<b>adeelsiddiqui If the object of your post is to bash a religion and to prove yours as better than you are wasting mine and everyone elses time. If you geniuinely want to know what the quran says, and what Islam teaches than sit back and enjoy the ride.</b> My object is not to bash. I'm just reacting to what was posted. What I read about is a God that destroys whole peoples who have been judged not to be following His Word. <B>Islam is the religion of peace, sure. Islam also teaches peolpe that the ones who dont obey the orders of god, people that cheat, murder, rape, terrorize etc, are the ones who will be punished. And the statements in the quran where it shows destuction or punishment is for people who were "evil", "misled", and many other wrongs. Know, if you have a religion that says everyone is going to Heaven, no matter what they do in this life, as long as they claim the religion, sure its all good... but where is the balancing act. Why would anyone do good?</b> There is more going on here than simply not going to heaven. There is "utter destruction" being rained down upon people of other beliefs. You have a significant segment of your Muslim believers who are actively killing people around the world. When a Lamb of God nutjob bombs an abortion clinic, s/he generally gets arrested an punishsed in short order. Christianity has a small problem of this sort and it is generally held in check pretty well. What about Islam? <b>Why is it that Islam is critisized for having punishment and condemning people, whereas we in our government punish evil people and condemn wrongdoers daily, and yet you support such actions...</b> The criticism is for those Muslims who have taken the law into their own hands, effectively enjoining themselves with "the Royal we." <b>pretty hypocrytical if you ask me.</b> Try that one again...
Here's the final line of the initial post: I think everything I've asked or added has to do with that.
Not at all, criticize away, and you would have a legitimate point. However, your initial post was NOT targeting non-peace-loving Muslims, it was a 'shot' taken at the religion at large by a poster well-reputed for his bias and ignorance of the religion. You even asked what the word "we" was referring to, and some answered that the "we" has a linguistic significance that can't really be equated to what you're used to in the English language (it's somewhat unique to Arabic in that respect), but you're obviously not interested in that part. God does the punishment, he's capable of punishing/rewarding his own creatures, and it's up to him, not you or myself. But hey, don't let me stop you, please post away, I seriously and honestly could care less. In fact, go ahead and criticize the religion itself and back up your argument with facts and then we will have a serious discussion, and then I will find you all those "peace-loving" passages in the Bible to see if you believe in all of it or you just like to pick and choose. It's difficult to take you (and few other posters) seriously when you're more interested in mockery than a serious, educated, fact-based discussion. BTW, did someone say the Old Testament was NOT part of the Bible?! Now I guess I understand why my Eastern Orthodex friend mocks the "Westernization and the watering-down" of Christianity whenever we talk about religion. Seems like some of you like to pick and choose what you feel "comfortable" with.
Merry Christmas! The God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament and He did not change. Much of what Jesus and others said in the New Testament is quoted from the Old Testament. In fact it is the New Testament that really gives us an understanding of the Old Testament. If I try to explain further it will be a sermon. Is there a specific question or misunderstanding?
It isn't that God changed, but man's understanding changed. That isn't to say that the old testament should be disregarded at all. I think with any biblical discussion putting things in the context of the whole is what is important. In the old testament we have God choosing a murderer who loved whores as a person to carry his message. He chose somebody who offered his own wife up to enemies, and pretended to be her brother rather than protect her to be his messenger. I could look at these stories and say that the old testament God was sick and disturbed. Or I can look at the stories in context with the New testament and say, "Wow, surely God does love EVERYONE, if he chooses these people to be his messenger. I really shouldn't judge people, because the lord can find redemption in people who do such horrible things. He does more than find redemption, he uses them as his chosen messengers. That kind of love, is more than I think any human is capable of. God is great."
then quit with the smartass coments And? Dont christians believe that people who do not take jesus as a savior are hellbound? Utter destruction is worse than hell? didnt know that, Always thought that hell was the worse of the worse. And its not just people of other beliefs, its people who have disobeyed god, people who are doing wrong in society, people who are crooks, cheats, and terrorists.... When a crazy terrorist fails to detonate his bomb, he gets arrested and is punished accordingly. The problem is that terrorists in this age are hard to keep up with. Esp since they have no value for their own lives. Islam has a huge problem with people going terrorist friendly, but there also is that big problem of a few wars that give them fuel to keep the fire burning We didnt start teh fire is the way everyone thinks. Your criticism was pretty broad and didnt seem to single out terrorists or fanatics. Pretty hypocrytical if you ask me...
