense like an automaton.  Allah revealed the Sunnah to Muhammad.  Therefore, to follow it is to follow Allah.  Muhammad (pbuh) simply taught us how to follow Allah.  The Sunnah reiterates the Quran.  Its purpose is to show us through action what the Quran teaches.

 

Natassia: So, worshiping Jesus as my Lord and Savior makes me a worse sinner in the eyes of Allah than the serial rapist who believes in Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger? Dude. My brain, heart, nor soul can wrap around that.

 

Well then, you are one confused individual, lady.  The serial rapist will get his comeuppance in the fire.  The only thing that will save him from the fire is his faith, if he indeed has any.  The thing is that usually people who kill, rape or maim don’t have any faith.  So, there is the possibility that the person who actually claims to believe may in fact just be a hypocrite, and the hypocrite is doomed to the lowest pits of Hell.  It depends on the individual.

 

Natassia: How does knowledge convict us of sin? Think about it. If you know in your heart that torturing that young woman over there is wrong because it would cause her pain, and you know that you wouldn't like it if someone did that to you...well, then if you decide to torture her anyway, you've sinned. It doesn't take a written code to tell you that rape is wrong. However, if you have no concept of empathy or logic (like an animal, for example) then you cannot sin because what you are doing is instinctual and primitive. Except for perhaps the severely mentally retarded and very young children, all humans are instilled with the ability to empathize.

 

Yes, but you said that simply having the knowledge makes us all sinners.  This is complete nonsense.  It would take the action of sin in addition to the knowledge of it to convict someone.  Simply being aware of sin does not make one a sinner. 

 

Natassia: What Adam and Eve did was to disobey God. Disobeying God is a sin. He said, do not eat of that tree. They knew they shouldn't do that, but they did it anyway. When they ate of the tree, that is when they realized their sin of disobedience. Now all of us humans have the ability to know when we have done something wrong. Our own hearts will convict us of it. We can try to justify things in our minds (which is what Adam and Eve tried to do), but deep down we will always know that what we did was wrong.

 

And they would not have done that if they had not listened to Satan.  God warned them not to listen to him.  See?  God taught us the path to salvation. 

 

Natassia: What you have just told me is that God made Adam and Eve in such a way that would leave them vulnerable, and then He planted a tree, and then He allowed Satan to tempt them....all for what? Why make creatures vulnerable to an environment and a Satan He created only to torment them forever if they prove themselves vulnerable to the sin of idolatry?        

 

Once again, you purposely missed certain important facts which would answer your questions.  He told them not to do it.  He told them not to listen to Satan.  They did it anyway, because they have free-will.  But even then, God listened to their pleas for mercy and forgiveness.  That is my God.  He provides a way for us to seek redemption and salvation.  We may not deserve it, but He gives us a way anyway.  Of course, it still requires work and effort and suffering.  God does test the believers.  There is a tradition in Islam which states that the road to Paradise is full of things which seem hard and tough to do whereas the road to Hell is full of things that are easy and that we enjoy and would do in an instant.       

 

Natassia: The Bible is the words of men inspired by their belief in God and their interactions with Him. All of them agreed on the fact that God wants His people to be holy. That's something I can trust because God is holy, and it makes sense that we need to be holy if we want to be in His presence.

 

So are the Vedas, the Buddhist texts and every other religious text.  They were all written by men who were “inspired” by their belief in God. 

 

So, you admit the human origins of the Bible and yet you try to maintain an aura of its scriptural importance.  Why should I trust my salvation to the words of men, some of whom were clearly heretics? 

 

Natassia: I am the LORD your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy.....therefore be holy, because I am holy. (Leviticus 11:44-45)

 

Nice.  So, now you are quoting the words of men out of context!  What is the context of this passage?  It is the dietary laws which God had made (which ironically Paul annulled and which you deliberately did not quote).  This has nothing to do with being “perfect”.    Let’s see what the actual message is:

 

41 " 'Every creature that moves about on the ground is detestable; it is not to be eaten. 42 You are not to eat any creature that moves about on the ground, whether it moves on its belly or walks on all fours or on many feet; it is detestable. 43 Do not defile yourselves by any of these creatures. Do not make yourselves unclean by means of them or be made unclean by them. 44 I am the LORD your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy. Do not make yourselves unclean by any creature that moves about on the ground. 45 I am the LORD who brought you up out of Egypt to be your God; therefore be holy, because I am holy.

46 " 'These are the regulations concerning animals, birds, every living thing that moves in the water and every creature that moves about on the ground. 47 You must distinguish between the unclean and the clean, between living creatures that may be eaten and those that may not be eaten.' "

What’s next?

Natassia: Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy. (Leviticus 19:2)

Again, it discusses various laws by which we can be holy.  This has nothing to do with “perfection”.  It simply says to follow God’s laws of purity and cleanliness.    

Natassia: How can Paul contradict me? He came first. I can only contradict him. Have I contradicted him? ((shrug)) It's quite possible. I do wish you could provide a specific example though.

 

Just a quick example of how he contradicts you on original sin:

 

Rom. 5:12, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned"

 

This teaching led Augustine of Hippo to believe that unbaptized infants go to hell. 

 

Natassia: How did poetry lead to the killing of people? Obviously there must have been some truth to it if it stirred up the anger of the pagans. Look, I hear bad poetry, songs, books, speeches, etc. all the time. Does that mean I'm going to take a shotgun and go kill people? No. And if I did, should that poet be executed for my crimes?

 

You obviously do not know much about Arabic history and culture.  Poetry was the main medium of communication in those days, like television is today.  It could be simply used to tell stories, like how Homer’s epic poems were told orally, or it could be used as a powerful propaganda tool.  Armstrong notes:

 

“Ka’b’s [one of the chiefs of Bani Nadir] verses made it very clear to the Quraysh that not all the people of Medina stood stoutly behind Muhammad.  The Jewish tribes were formidable.  They had sizeable armies and impressive fighting power and, in the event of a Meccan attack, might well be prepared to join the Quraysh to get rid of the upstart.  Poetry was central to the political life of Arabia and Ka’b’s songs helped to rouse the Quraysh from the torpor of depression and grief into which they had been thrown by the defeat [at Badr].  […] 

Henceforth, Abu Sufyan would direct the struggle against Muhammad.  […] He led 200 men to the outskirts of Medina, where they camped in the fields, and by night he slipped into the territory of the Jewish Bani Nadir, Ka’b’s tribe  The next day he and his men devastated some fields, burned down some palm trees…and killed two of the Helpers who were working on the land.  As soon as he heard the news, Muhammad led a troop of Muslims in pursuit and the Quraysh promptly fled…” (see Armstrong, 183)

 

So, not only did Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf collude with the enemy, he was directly responsible, along with his compatriots, for supporting a Quraysh raid which killed two innocent people.  That is why Ka’b was eventually assassinated.  He was a traitor, as were most of the Bani Nadir.

 

Natassia: What kind of poison takes three years to kill? Oh, any. A drug might not kill you but it can cause kidney, liver, and or heart damage that will kill you within a matter of a few years. Who said that the poison was spread throughout the meat evenly? Maybe his buddy got a huge amount of it and Muhammad only got a trace. Who knows. However, Muhammad himself admitted that it was the poison that was killing him. Or was he wrong?

 

Who knows?  According to the narration, the most heavily poisoned area was the shoulder, which Muhammad (pbuh) preferred.  He chewed it, but spat it out.  Even if he did die of the poisoning (as claimed in the Sirah by Ibn Ishaq), and three years later at that, he would simply have died a martyr, like many prophets before him which were killed by the Jews.  If that was the case, the Jews could not kill him before he became the undisputed ruler of Arabia.  So, God protected the Prophet until his mission was complete.  So, even then, they could not kill him when it would have made a difference.  Had they killed him at Khaibar, Islam would probably have died with him and the Muslims would never have captured Mecca.  It would have ended there and paganism would have been victorious.  And yet, that is not how it happened.  He survived long enough to defeat the pagans.  Keep in mind that this is if we assume that the story in the Sirah is authentic, which I am unsure of.  I will look into it further.

 

Natassia: I wonder if you have every heard of the Arabic Infancy Gospel? It originated in the 6th century. The Gnostic Gospels were circulating the Roman Empire by the late 2nd century. Would it be so hard to believe that such stories circulated to Syria and even Arabia by the 7th century? Let's not work backwards here.

 

The only one working backwards is you.  The earliest Arabic manuscript of either the canonical Gospels or the apocryphal Gospels is from the 9th century.  They were extremely rare in Arabia. 

 

Natassia: You begged the question again. You said that the Quran came to correct the Judeo-Christian stories. If that's the case, what does that make the Gnostic Gospels and apocryphal writings that came after them? You are having to assume that the Judeo-Christian stories were corrupted, but the Gnostic Gospels somehow became less corrupted despite the fact that they were based on Hellenism and were not sanctioned by Christ's earliest followers.

 

What are you talking about?  Why are you putting words in my mouth?  When did I say that Gnostic texts were “less corrupted”? 

 

Natassia: I'm glad you brought up that parable in Luke. I am hoping you could break it down for me logically, verse-by-verse, and explain your interpretation. Let's start by assigning real people for the metaphorical characters and we can go from there.

 

It’s not my interpretation.  This is what I have heard from Christians. 

 

Natassia: I have read all of surah 9. I can logically prove to you that 9:5 is not about self-defense. It is about aggressive warfare taken out on people who are not currently attacking Muslims.

 

Uh-huh.  Suuure!

 

Natassia: Do the "persons" of God have different personalities? They have different purposes and manifestations. Are they equal? Define equal (since Muslims have a funny way of looking at that word. They say men and women are equal--they're just different.)

 

What, now you have your own definition of what “equal” means?  Is the son superior, inferior or “equal” to the Father?  To the Holy Spirit?  And vice-versa?

 

Why does the son pray to the Father? 

 

Natassia: What is it with this "corruption" word? I can't read anything written by a Muslim about Christianity or Judaism without seeing that word being thrown around. What do you mean by corruption? Do you mean that evil is interjected into something good? I mean, that's always what I've taken the word to mean. If I download a virus onto my computer, I've corrupted the system software. If I bribe a judge to give me a not-guilty verdict, I've corrupted the judicial system. So, care to explain this "corruption" word for me so that I don't misunderstand your meaning?

 

It means putting the words of men in between the words of God.  It means making up your own laws and rules.  It means making the words of men into the words of God.  You have already actually proven that.  You say the Bible is the word of men, not God, albeit men who were “inspired by their belief in God”.  And yet, these men claimed that the Bible was God’s word           ! 

 

Natassia: Jesus did make an important lesson which was reiterated by the adulteress story. See Matthew 7:1-5. Besides, have you really examined that story? Didn't you realize what was going on in it? If you read the Torah, you would know that the adulteress AND the adulterer are to be stoned by the community. If you recall, there's no mention of an adulterer in that story. So, it looks to me like they were breaking the law of the Torah, not to mention undermining the authority of the Romans.

 

So, now the story is true?  I thought you agreed it was a fabrication? 

 

Natassia: The law says to not bear false witness against your neighbor. In other words, you cannot tell a falsehood that could potentially hurt someone. Would you agree that this is the same in Islam?

 

Didn’t I give an example of how Islam looks at lying?

 

Natassia: The scriptures are what they are. Unfortunately, we humans try to make them out to be more, or sometimes less, than what they are. However, this is yet another concept (like the be holy one) that is reiterated throughout the scriptures.

 

What are they?  I am getting tired of your vague responses.  Are they the words of God or the words of men?

 

 



-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 04 August 2009 at 4:41am
Islamispeace: you are VERY patient.

May Allah reward you for your patience and effort.


-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi


Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 04 August 2009 at 1:57pm
Ameen


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 04 August 2009 at 3:45pm
Jazak Allah Khair Hayfa and Akhe for the kind words.  May Allah reward us all.

-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 04 August 2009 at 3:54pm
Originally posted by Natassia

Originally posted by islamispeace

I have presented the following theological questions to two Christians on this forum.  Neither has yet to respond.  I figured maybe the other Christians here just didn't see them so I will paste them here for all to see.

1.  If Jesus' mission was to die for our sins, why did he not just kill himself?

2. Or arrange for some accident to occur? 

3. Would that not be the same as being crucified, as long as the result was death?

4. And what about the ones who killed him (allegedly)?  Are they not the greatest heroes in the world?  I mean, come on, they basically ensured that Jesus' mission would be a success.  If they had not decided to kill him, then he could not die for our sins and therefore none of us would get saved.  So, the people who did kill him are heroes because they allowed for the mission to succeed and ensured that all who believed would go to Heaven.

Number 4 is really bugging me. 

Jesus' mission was to restore that which was lost and fulfill the Law and the Prophets. He had foreknowledge of what would happen, and he offered his life up as ransom for many. Despite his foreknowledge, he did not control the minds or actions of those who betrayed and executed him. If you have read the Bible, you would see that despite the st**idities and wickedness of humans, God's will is still done.

You are assuming that God's will was dependent upon the actions of humans. Here's where we come to the paradox of omniscience. So, God is able to know all of the past, present, and future...and yet He desires that we have free will and the ability to exercise that free will. Tell me, how is an omniscient deity to interact with His creation without controlling their thoughts, choices, and actions?

He always knew how wicked the Jews and Gentiles (all humans) would be. Despite that, He decided to give them a means of salvation and the gift of eternal life. And He did it...even though humans were still exercising their free will.

I find it to be absolutely amazing.

 
 
Hi Natassia,
In your first paragraph above you are contradicting your belief about Jesus being God.  You would agree with me that God is all knowing and in control of everything as I see you say that later. Then you contradict yourself by saying: " he did not control the minds or actions of those who betrayed and executed him."
 
In the same paragraph you also say, that Jesus' mission was to restore that which was lost and fulfill the Law and the prophets. I agree with you on that 100%. I must add that that was the mission of every prophet God sent without doubt.
 
In the last of that paragraph you said something that for me shows your contradicting believe of whether Jesus was God or Jesus has a God. Here is that quote: "Despite the evil action men took to kill Jesus, God used the crucifixion to glorify His name when He resurrected Christ."  Clear your mind and read it over and you will see what is said in that line, Jesus has a God.
 
In response to what you wrote in the second paragraph all I will say is that only the created ones like ourselves are bound to time, past present and future is something we depend and live through. For God there is no such thing, God is not bound or lives in time thus He is already where we will be later.  Also I say, as a Muslim we believe that God is not dependent upon anything or anyone, infact everything depends upon Him.
 
About your last paragraph all I will say is that Jesus did not do or say anything different than what any of God's prophet would have and have said: That is if they will do the will of God who sent him, follow God's commands and law sent through him will achieve salvation.
Now what we have as the Bible may agree and oppose it's own teachings on this matter.
Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Natassia
Date Posted: 04 August 2009 at 4:27pm

@ islamispeace...

Justice = equal scales. You can find evidence of this in probably any ancient religious writing. It's not something I've made up. It's not something that is simply based on my opinion.

What Islam does is provide a justice system made up of unequal scales. The scales for a rich man are different than those for a poor man.

If a rich man lies, his sin weighs down the scale much farther than if a poor man lies, because the atonement necessary to balance the scales is more for the rich man than the poor one.

I cannot believe you are arguing with me about my definition of justice being the wrong one when it is not MY definition of justice at all. It is THE definition of justice.

The LORD detests differing weights, and dishonest scales do not please him. (Proverbs 20:23)

Even the ancient Egyptians believed that the heart would be weighed upon a scale. But it is Islam that says there are different scales depending on your income level.

Why is it that a poor man who is poor because of st**id decisions and laziness is not expected to atone as much for his sins as the rich man who is rich because of INTELLIGENT decisions and being hardworking?

See the problem here? A poor man is not expected to atone as much because it APPEARS that it wouldn't be fair to expect the same payment as from a rich man. However, there is a reason one man is rich and the other is poor, and it doesn't always have to do with dishonesty or good luck.

Regarding women...I haven't gone off on a tangent. Just like with the injustice shown towards a rich man, injustice is shown towards females. I was simply providing yet another example of unequal scales.

Ah, "Islamic Jurisprudence" and "Fiqh." Yes. I am very familiar with these terms. These terms mean that some Muslims who qualify as scholars and religious authority are able to use their logic and common sense to interpret ancient laws and apply them to modern times. I get it.

And yet...when the Jews apply "Jewish Jurisprudence" to the Torah, they are berated by Muslims for not following the Torah properly. Or when the Christians apply "Christian Jurisprudence" to the Bible, they are berated by Muslims for not following the Bible properly. So, will you concede that jurisprudence of other religions is best left to the followers of those religions, which could very well mean that Muhammad had no authority whatsoever to be pointing fingers at the supposed inconsistencies shown by the Jews towards their Law?

Regarding communication with God...He never told me to DO anything. I have no idea how to explain it to you or put it into words.  It's like I have a guiding force within me that gives me strength and wisdom and discernment.  I also don't feel like I need to provide proof of anything since I do not claim to be a prophetess. A prophet or prophetess is required to provide proof...not the average believer simply relishing their relationship with God.

Abraham negotiated with God. Jacob wrestled with the Angel of the LORD. (Not just any angel, but THE Angel.) Moses questioned God's judgment. Jonah deliberately ran away from God's calling. So, it seems to me like people can very well say no to God. That's what Free Will is.

I think God very well could have chosen ANY race to bring the Messiah. God didn't choose the Israelites because they were special. No, they are special BECAUSE God chose them. There is a very big difference between these two statements. Abraham was not chosen because he was righteous and special. No, God chose Abraham and through his relationship of faith and trust with God was made righteous and special. We all have the opportunity to be righteous and special--but that is thanks to God, not to our own merits.

Theoretically, the Noahide Laws were given to Noah and his sons...therefore ALL nations through them would have been taught these laws. But tell me, do you really think it to be impossible for a human to know these laws within their own hearts?

1. No false idols.--This should be common sense. If you decide one day to carve a lizard out of a rock, name him "Dagoon" and decide to worship him, it is OBVIOUS that he's a god of your own creation and therefore likely only represents your own selfish desires. Anyone willing to do a little honest self-analysis can see the truth in this law without it ever having been written down.

2. Do not murder.--This should also be common sense. Would you like it if someone tried to murder you? What if someone murdered one of your loved ones?

3. Do not steal.--Also common sense. If you don't like it when someone raids your home and steals the things you've worked so hard for, then obviously it is not a good thing to do to others.

4. Do not be sexually promiscuous.--Again, more common sense. Promiscuity leads to disease and relationship conflicts. Enough said.

5. Do not blaspheme God.--This should be obvious. If you know something is wrong and comes from within your own selfish nature, then to try to attribute it to God is also wrong. It's like lying.

6. Do not eat the flesh of an animal while it is still alive.--Do I really need to explain this?

7. Requirement to have just laws in keeping with the previously established ones.--This makes sense. If your community does not justly enforce the law that prohibits stealing, for example, then the law is pointless.

So, the Law of Islam regarding adultery is different for a man that it is for a woman, correct? Does adultery in Islam mean cheating on your own spouse or does it mean sleeping with someone who is the spouse of another person?

And murder in Islam is defined as killing someone without a valid reason?

I never said there was anything wrong with multi-colored dogs; however, if I am attempting to produce an all-white dog, I'm not going to start mixing black dogs with my white ones. When did God forsake the rest of humanity? If I recall, He assisted Gentile nations in crushing the Israelites...on many occasions. He gave prosperity to many Gentile nations--remember the Roman Empire? He brings rain and sun upon both the righteous and the wicked. Let's not forget that.

Why not prepare the whole world for the Messiah? Actually, the world was pretty prepared for him. It was the Gentiles who gave strength to the early church. Yes, Jews were the first disciples and apostles; however, the greatest number of followers of Jesus came from the Gentiles. If you recall the stories of miracles in the gospels, it was the Gentiles who showed the GREATEST faith in Jesus Christ.

The "Right Hand" of God is a metaphor. Now, don't tell me you have a problem with that. The right hand (or right arm) of God is the term used to describe how God implements justice, judgment, salvation, etc. Seriously, do a search in an online Bible for those terms.

I don't think the rejection of the Book of Jubilees really had anything to do with the Arabs. If the Ethiopian Orthodox Church includes it in their Bible, so what? The Mormons include the Book of Mormon as equal (if not greater) in importance to the Bible. Just because one particular church chooses to accept something as scripture doesn't mean everyone else must do the same.

Look, whether Arabs are genealogically linked to Ishmael or not doesn't really matter (although it would explain a lot in regards to the animosity shown by Arabs towards Jews.) If you are gleaning the book of Jubilees for historical information, that's fine. People do that with the deuterocanical books and New Testament apocryphal writings as well. However, we can only trust them to provide what the opinions of the people were at the time. Does archaeology, anthropology, etc. support such an opinion? That's what I'm trying to get at. Arabs claim to be descendents of Ishmael. Some Jews and Gentiles agree. However, this does not provide a lick of evidence regarding the Ka'aba.

And if we are going to get into a discussion regarding the opinions of scholars, you wrote: another erroneous assumption on your part is that since the book is not considered as "scripture," then it is completely unreliable.

What if I said: Another erroneous assumption on your part is that since that hadith is not considered to be "sahih" by the majority of scholars, then it is completely unreliable...?

I'm not assuming that the book of Jubilees is wrong. I'm just not assuming that it is right. You want it to be right because it coincides with the Arab/Muslim belief that Ishmael is the father of the Arabs. I'm just asking for valid proof...not just some book written nearly 2000 years after the fact.  That would be like me taking the Quran as appropriate historical fact regarding Jesus Christ rather than the writings from the 1st century AD.

The Eucharist...are you talking about the Lord's supper when Jesus says to his disciples: "Eat in remembrance of me?"

To be honest with you, Jesus' body being the bread of life derives from the story of the manna sent from heaven for the Israelites while in the desert. Jesus' blood of the covenant derives from the rituals of atonement sacrifices also found in the Torah.

There is nothing wicked about a man offering himself in atonement for the sins of others. It is actually a very giving, selfless, and loving act.

Now, if people want to go bananas with the Eucharist ritual and truly believe that the bread and wine literally become the flesh and blood of Jesus...well, that is a little weird and not based on scripture. If you want to see the earliest understanding of the Lord's Supper, read 1 Corinthians 11:17-33.

It's similar to water baptism--symbolism of the cleansing and renewal by the Holy Spirit. The Lord's Supper symbolizes the purpose of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

So, now that we understand the Lord's Supper...let's examine the Mithraic stuff.

First of all Mithra doesn't resemble Jesus at all. Have you read the stories about him?

The idea of sacred banquets is as old as history itself. Just because there was a sacred banquet for Mithra doesn't mean that the Lord's Supper described in the New Testament has anything to do with it. For one thing, the beverage Mithra used was not wine but haoma juice. Secondly, the meal was supposed to give supernatural benefits. Thirdly, it was not meant to represent anything like Jesus' supper represents his self-sacrifice for humanity. (Mithra never sacrificed himself, he sacrificed a bull.)

I don't have a "modern" version of the Lord's Supper. I simply refer to the New Testament scriptures. If other people want to accept other writings and other traditions, it is up to them.

Regarding the curtain...God's glory wasn't "held back." The curtain symbolized Man's separation from God.

Yes, isn't it interesting that Muslims did pray towards Jerusalem? I think this could be an entirely new topic which I would find to be very enlightening for both of us.

Look, you are really grasping for straws here to try connecting Mecca with the valley of Baca. Mecca is not enroute to Jerusalem. There never has been a pilgrimage through Arabia to Jerusalem or any of the places where the Tent of Meeting was erected, has there?

You wrote: God doesn't have to anything, if He doesn't want to...

This has nothing to do with what God has to do or doesn't. This has to do with scriptural integrity. If the scriptures say that God dwelled in His house, and His house (according to the scriptures) is the Ka'aba, then the part that says He is in His house must also be true. So, is the passage true or is it false? You're cherry-picking half-sentences here.

When had the Israelites EVER traveled through Mecca (Arabia) enroute to Zion? Please, show me that reference!

Look, the passage says that Allah dwells in His house. You said that He doesn't really dwell in His house. Therefore, you are saying that this scripture is false. Therefore, it must have been fabricated. It's very simple.

(And the belief that all organisms have a single ancestor IS ASININE. Science itself disagrees with it.)

I believe in the doctrines of Christianity that are supported by the scriptures of Christianity. If a church puts forth doctrines or dogma that contradicts the scriptures they preach from, then I have a problem with it. However, I am not attempting to start my own church or gain converts to my own personal interpretations of things. I'm sure there are many things in Islam that you interpret differently than thousands of other Muslims. That's okay. I don't judge Islam based on your personal beliefs or the beliefs of some mullahs in the Taliban.

I believe in the Bible as the scriptural authority for Christianity, Judaism, and the history of Jesus Christ. I believe it was written by men who honestly had faith in God and relied on God for wisdom and guidance. I believe the Holy Spirit inspired the prophets. I believe the Holy Spirit was within Jesus Christ. I am a Christian, therefore I believe I may answer questions regarding Christianity. Not all Christians believe that the Bible is the verbatim words of God like Muslims believe about the Quran. In fact, many Christians don't.

If I read something in a book that says stealing is evil, does it mean that that book is now scripture just because it agrees with the Ten Commandments? It's called discernment, and I trust in God to give me that. If I read a book that attempts to justify stealing and excuse it, then I know that the book is teaching something evil.

Why should any of us believe the words of men? People do it all the time. You believe in the Quran which was compiled by Uthman and an appointed group of scribes. You believe in the Quran which was memorized by men and recited to scribes. You believe in the Quran which was recited by one MAN to his many companions. Every day you believe in the words of men. The difference is when a man claims to be preaching the words of God. You either choose to believe him or you don't. But even if you do believe him, you are still having to believe his word that he is telling the truth about the source of his revelations.

We are held accountable for breaking the law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for sin because within each of us is a conscience that convicts us of wrong-doing. Even if the law doesn't state that stealing is wrong, if we go steal our neighbor's possessions, in our hearts we know it is wrong because we wouldn't like it if someone did it to us. If it is wrong for me, then it should be wrong for my neighbor. If it is wrong for my neighbor to murder me, then it should be wrong for me to murder my neighbor. (Equal scales, remember?)

My beliefs are not attractive to atheists. I believe only a relationship with God can give you eternal life. If you do not have a relationship with Him, He is not going to force one with you. He will not whisk you to heaven and eternal life against your will. If you do not want eternal life and heaven, then He's not going to give it to you. Atheists don't want it. They reject it wholeheartedly.

How does one "prove" divine guidance? Am I supposed to get a tape recorder and record the experiences that occur within my spirit? Am I supposed to video tape it or something? I give God the credit for everything. I didn't have any whims or desires. I simply sought God and sought salvation. I wanted to know what I must do to get it. He showed me that He had already done everything and I simply needed to have faith in Him.

How do I know that it wasn't Satan? Does Satan bring inner peace, comfort, and rest? Does Satan proclaim Jesus as Lord and Savior of mankind? Does Satan give God all the credit for salvation? Does Satan encourage complete trust and faith in God? Come on, man.

Do I believe Satan exists? Yes, but not in the way that Muslims interpret Satan. I don't believe "satan" is a single person (ie djinn).

Prophecy about Byzantines/Persians:

So, now the word "defeated" doesn't mean defeated, but instead means lost the upper hand but hasn't lost the war yet?

So, when the Byzantines won a single battle (but not the war), then at that point they had defeated the Persians? I've never seen a more ridiculous case of double-speak in my life. So, when did the Allies defeat Japan? Was it when they were able to win a battle on one of the Philippine islands? Or was it when the Japanese unconditionally surrendered after the dropping of the second atomic bomb?

So, because Muhammad didn't die before Mecca was conquered, then the "prophecy" was really a prophecy? The whole thing hung upon the mortality of Muhammad? The Islamic definition of "prophecy" is VERY different from the Judeo-Christian one. At this point, (just as when we were discussing the word "perfect") I think we just need to agree to disagree.

If Muhammad truly split the moon, do we have any evidence of such a thing except for the narratives of a few Muslims? Do we have any scientific or non-Muslim historical evidence?

Regarding Original Sin: Okay, St. Augustine is not from the "earliest times." He's from the 6th century, a mere one hundred years before Muhammad. Martin Luther may have had the right intentions when he broke away from the Roman Catholic Church and promoted individual reading of the Bible; however, he also had some wacky beliefs regarding the Jews that did not have a good scriptural basis. John Calvin...do you understand HIS theology? He believes that everything is pre-ordained and there really is no such thing as free will.

If something comes from Roman Catholic dogma, then I always question it first. The history of the Church is too ugly to deny, and their reputation for spreading lies and distorting scriptures for selfish gain cannot be ignored. If they want me to believe that I am stained from birth so that I must self-flagellate, pay penance, etc. for forgiveness for this uncontrollable stain...then I don't want a part of it. For one thing, it is not scriptural. For another, it promotes an unhealthy self-loathing and unnatural sense of guilt.

You wrote: Atheists will love this! There is no reason not to sin! What’s the worst that could happen? You will simply cease to exist. Atheists believe this already!

Yes, atheists already believe in the cessation of existence. That is ultimately what happens. I didn't say that it happens immediately after physical death. If people are still dying, then Hades still exists and Gehenna has not been put into use yet. But Sheol/Hades is not a place of contrived tortures inflicted by God's angels upon physical bodies. Hades is a place of separation from God and all of the goodness that comes from Him. If love, life, pleasure, etc. come from God...then imagine a spiritual existence without Him.

Okay, can we decide something here: were the babies and small children of the Sodomites righteous or weren't they? Was God punishing them for the sins of their parents, or was He punishing them for sins they had not yet committed? Was God punishing them at all? This is my concern, because it helps determine the nature of God. You look at the commands given by God to Joshua as being wrong...and yet God utterly destroying Sodom and the babies within it is not wrong. I'm wondering why that is. Was it wrong that Allah condoned the beheading of hundreds of boys and men simply for being members of a certain Jewish tribe and possessing pubic hair, and then condoned the enslavement of all the women and small children?

You wrote: Well, I would move my daughter away so that he would not be able to reach her! That sounds like the reasonable thing to do.

So, you would move your daughter away...knowing that the next person to move into that house would find themselves to be a victim of that evil person? Evil will always find a victim.

You wrote: In any case, no one knows the future except God. The nonsense in the Bible about God ordering the Israelites (who were supposed to be the light to the world as you put it) to massacre of thousands of innocents is not something God would do. He would have destroyed the entire nation Himself, as He had done in the past.

You have now limited things that God would do. First you told me that it is not my concern if God chose to burn babies alive in Sodom, and yet now you are saying that God would not command people to slaughter babies by the sword. Why wouldn't God do such a thing? What if He didn't want to bring about a natural disaster because He would rather show that His power was the driving force behind the Israelites, and therefore all the surrounding nations must treat them with respect? (I mean, it's just a theory, but it most definitely is a valid one.)

God doesn't order people to put other people to death? Are you sure about that? God did not outlaw the killing of women, children, and elderly simply because of who they were. God outlawed the deliberate murder of human beings, regardless of their sex or age. If an elderly man goes around hurting little children, he must be put to death. If a woman goes around murdering men, she must be put to death. That's justice. And if, during wartimes, when Muslims use deception and the cover of night to fight against non-Muslims, if children, women, or elderly happen to be killed, Muslims aren't to worry because those people are "of them" meaning they are all of the non-Muslims. Don't you remember that hadith? Allah has ordered the slaughter of millions of innocent animals for the Eid festival, has he not? What terrible things did those animals do? Perhaps God simply wanted to cleanse the land of anything and everything associated with the wicked nations....just like when He cleansed the land with the flood.

You wrote:  Man, are you thick-headed. If a nation is sinful, God deals with them Himself. Noah’s people. Sodom and Gamorrah. Ad and Thamud. Get it? Shariah law has nothing to do with it.

Really? Because it looks like Allah used Muhammad and the Muslims to do the same thing in the Arabian peninsula, throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and even parts of Europe. Muhammad said Allah had ordered him to fight everyone until there was only Islam. That doesn't sound consistent with your theory that if a nation is sinful, God deals with them Himself. How about the commands Allah gave to Muslims to fight Jews and Christians until they submit to Islamic rule? Why doesn't Allah just wipe out the Christians and Jews? Or what about the pagans that Muslims are commanded to slay?

I thought life is a test...so why would Allah end the test early for the Sodomites?

The first commandment...that's the most important one. If I love the Lord my God with ALL MY HEART AND SOUL AND MIND, then I will not have any other gods before Him. See, how simple it is?

I love this: Jesus is not God. The Holy Spirit is not God. God is God.

That's rich. What is God?

So, is the Sunnah of Muhammad perfect? Is it divine? These are simple questions that require only yes or no answers.

Alright, now I have some questions regarding the serial rapist and his faith. If a serial rapist believes in Allah and believes Muhammad is his messenger, then he will burn in hell for his sins, but then he will be raised up to Jannah. Have I got that right?

Can you describe what faith in Allah is, please? What faith is necessary to ultimately save someone from eternal hell?

Simply having knowledge of sin doesn't make us sin. It CONVICTS us of sin. Without the knowledge, we could not sin. Being aware of sin and then actually SINNING is what makes one a sinner.

We don't know if Adam and Eve would have eventually eaten of the fruit had Satan not tempted them. Then again, it all depends on your definition of Satan. Personally, I think Satan is created from our own Free Will. Our selfish desires and unholy thoughts lead us to temptation. Every one of us has the ability to be a "satan."

Eve's desire to have knowledge led to the temptation of eating of the Tree. She gave in to the temptation and tried to justify it. Why did Adam eat? Was he tempted? Those are more difficult questions to answer. Perhaps he represents Man's inherent weakness when it comes to Woman. Satan really wasn't the tempter in that situation. He played the role of the deceiver.

Did God warn Adam and Eve not to listen to anyone who would deceive them? No, I don't think He did. He simply said, "Do not do this or this will happen to you." Someone or something came along and said, "If you do this, that will surely not happen to you." Adam and Eve decided to believe in a blasphemous lie that basically contradicted God and called God a liar. It really should have been very simple...and yet Adam and Eve decided not to trust in God.

Yes, I agree that God offers redemption and salvation. The difference is that I don't believe God expects humans to earn it. I believe the Almighty God is my Savior and Redeemer...not myself.

Buddhism does not put faith in any God. The Vedas ultimately point to an enlightened form of atheism...ask any knowledgeable Hindu. Where do you think Buddhism derived from?

The Bible points to the source of goodness, wisdom, and enlightment as God. The Buddhist texts and the Vedas point to the self as being the source of goodness and wisdom and enlightenment. Please do not compare Buddhism or Hinduism to the Judeo-Christian beliefs.

I believe that the inspiration is divine in origin, but I believe that the writings are from men. God didn't write the Torah and give it to Moses. God didn't write the Tanakh and give it to the Jews. God didn't write the New Testament and give it to Jesus. See what I'm getting at? The Bible is like the Hadith, not the Quran.

Like I've said before, you are trusting your salvation to the words of men...you are trusting in the honesty of Uthman and Abu Huraira and Aisha and Muhammad (among many others.) Or did Allah handwrite the Quran and hand it, in its entirety, to Muhammad who preserved it and handed it to Uthman?

Regarding holiness and perfection: How am I taking the words out of context? God said that because He is holy, then the Israelites must be holy. This applies to anything, whether they be dietary laws or not. Do you understand the meaning of context? The reason that the Israelites had to conform to those laws, just as with any other law, is because God demanded holiness because He is holy.

Ah, you are misinterpreting Romans 5:12.

Therefore, just as sin entered the world though one man [meaning, Adam was the first person to sin.], and death through sin [because the wages of sin is death. (Romans 6:23) Remember, God said, "if you eat of the tree, you will die." (Genesis 2:17)], and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned (see also Romans 3:23) [we all face eternal destruction because of our sins. Revelations 20:11-15]

If you choose to die in your sins and face judgment for them, then when you die you will truly DIE. If you choose to die free from sin and covered by Jesus' atonement, then when you die you will still LIVE. (See John 11:25-26).

The dead are judged according to what they have done. How is a baby going to be punished if they haven't done anything? If babies die and go to Hades/Sheol, then they are not going to be punished there. The grave is not necessarily a place of torment. It can also be a place of rest. Do you honestly believe a just God is going to punish babies and children for things they have no control over? That makes no sense and goes against the Bible's teachings. Jesus said that the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as little children.

I understand Arabic history and culture. I understand the importance of oral tradition in Arabia. I do not respect Karen Armstrong's obvious regurgitation of other modern Muslim biographers. Her book is unoriginal. She simply rehashed things found in 20th century biographies of Muhammad. If you are going to provide citations from her book, then I'd appreciate it if you could provide HER citations (where she got her information from), and if those sources are 20th century, then I'd appreciate it if you could provide THEIR sources.

First of all, why did anyone have to stand behind Muhammad? Really, as if he owned Medina, Mecca, or any other place. What Muhammad did was to suppress the speech of dissidents by assassinating them.

Let's examine WHY Ka'b started producing his anti-Islam poetry to begin with: the Battle of Badr.

What started the Battle of Badr? Ah yes, a planned raid on a Quraysh trade caravan. So, a Battle was fought because of Muslim thievery, and when Quraysh were killed, Ka'b wrote poetry about them. Was it wrong for Ka'b to bemoan the deaths of the Quraysh? Was it wrong of him to stir up the anger of the Quraysh on behalf of their dead comrades?

Let's see what the sahih Hadiths say about the crimes of Ka'b: He harmed Allah and His Apostle

How does someone harm Allah? And how did he harm Muhammad?

And if the mission of Muhammad was to rid the Arabian peninsula of all Jews and Christians before his death, then he failed. The Jews of Khaybar remained until one of the early caliphate removed them AFTER Muhammad's death.

There have been plenty of successful warlords who have fed prophetic military propoganda to their followers. Are they successful because God sanctions their actions?

Why are you placing an emphasis on Arabic manuscripts of the Gnostic and canonical gospels? I thought Arabian culture was all about ORAL TRADITION. Therefore, if stories were circulating throughout Syria and Arabia it is easy to understand why the Quran agrees with Gnostic and apocryphal stories.

The Gnostic Gospels have to be "less corrupted" if the Quran is correct since the Quran agrees more with the Gnostic and apocryphal writings than it does with canonical ones. Did you know that?

The interpretation of some Christians about the parable in Luke doesn't necessarily make it the correct one. It really doesn't require spiritual discernment to analyze the parable. To say that Christians are to be making war is illogical if one applies simply logic when reading the parable. Perhaps some Christians WANT it to mean they are to make war.

I'd like to analyze the first parts of sura 9, if you don't mind:

Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty.

This verse declares a complete abolition of treaties that Muhammad had made with pagans. In other words, Allah is allowing Muhammad to break his promises.

Travel freely in the land four months, and know that ye cannot escape Allah and that Allah will confound the disbelievers (in His Guidance).

This verse gives pagans a time frame for free travel. They have four months to "get their act together" before the Muslims attack.

And a proclamation from Allah and His messenger to all men on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage that Allah is free from obligation to the idolaters, and (so is) His messenger. So, if ye repent, it will be better for you; but if ye are averse, then know that ye cannot escape Allah. Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to those who disbelieve,

This confirms the first verse. The pagans would do better to repent (stop being polytheists, I'd imagine), but if they do not want to believe in Islam then they will suffer a painful doom.

Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfil their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him).

And here we have a clause that seems to contradict the first verse...but that's okay, I guess. Anyway, here Allah is giving some leniency towards certain pagans who "abated nothing of your right" (what does that mean?) and who have not "supported anyone against you." These treaties will actually be kept until their term is over. So, if the treaty was for ten months, then even after the sacred four months are over, the pagans will be protected for another six months?

Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Okay, so now we're back to the "sacred months" deadline. Once this deadline is over, the Muslims are commanded to slay the idolaters wherever they find them. They are to take them captive, to lay seige to them, and to ambush them...unless they become Muslims.

Now, here's where the self-defense argument falls apart. Let's pretend we are back in 7th century Arabia. The Muslims are a powerful group now. They have conquered villages, wiped out tribes, and looted wealthy trade caravans. They've accumulated soldiers and slaves. This is no minority group being persecuted. The Muslims are no longer the "underdog."

Anyway, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend that these tribes had broken their treaties. Let's say they were continually breaking them and threatening the lives of Muslims on a regular basis. This would be considered an act of open war, don't you think? And if we go back to verse 2:217 we will see that fighting was permitted even in the sacred months if you had to defend yourself. In fact, fighting was permitted simply if someone didn't let you visit the Ka'aba.

If verse 9:5 was really issued in self-defense, then why would Allah have them wait four months before fighting back if they were indeed under attack?


And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not.

Ah yes, if a pagan turns traitor against his own people, then open your arms to him and let him convert to Islam.

How can there be a treaty with Allah and with His messenger for the idolaters save those with whom ye made a treaty at the Inviolable Place of Worship? So long as they are true to you, be true to them. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty.

And now things go completely wishy-washy on us. Where we seem to have been given the impression that Allah abhors polytheism, it looks like he doesn't really care as long as the pagans are being loyal to the Muslims.

You wrote: What, now you have your own definition of what "equal" means? Is the son superior, inferior or "equal" to the Father? To the Holy Spirit? And vice-versa?

Look, I'm just trying to gauge your definitions of things. So far it looks like we have different definitions for the words perfect and justice. At this point it appears that the word "equal" means something different as well.

There is no superiority or inferiority between God the Father, the Son of God, and the Spirit of God. Have you never heard the phrase: God is a verb ? God is a working relationship between the three. The Father has authority over all things, which is why He could give authority over mankind to the Son. The Spirit of God connected the Son to the Father when he was on earth, and it connects us to the Son who is now in heaven. They are equal in value and importance because they are all one God. God is all that God is.

Why does the Son pray to the Father?

Prayer is how we communicate with God. Jesus was not only teaching us how to communicate with God, but he was also communicating with the Father in heaven.

You wrote: [Corruption] means putting the words of men in between the words of God. It means making up your own laws and rules. It means making the words of men into the words of God. You have already actually proven that. You say the Bible is the word of men, not God, albeit men who were "inspired by their belief in God". And yet, these men claimed that the Bible was God’s word !

Putting the words of men in between the words of God? Isn't that what the TAFSIR is?! Isn't that what you depend so heartily on for historical background and context? It's not a fatal mistake to believe the Bible is God's verbatim words to mankind. I just think it is a bit illogical. I think the Bible is God's message to mankind through the words of His followers.

Is it not corruption then when a Muslim composes a Tafsir? Is it not corruption when you read a Hadith to learn about the historical context of a revealed ayat?

Corruption is the injection of evil and deception. Adding additional truths to already-established truth is not a corruption. If you are going to call the Bible a "corruption" because the words of men are woven with the word of God, then you should be saying the same about the Tafsir and any hadith that relates the historical context of a revealed verse. The Bible was written by men who were inspired by God. Jesus is the living, eternal Word of God. Like I've said elsewhere, compare the Quran to Jesus and the Hadith to the Bible, not the Quran to the Bible.

You wrote: So, now the story is true? I thought you agreed it was a fabrication?

I'm not stating whether the story is historically true or not. I'm just saying that it is not a corruption in the sense of good being perverted or evil being added into something. The message of the story simply confirms the message of the gospel, and it promotes self-inspection as well as mercy. The moral of the story is a good and true one. When Jesus was telling parables, was he telling historically accurate stories or was he making up characters and situations to explain a point? Even if the Pericope is not historically accurate, we can take it as a parable and learn something from it.

So, is it permitted to use falsehoods and deception in order to assassinate someone? If someone is accused of committing a crime, shouldn't they first be found guilty by a judicial system and then executed according to the law? How is it justice to plot an assassination, use lies to deceive the person into trusting you, and then kill him in cold blood?



-------------
You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life. (John 5:39-40)


Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 05 August 2009 at 5:30am
There is nothing wicked about a man offering himself in atonement for the sins of others. It is actually a very giving, selfless, and loving act.

Was he sent by God or he chose to go? Did not God "send" his only "son"?

And as I said he did not sacrifice anything as he is in heaven with all the other prophets.

A. He never did die according to both Muslims and Christians , so where is the sacrifice?
B: If he "volunteered" to go then he is SEPRARATE from God? Why would God need to "volunteer" himself for sacrifice. God is God.

It is all illogical.

So, is it permitted to use falsehoods and deception in order to assassinate someone? If someone is accused of committing a crime, shouldn't they first be found guilty by a judicial system and then executed according to the law? How is it justice to plot an assassination, use lies to deceive the person into trusting you, and then kill him in cold blood?

What ARE you talking about?  LOL

Prayer is how we communicate with God. Jesus was not only teaching us how to communicate with God, but he was also communicating with the Father in heaven.

But why does" God" need to communicate with God?? God sees and knows all. Then  are there two?? Then Jesus cannot be God.

Allah is Al Badi- The Incomparable.




-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi


Posted By: Natassia
Date Posted: 13 August 2009 at 2:27pm
@ Hayfa...
 

You wrote: Was he sent by God or he chose to go? Did not God "send" his only "son"?

Jesus is FROM God. Jesus is God's Word in the flesh. He was sent by the Father, and he chose to be the sacrifice when the time came.



You wrote: And as I said he did not sacrifice anything as he is in heaven with all the other prophets.

He sacrificed his life. He bore humanity's sins. He died a humiliating death and went to the grave for three days.

 

A. He never did die according to both Muslims and Christians , so where is the sacrifice?

According to Christians, Jesus did die.

 

B: If he "volunteered" to go then he is SEPRARATE from God? Why would God need to "volunteer" himself for sacrifice. God is God.

God the Father is a separate "person" from the Son. Jesus is not the physical reproduction of God. Jesus is the spiritual manifestation of God within a human being. Why would God need to "volunteer'' Himself for sacrifice? If God's Law requires atonement for sins, and yet He doesn't want His precious creation to have to pay the price, then why not fulfill the Law Himself so that He may redeem and save His people?  God is a God of perfect justice.  He doesn't want us to break His Law, so I seriously doubt He would break His own and allow people's sins to be "washed away" simply because they believe in a man calling himself the messenger of God.



It is all illogical.

It's only illogical if you believe God's Law doesn't matter and can be broken without a price being paid.  It's only illogical if you do not believe God is a just God.

 

So, is it permitted to use falsehoods and deception in order to assassinate someone? If someone is accused of committing a crime, shouldn't they first be found guilty by a judicial system and then executed according to the law? How is it justice to plot an assassination, use lies to deceive the person into trusting you, and then kill him in cold blood?

What ARE you talking about? LOL

I'm talking about the murder of Ka'b bin al-Ashraf.



But why does" God" need to communicate with God?? God sees and knows all. Then are there two?? Then Jesus cannot be God.

There are not two Gods. There is one God in three "persons." Jesus is God, but so is the Father as well as the Holy Spirit. However, God is not just Jesus or just the Father or just the Holy Spirit. God is all three.

I wish I could come up with a logical analogy...

Try thinking of it like this...when your skin feels pain, how do you know it? Messages sent by nerves to the brain, right? So, your skin communicates with your brain via nerves, and so YOU then feel pain...and you are all three of those things: skin, brain, and nerves. You are not just your skin or just your brain or just your nerves. YOU are all three of those things working together. Can you be "you" without your nerves? Certainly. But then your skin will not communicate with your brain and so what happens to your skin (like a burn) doesn't really affect you in the sense that you would feel physical pain. You would, however, notice the burn and if someone did it to you on purpose, then you would feel the emotional pain from the injury.

When Jesus died, it was like the nerves were severed. He went to the grave, the Father remained in heaven. However, Jesus was still God, just as the Father in heaven was still God. And when Jesus returned to the Father in heaven the Spirit of God was sent down to his followers. Now we can be connected with the Son just as the Son is connected with the Father...and this all can happen by the Holy Spirit.

Confusing? Perhaps to some. It makes sense to me. It didn't use to. Something changed in me last year and it was like my eyes were opened and I could truly see.

(I'm sorry if my analogy stunk.  Truth be told, I don't think God is something or someone that can be accurately compared to anything.)


-------------
You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life. (John 5:39-40)


Posted By: Saladin
Date Posted: 20 August 2009 at 7:02am
[Natassia in red]

Justice = equal scales. - Absolutely!

What Islam does is provide a justice system made up of unequal scales. The scales for a rich man are different than those for a poor man.

The poor man and the rich man aint equal in terms of wealth, so its only fair they're penalized according to their wealth. Ten bucks for some is as much as a grand for another.

BTW, sincere repentance is really what erases sins, atonement is secondary.

Why is it that a poor man who is poor because of st**id decisions and laziness is not expected to atone as much for his sins as the rich man who is rich because of INTELLIGENT decisions and being hardworking?

See the problem here?

Yeah, the problem's your logic above. Tell me, what if the poor man was poor despite being hardworking and intelligent, whereas the rich man was rich despite being lazy and st**id but just got lucky, how is Natassia's scales gonna measure this?

Ok, I maynt be that aware of the definition of justice as you're, so please enlighten me here - How Just is it to penalize (wealth-wise) the rich and the poor, the same penalty, when that same penalty maybe for a rich man no big loss but for a poor man, his bread and livelihood and also the bread of those dependant on him, thereby starving him and also his family.

Your Honor, How  Is  This  Justice? How Just, is it to make one suffer more than another for the same crime? (back at you)




-------------
'Trust everyone but not the devil in them'


Posted By: Saladin
Date Posted: 20 August 2009 at 9:19am
So, the Law of Islam regarding adultery is different for a man that it is for a woman, correct?

What?.....


017.032 And come not near unto adultery. Lo! it is an abomination and an evil way.


024.002 The adulterer and the adulteress, scourge ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes....
 

And murder in Islam is defined as killing someone without a valid reason?

005.032....whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind....

025.068 ....nor take the life which Allah hath forbidden save in (course of) justice....

Why do I see whats coming? .....its all banal.


Really? Because it looks like Allah used Muhammad and the Muslims to do the same thing in the Arabian peninsula, throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and even parts of Europe. Muhammad said Allah had ordered him to fight everyone until there was only Islam. That doesn't sound consistent with your theory that if a nation is sinful, God deals with them Himself. How about the commands Allah gave to Muslims to fight Jews and Christians until they submit to Islamic rule? Why doesn't Allah just wipe out the Christians and Jews? Or what about the pagans that Muslims are commanded to slay?


Reference please....along with the context. Tafsir of shaikul batil Natassia dont count, just junk!



I understand Arabic history and culture. I understand the importance of oral tradition in Arabia. I do not respect Karen Armstrong's obvious regurgitation of other modern Muslim biographers. Her book is unoriginal.

 
And whose is original.... Spencer's?


What started the Battle of Badr? Ah yes, a planned raid on a Quraysh trade caravan.

Ah no, the raid was to regain what was rightfully theirs. You know, the Muslims' property and livelihood in Makkah they were forced to leave while fleeing persecution, what do you think the Makkans did with that? Learn some history. And why do you think Abu Jahl & Co still mobilised troops to attack Madinah, even when Abu Sufyan's caravan was safe?


Was it wrong for Ka'b to bemoan the deaths of the Quraysh? Was it wrong of him to stir up the anger of the Quraysh on behalf of their dead comrades?

Let's see what the sahih Hadiths say about the crimes of Ka'b: He harmed Allah and His Apostle

How does someone harm Allah? And how did he harm Muhammad?

'Allah and His Apostle' is a metonym for the 'Islamic state', governed by the Quran and Sunnah.

Ka'b just wrote poetry to bemoan the fallen Quraishies? Oh dear! Ka'b incited the Quraysh against the Muslim state which was in its infancy and vulnerable. He composed verses insulting Muslim women and also planned to assassinate the Prophet, the Head of the State. Learn to evaluate history.... Ka'b got what he deserved -

005.033 The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;



First of all, why did anyone have to stand behind Muhammad? Really, as if he owned Medina, Mecca, or any other place.

He was the Messenger of God and the Head of the Islamic state that was Madinah. Muslims stood by him through thick and thin cuz they realised what he brought was the Truth; unlike the ingrates among the Children of Israel who betrayed and murdered their Prophets.




-------------
'Trust everyone but not the devil in them'


Posted By: Saladin
Date Posted: 20 August 2009 at 10:52am
So, is the Sunnah of Muhammad perfect?

Perfect for mankind!

Is it divine?

Its 'divinely inspired'.


-------------
'Trust everyone but not the devil in them'


Posted By: Natassia
Date Posted: 20 August 2009 at 9:48pm
@ Saladin (Your words are in blue.)

The poor man and the rich man aint equal in terms of wealth, so its only fair they're penalized according to their wealth. Ten bucks for some is as much as a grand for another.

BTW, sincere repentance is really what erases sins, atonement is secondary.

Why does "sincere repentance" erase sin? How does it make up for the evil that you've done? How does it repay the spiritual debt accrued? How does it balance the scale?

And why is it that wealth is a determining factor in regards to the atonement of sins? And if atonement is secondary, does that mean it is not really necessary?

 
Yeah, the problem's your logic above. Tell me, what if the poor man was poor despite being hardworking and intelligent, whereas the rich man was rich despite being lazy and st**id but just got lucky, how is Natassia's scales gonna measure this?

Ok, I maynt be that aware of the definition of justice as you're, so please enlighten me here - How Just is it to penalize (wealth-wise) the rich and the poor, the same penalty, when that same penalty maybe for a rich man no big loss but for a poor man, his bread and livelihood and also the bread of those dependant on him, thereby starving him and also his family.

Your Honor, How Is This Justice? How Just, is it to make one suffer more than another for the same crime? (back at you)

But, where does Allah's law accommodate for st**id, lazy poor people and hardworking, honest rich people? In those cases, the st**id and lazy is rewarded by only having to feed his family a basket of dates whereas the hardworking and honest is punished by having to free two slaves who he worked hard to be able to afford.

Physical suffering is relative. And I don't see how feeding your family some dates is punishment.

The punishment for fornication is 100 lashes, but what if someone has CIPA and the man she slept with did not? He would receive the same punishment...and it would be painful for him but the woman he slept with wouldn't feel anything painful from 100 lashes.

Why didn't Allah accommodate for that?


Why do I see whats coming? .....its all banal.

Banal doesn't mean wrong.

I'm just trying to get definitions for things. From what I've read in the Quran, Tafsir, and Hadith the definition of adultery is different for a woman than it is for a man.

If a woman slept with her slave boy, she'd be found guilty of adultery. If a woman slept with a married male captive, she'd be found guilty of adultery. If a woman took a second husband, she'd be found guilty of adultery.

And would you mind defining "corruption throughout the land"? That is a rather vague statement and open to interpretation.


Really? Because it looks like Allah used Muhammad and the Muslims to do the same thing in the Arabian peninsula, throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and even parts of Europe. Muhammad said Allah had ordered him to fight everyone until there was only Islam. That doesn't sound consistent with your theory that if a nation is sinful, God deals with them Himself. How about the commands Allah gave to Muslims to fight Jews and Christians until they submit to Islamic rule? Why doesn't Allah just wipe out the Christians and Jews? Or what about the pagans that Muslims are commanded to slay?

Reference please....along with the context. Tafsir of shaikul batil Natassia dont count, just junk!

Fine.

Quran 9:5

Quran 9:29 and corresponding Tafsir: (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi - Tafhim al-Qur'an)

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 643

Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Numbers 29 - 35

Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Numbers 4294 & 4366

Sahih Muslim, Book 31, Number 5917 & 5918


And whose is original.... Spencer's?

Never read it. Honestly.  I typically stick to really early stuff.  Ibn Ishaq, al-Tabari, al-Waqidi, the Hadith (Bukhari, Muslim, etc.)  And the biographies I do read were written prior to 1975...before there was any reason to sugar-coat, or in contrast--demonize.

 

What started the Battle of Badr? Ah yes, a planned raid on a Quraysh trade caravan.

Ah no, the raid was to regain what was rightfully theirs. You know, the Muslims' property and livelihood in Makkah they were forced to leave while fleeing persecution, what do you think the Makkans did with that? Learn some history. And why do you think Abu Jahl & Co still mobilised troops to attack Madinah, even when Abu Sufyan's caravan was safe?

I love it when Muslims bring this up. Please show me in your trustworthy sources where it says the Muslims were forced to leave Mecca. When Ali was found in Muhammad's bed...was he forced to flee Mecca that night? What about Abu Bakr's daughter Asma?

And how did goods from Syria rightfully belong to the Muslims? If Muslim property in Mecca had been stolen, why didn't they go and get it from Mecca rather than steal goods from a trade caravan that didn't belong to them? I suppose "due process" was too advanced of a concept, even for the prophet of Allah.

Perhaps Abu Jahl was ticked off that the Muslims had dared to threaten the trade caravan in the first place. Perhaps he was angry about the raid on a trade caravan in Nakhla and murder of an innocent merchant.

 

'Allah and His Apostle' is a metonym for the 'Islamic state', governed by the Quran and Sunnah.

Ka'b just wrote poetry to bemoan the fallen Quraishies? Oh dear! Ka'b incited the Quraysh against the Muslim state which was in its infancy and vulnerable. He composed verses insulting Muslim women and also planned to assassinate the Prophet, the Head of the State. Learn to evaluate history.... Ka'b got what he deserved -

Can you please provide trustworthy sources that state Ka'b was planning to assassinate Muhammad? I don't mean sources 500+ years after the fact. Can you explain to me how expression of free speech harms Allah and his apostle? And if it does, then does that mean I can kill my pagan neighbor if he starts preaching against Islam and leading thousands of Muslims to leave Islam?



He was the Messenger of God and the Head of the Islamic state that was Madinah. Muslims stood by him through thick and thin cuz they realised what he brought was the Truth; unlike the ingrates among the Children of Israel who betrayed and murdered their Prophets.

Muhammad said he was the messenger of God. He created the Islamic state in Medinah that never originally belonged to the Muslims in the first place. The people living in Medinah just didn't persecute the Muslims who supposedly fled there. (I could have sworn Muhammad ORDERED them to leave Mecca, but I'll have to remember where I read that.)

And so, people had to stand behind Muhammad because Muhammad said so. In reality, that is what you are saying.

 

So, is the Sunnah of Muhammad perfect?

Perfect for mankind!

Is it divine?

Its 'divinely inspired'.

But is it perfection? Is it divine or isn't it? Did Allah inspire something to not be truly divine?



-------------
You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life. (John 5:39-40)


Posted By: Natassia
Date Posted: 21 August 2009 at 12:04am

@ Hasan/honeto

Hi Natassia,

In your first paragraph above you are contradicting your belief about Jesus being God. You would agree with me that God is all knowing and in control of everything as I see you say that later. Then you contradict yourself by saying: " he did not control the minds or actions of those who betrayed and executed him."

Paradox of omniscience and omnipotence. Suffice it to say that God humbles Himself. Just because He can control something doesn't mean He will. He has control over this earth, and yet allows us to control our own minds and bodies.

 

In the same paragraph you also say, that Jesus' mission was to restore that which was lost and fulfill the Law and the prophets. I agree with you on that 100%. I must add that that was the mission of every prophet God sent without doubt.

No other prophet fulfilled the Law. To fulfill something means to carry it out to completion; to satisfy. The Law requires atonement. If Jesus fulfilled the Law that has convicted the world of sin, then how did he atone for all that sin?

 

In the last of that paragraph you said something that for me shows your contradicting believe of whether Jesus was God or Jesus has a God. Here is that quote: "Despite the evil action men took to kill Jesus, God used the crucifixion to glorify His name when He resurrected Christ." Clear your mind and read it over and you will see what is said in that line, Jesus has a God.

Perhaps you can read the book of Daniel, the gospel of Matthew, and the book of Revelation and then tell me what happened to Jesus when the Word of God (Christ) was resurrected from the dead? Trust me, it's relevant to your question.

And just as your word comes from you and is you, so does the Word of God come from God and is God. Jesus is the Word of God. So no, he is not the Father, but he is the Word.

 

In response to what you wrote in the second paragraph all I will say is that only the created ones like ourselves are bound to time, past present and future is something we depend and live through. For God there is no such thing, God is not bound or lives in time thus He is already where we will be later. Also I say, as a Muslim we believe that God is not dependent upon anything or anyone, infact everything depends upon Him.

About your last paragraph all I will say is that Jesus did not do or say anything different than what any of God's prophet would have and have said: That is if they will do the will of God who sent him, follow God's commands and law sent through him will achieve salvation.
Now what we have as the Bible may agree and oppose it's own teachings on this matter.

Hasan

In other words, not everything depends upon God because you must earn your own salvation.



-------------
You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life. (John 5:39-40)


Posted By: Nazarene
Date Posted: 22 August 2009 at 4:24pm
salaams
Natassa you state:
 
No other prophet fulfilled the Law. To fulfill something means to carry it out to completion; to satisfy. The Law requires atonement. If Jesus fulfilled the Law that has convicted the world of sin, then how did he atone for all that sin?
 
where does it state the law requiers atonement?? the sacrifice of atonement did not exsist at the time the law was given. the atonement sacrifice came out of babylon when they relesed the jews. the atonement was a false practice. it never happened in the time of moses. the atonement was later practied in the outer court of the temple hence the condemnation of the cristians in the book of revelation
   
Revelation 111I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, "Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, and count the worshipers there. 2But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months.
 
gentiles here are the christians. what other gentiles were given a place in the HOLY TEMPLE? and the term christian was first used to discribe the GENTILE followers of the christ in antioch. 30 yrs after the suffering of the christ.
 
your contradicting yourself here also:

And just as your word comes from you and is you, so does the Word of God come from God and is God. Jesus is the Word of God. So no, he is not the Father, but he is the Word.

you state THE WORD OF GOD COME FROM GOD AND IS GOD.
then you say: JESUS IS THE WORD OF GOD SO "NO" HE IS NOT GOD. BUT THE WORD. as if the word is seperate from god and not  god.
 
your lost within yourself. arguing for the sake of it . as if your trying talk youself into believing your right.
leland


-------------
love for all conquers all


Posted By: Natassia
Date Posted: 22 August 2009 at 10:19pm
@ Nazarene/leland
 
You wrote: where does it state the law requiers atonement?? the sacrifice of atonement did not exsist at the time the law was given. the atonement sacrifice came out of babylon when they relesed the jews. the atonement was a false practice. it never happened in the time of moses. the atonement was later practied in the outer court of the temple hence the http://www.islamicity.com/forum/l - of the cristians in the book of revelation

The Torah (Hebrew for "Law") required atonement all over the place. Do a search for the words "atonement sacrifice" on biblegateway.com. See what comes up.

 
You wrote: Revelation 111I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, "Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, and count the worshipers there. 2But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months.

gentiles here are the christians. what other gentiles were given a place in the HOLY TEMPLE? and the term christian was first used to discribe the GENTILE followers of the christ in antioch. 30 yrs after the suffering of the christ.

If you are going to attempt to interpret the book of Revelations, the most mysterious, symbolic, and apocalyptic book in the Bible...you had better brush up on your history and theology.

1. Gentiles = non-Jews. The pagan Romans were Gentiles. "Gentile" does not necessarily mean Christian.

2. There are multiple types of interpretative angles for the book of Revelation: historicist, idealist, preterist, futuristic, etc. If you do not know which angle you are attempting to interpret the book of Revelation, then it is likely that your interpretation is going to be way off target.

3. Since the apostle Paul was killed within 30 years of Christ's death, and he was ministering long before he was killed...then it is inaccurate to say that the term "Christian" was not coined until 30 years after the death of Christ.

 
You wrote: your contradicting yourself here also:

And just as your word comes from you and is you, so does the Word of God come from God and is God. Jesus is the Word of God. So no, he is not the Father, but he is the Word.

you state THE WORD OF GOD COME FROM GOD AND IS GOD.

then you say: JESUS IS THE WORD OF GOD SO "NO" HE IS NOT GOD. BUT THE WORD. as if the word is seperate from god and not god.

your lost within yourself. arguing for the sake of it . as if your trying talk youself into believing your right.

leland

Wrong. I said Jesus is the Word of God and he is not the FATHER. The Father is God. The Son is God. The Spirit is God. God is not just the Son or just the Father or just the Holy Spirit.

Jesus is God, but Jesus is not the Father. The Father is God, but the Father is not Jesus. The Holy Spirit is God and the Spirit is in Jesus and the Father. The Spirit is what connects us to God as well.

(Looks like you might need to brush up on the Christian theology of the nature of God as well.)



-------------
You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life. (John 5:39-40)


Posted By: Nazarene
Date Posted: 23 August 2009 at 7:21am
salaams natassia
 
 you state:  The Torah (Hebrew for "Law") required atonement all over the place. Do a search for the words "atonement sacrifice" on biblegateway.com. See what comes up.
 ok i did and got 7 verses. 1 from Exodus 5 from Levitcus 1 from Romans. also note according to Hebrews Jesus replaced the levitcal priesthood . and made it obsolite.
 
Jeremiah 8:8 " 'How can you say, "We are wise,
       for we have the law of the LORD,"
       when actually the lying pen of the scribes
       has handled it falsely?
like i said the atonment came from babylon. remember the babylonions distroyed ALL WRITINGS of the isrealites. some 300yr or so Ezra did the best he could rewiting them from oral handme downs a few scrolls and "CHANALING".
 

1. Gentiles = non-Jews. The pagan Romans were Gentiles. "Gentile" does not necessarily mean Christian.

so now your saying the " PAGENS " have been given the outer court? the "PAGEN ROMANS" have been given a place in the temple to worship??i don't think so. if you mean the PAGEN ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH your correct!
 
the rest of you post i'll leave to others to read the confustion for themselves.( CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY).
leland


-------------
love for all conquers all


Posted By: Nazarene
Date Posted: 23 August 2009 at 9:08am

salaam natassia

you kept refering to " the law" as if you justified by it as a christian. but that can't be! christian teaching throws the "law" out the window.(pasted  from another post)
 Paul nullifies the law when he states
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&verse=11&version=31&context=verse - Galatians 3:11
Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith."
 
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=3&verse=23&version=31&context=verse - Galatians 3:23
Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed.
 
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=3&verse=28&version=31&context=verse - Romans 3:28
For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=2&verse=16&version=31&context=verse - Galatians 2:16
know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.
leland


-------------
love for all conquers all


Posted By: Natassia
Date Posted: 24 August 2009 at 8:03am
@ Nazarene/leland
 

Jesus fulfilled the Levirite laws. He fulfilled the priesthood. He fulfilled the necessary atonement. Through Jesus we can be holy, pure, and redeemed. Thanks to him, the Temple curtain was torn.

Yes, there are 6 verses that contain the words "atonement sacrifice." However, if you simply investigate the context of those verses you will find that entire chapters in the Torah are devoted to sacrificial atonement. Leviticus 9, for example, as well as Leviticus 16. In fact, there was an entire day devoted to atonement for the sins of the Israelites.

 

You wrote:

Jeremiah 8:8 " 'How can you say, "We are wise,
for we have the law of the LORD,"
when actually the lying pen of the scribes
has handled it falsely?

like i said the atonment came from babylon. remember the babylonions distroyed ALL WRITINGS of the isrealites. some 300yr or so Ezra did the best he could rewiting them from oral handme downs a few scrolls and "CHANALING".

Can you please back up this statement with proof? Can you prove that Jeremiah 8:8 was not referring to the scribal traditions and rabbinic traditions found in the Talmud, for example? The Law of the LORD always stands...but its interpretation and application can most definitely be handled falsely. Also, can you please prove that entire chapters regarding atonement were fabrications from Babylon? Can you prove anything you wrote?

 

You wrote:

so now your saying the " PAGENS " have been given the outer court? the "PAGEN ROMANS" have been given a place in the temple to worship??i don't think so. if you mean the PAGEN ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH your correct!

Like I said, Gentile does not always mean Christian. The two terms are not interchangeable. Therefore, historical and theological context must be taken into consideration.

First of all, Revelation 11:2 is prophecy.

I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, "Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, and count the worshipers there. But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months..."

This means that the Gentiles were going to trample on Jerusalem for about 3 1/2 years. This has nothing to do with God giving pagans a place to worship within the outer court.

 

the rest of you post i'll leave to others to read the confustion for themselves.( CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY).

It's not confusing to me and millions of other Christians just as molecular biology is confusing to many but not to molecular biologists.



-------------
You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life. (John 5:39-40)


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 27 August 2009 at 4:08am
"If Jesus fulfilled the Law that has convicted the world of sin, then how did he atone for all that sin?"
 
If Jesus atoned for all of the sin in the world, then why is there still sin?


-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 27 August 2009 at 12:30pm
 
 

The scholar Ulfat-Aziz-us-Samad says:

 “…To demand the price of blood in order to forgive the sins of men is to show a complete lack of mercy, and to punish a man who is not guilty for the sins of others, whether the former is willing or not, is the height of injustice.



Posted By: Saladin
Date Posted: 27 August 2009 at 12:48pm
[Natassia - you're in red]
 
 
Why does "sincere repentance" erase sin? How does it make up for the evil that you've done? How does it repay the spiritual debt accrued? How does it balance the scale?

And why is it that wealth is a determining factor in regards to the atonement of sins? And if atonement is secondary, does that mean it is not really necessary?

Remember, the sin we're talking about here's one between the sinner and God alone. The One True God, Allah is the Most Merciful and He accepts sincere repentance for sins that affect noone besides the sinner cuz the scales are balanced here by the repentance. Someone misses a fast for no good reason, they sin but Allah may forgive them if they sincerely repent. The atonement here's to make up for the lost fast or to derive the lost rewards of the fast. But if our sin affects another, Allah wont forgive us unless the affected forgive us or we atone for it, cuz Allah is the Most Just.
 

But, where does Allah's law accommodate for st**id, lazy poor people and hardworking, honest rich people? In those cases, the st**id and lazy is rewarded by only having to feed his family a basket of dates whereas the hardworking and honest is punished by having to free two slaves who he worked hard to be able to afford.

Physical suffering is relative. And I don't see how feeding your family some dates is punishment.
 
Are you implying here that all poor people are poor cuz they are st**id and lazy? If not, then without further ado, please answer my question - How Just, is it to make one suffer more than another, for the same sin? 
 
 
The punishment for fornication is 100 lashes, but what if someone has CIPA and the man she slept with did not? He would receive the same punishment...and it would be painful for him but the woman he slept with wouldn't feel anything painful from 100 lashes.

Why didn't Allah accommodate for that?

Doesnt matter, repentance's what counts here. Someone fornicates several times and doesnt get caught but turns to Allah in sincere repentance, Allah may forgive.
 

Banal doesn't mean wrong.

But when its lies thats being banally dished out, its Goebbelsian!
 
 
I'm just trying to get definitions for things. From what I've read in the Quran, Tafsir, and Hadith the definition of adultery is different for a woman than it is for a man.

If a woman slept with her slave boy, she'd be found guilty of adultery. If a woman slept with a married male captive, she'd be found guilty of adultery. If a woman took a second husband, she'd be found guilty of adultery.

Adultery/fornicartion is sexual relations out of wedlock. Where does the Quran say anyone can sleep with anyone out of wedlock??
 
 
And would you mind defining "corruption throughout the land"? That is a rather vague statement and open to interpretation.
 
Crimes that affect the Law & Order and the society as a whole.
 
 
Quran 9:5
 
A perfect example of  'taking out of context', not only shows your ignorance but also your duplicity.

In the verses 1-7 of Surah 9 (Taubah), the term used is mushrikeen meaning here the idolaters of Makkah and addressed towards those who violated the peace treaty with the Prophet Muhammad. Its the same theme up to 9:16, Allah is instructing the Prophet Muhammad to free himself from the obligation to the peace treaty of Hudaybiah (made in 6 AH for a ten year period) which the idolaters of Quraysh violated in the second year and raided a tribe who were an ally of the Prophet. The verse gives specific instruction to fight those who violated the treaty and killed the allies of the Prophet. These verses in no way propagate or indicate the same treatment to other non-Muslims except under similar circumstances.  

 
Quran 9:29 and corresponding Tafsir: (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi - Tafhim al-Qur'an)
 
This has been dealt with extensively and your allegations have been thoroughly refuted, yet you seem to have problems, comprehension problems perhaps. I'll make it simple for you, simple questions - "If Jizyah was a degrading tax as you allege then - 
 
1. Why wasnt it collected from the non-Muslims who agreed to fight alonside the Muslims?
2. Why was it returned to the non-Muslims whom the Muslims coudnt protect?

I couldnt check up on the Hadiths, another time InshaAllah.

 
Never read it. Honestly.  I typically stick to really early stuff.  Ibn Ishaq, al-Tabari, al-Waqidi, the Hadith (Bukhari, Muslim, etc.)  And the biographies I do read were written prior to 1975...before there was any reason to sugar-coat, or in contrast--demonize.
 
Ok, I'll try to believe that...
 
 
I love it when Muslims bring this up. Please show me in your trustworthy sources where it says the Muslims were forced to leave Mecca.
 
....like the people aboard the Titanic werent forced to get off it when it was sinking.... like to play with words eh?
 
 
When Ali was found in Muhammad's bed...was he forced to flee Mecca that night? What about Abu Bakr's daughter Asma?
 
What about Bilal? Ammar? Kabbab? Abu Fakih? Umm Ubais? Nadia? and the rest.... What happened to Yasir, Sumayya, Abdullah ibn Yasir?
 
Muir, Spencer & Co might have missed all them eh?
 
 
And how did goods from Syria rightfully belong to the Muslims? If Muslim property in Mecca had been stolen, why didn't they go and get it from Mecca rather than steal goods from a trade caravan that didn't belong to them? I suppose "due process" was too advanced of a concept, even for the prophet of Allah.
 
Syrian goods that was with whom? the Makkans. Part of which no doubt was made up of what the Muslims were FORCED to leave behind in Makkah. Proximity provided the Muslims the opportunity to try to regain what was theirs. And would you mind enlightening me on the "due process" back them.
 
 
Perhaps Abu Jahl was ticked off that the Muslims had dared to threaten the trade caravan in the first place. Perhaps he was angry about the raid on a trade caravan in Nakhla and murder of an innocent merchant.
 
Yeah Abu Jahl got ticked off.... as simple as that, while the Muslims having been put through all kinds of persecutions were supposed to ?what.... look up at the sky and hope Santa comes by with what was theirs? LOL 
 
 
Can you please provide trustworthy sources that state Ka'b was planning to assassinate Muhammad? I don't mean sources 500+ years after the fact. Can you explain to me how expression of free speech harms Allah and his apostle? And if it does, then does that mean I can kill my pagan neighbor if he starts preaching against Islam and leading thousands of Muslims to leave Islam?
 
That there was a war between Muslims and non-Muslims at the time of the alleged “assassination,” in the third year of the Hijrah, is an undeniable fact. The question is whether Ka’b was among the combatants or the non-combatants. If he actually joined hands with the enemies of Islam and placed himself among those who were fighting with the Muslims, and he was killed by the Muslims, can this be called a case of treachery, cruelty or butchery? That Ka’b had openly joined the combatants and become their ally is borne out by all historical accounts; nay, some of them go so far as to say that he had planned to murder the Prophet(P) treacherously. Here are a few authorities:
    “He went to the Quraish weeping over their killed (at Badr) and inciting them to fight with the Prophet.” http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2006/false-allegations-of-atrocities-ii/#footnote_0_306 - 1

    (The Prophet said): “He (Ka’b) has openly assumed enmity to us and speaks evil of us and he has gone over to the polytheists (who were at war with Muslims) and has made them gather against us for fighting” http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2006/false-allegations-of-atrocities-ii/#footnote_1_306 - 2

    “And according to Kalbi, he united in a league with the Quraish before the curtains of the Ka’bah, to fight against the Muslims.” http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2006/false-allegations-of-atrocities-ii/#footnote_2_306 - 3

    “And he prepared a feast, and conspired with some Jews that he would invite the Prophet and when he came they should fall on him all of a sudden.” http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2006/false-allegations-of-atrocities-ii/#footnote_3_306 - 4

    Commenting on Bukhari’s report relating to the killing of Ka’b, the author of Fath al-Bari relates the reports which we have quoted above from Zurqani, viz., Ka’b’s going to Makkah and inciting the Quraish entering into a league before the curtains of the Ka’bah to fight against the Muslims, the Holy Prophet’s declaration that he had assumed open enmity, and his plan to kill the Prophet by inviting him to a feast. Bukhari himself speaks of the incidents relating to the killing of Ka’b under headings in which the word harb (fighting) occurs, thus showing that he was looked upon as a combatant. Abu Dawud speaks of the incident under the heading, “When the enemy is attacked and he is unprepared,” showing that Ka’b was dealt with as an enemy at war with Muslims. And the comment on this is that “Ka’b used to incite people to murder the Muslims”; and discussing the legality of what the party sent out for the punishment of Ka’b did, the same commentator adds: “This is not allowed in the case of an enemy after security has been given to him or peace has been made with him … but it is allowed in the case of one who breaks the covenant and helps others in the murder of Muslims.” And Ibn Sa’d tells us that when the Jews complained to the Holy Prophet that their leader was killed, “he reminded them of his deeds and how he urged and incited (the Quraish) to fight against them,” and adds that “the Prophet then called upon them to make an agreement with him”, and this agreement “was afterwards in the possession of ‘Ali.” All this evidence is too clear to show that Ka’b was put to death for having broken the agreement with the Prophet and joining his enemies who were at war with him and he was therefore treated as a combatant, while the other Jews who did not go to this length, though they were not less active in speaking evil of the Holy Prophet, still lived at peace with him and all that they were required to do was to sign an agreement that they would not join hands with those who were at war with the Muslims.

  1. Zurqani, vol. ii, p. 10
  2. ibid., vol. ii, p. 11
  3. ibid.
  4. ibid., p. 12

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2006/false-allegations-of-atrocities-ii/ - http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2006/false-allegations-of-atrocities-ii/  

The crimes of Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf -
 
1. Planned to assassinate the Prophet.
2. Treason, inciting war against the state.
3.Slandering women.
 
Even if you were to reject no.1, you cant deny 2 and 3.
 
To what extent is the freedom of expression? Does it accomodate treason and slandering? What does your good book say about 'freedom of expression'?... I'm curious.
 
 
Muhammad said he was the messenger of God. He created the Islamic state in Medinah that never originally belonged to the Muslims in the first place. The people living in Medinah just didn't persecute the Muslims who supposedly fled there. (I could have sworn Muhammad ORDERED them to leave Mecca, but I'll have to remember where I read that.)

And so, people had to stand behind Muhammad because Muhammad said so. In reality, that is what you are saying.

So you're totally ignorant of the Pledges made at al Aqaba and the Ansars stand prior to the Batte of Badr..... I told you, learn some History. 

 
But is it perfection? Is it divine or isn't it? Did Allah inspire something to not be truly divine?
 
Define 'perfection', not some dictionary definition, define 'perfection' in this context.

 


-------------
'Trust everyone but not the devil in them'



Print Page | Close Window