Well, thanks for the explanation. Rhester, what's your opinion about those Christians who pick and choose what part of Christianity they like (as seems to be the case with some self-proclaimed Christians I have come across)?
But at the same time though the God of the Old Testament also wiped out whole cities, drowned most of the world, killed the innocent first born of the Egyptians, turned a women into salt for being nostalgic, basically encouraged ethnic cleansing by the Israelites and branded all of humanity with original sin for eating of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. That doesn't strike me as being a very redeeming God. While I respect your views as Christians I have to admit that the New and Old Testament relationship is something I just don't understand about Christianity. Allah Akbar
In other words...kill all infidels....thats why they do it. They interpret the Koran that way...at least the extremists do.
Depends on what you mean. I would suggest you look at Jesus in the New Testament to understand Christianity. Christianity as a religion is not representative as a whole of Jesus Christ. Christian is the name that was given to the disciples of Christ early on. 'those Christians who pick and choose what part' - Neither Jesus Christ nor the New Testament give us Christians any pick and choose 'buffet' that I am aware of. Jesus said something about "whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple."- Luke 14:33 Forsaking all to follow Christ is the only choice I can think of. Paul said, "Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,"- Phil. 3:8 I guess that is what you mean, you met a Christian who picked what was self-gratifying in the religion and left out the rest?? That is common to us Christians. I personally need less of me and more of Christ every day. We Christians are pretty worthless apart from Christ's grace and Spirit. IMHO To answer your question I think Christianity is not about what part I want at all but about Christ's glory. We Christians should humble ourselves daily; love and trust Jesus Christ. I don't think very much at all about those who pick and choose parts to the exclusion of other parts just because it pleases them. I have enough to answer for. (except I am sad when I see hypocrisy in our local church- that is the extent of my own jurisdiction- God will judge the rest)
I really appreciate your questions, especially concerning the Christian view of God. Trouble is, your questions seem to always go deep. Not easy to take a one minute break and give an appropriate response. I will say that to understand those things you mentioned you would first need to understand the following- 1. What is sin. 2. How God views sin. 3. God's character as a righteous judge of sin. 4. How sin affects man and mankind. 5. Who deserves justice and how God meets out justice. 6. Why God shows mercy. 7. How patient God is. 8. God's purpose in the Old Testament. 9. The severity of sin in God's view. 10. The severity of Christ's suffering. 11. The love of God revealed in Christ. 12. The future justice and judgment. Understanding this would give a perspective to what seems 'harsh' or 'unloving' in the Old Testament. Without a very clear understanding of sin and God's character it is hard to understand God's judgment- for instance the Flood. We who all have our 'pet' sin (that we love) have a very distorted view of absolute righteousness; as we do absolute love and absolute truth. God is righteous and holy in all His ways. Perfect in truth, justice, love, mercy, faithfulness and goodness. To understand the wrath of God, one must understand God's character and how destructive and evil sin really is. You can be sure of one thing, God is righteous and if he pronounced death as a penalty for disobedience (as in the case of the Garden of Eden) then disobedience to His command was a very destructive and evil choice. You can be sure the penalty justly matched the offense.
Yes, that's what I meant. As I stated earlier, I have an Orthodex Christian friend (he is Armenian) who always seems to bring this point up whenever we discuss religion. He has a tendency of mocking what he calls the "watering-down of Christianity to make it more marketable to a post-Christianity Western world". He tells me that for the most part, Americans are more interested in the spiritual aspect of Christianity, but not the actual doctrine, not the actual work that has to put into being a Christian. Not sure if he has a point or not, but seems like this applies at least in a few cases. Thanks again for your insight, it's wonderful to be able to debate this -- and hopefully learn a thing or two -- from someone as knowledgable about the topic as yourself. Rhester, like it or not, you're officially my designated "Christianity Reference Guide", so get used to it.
There was this great thing on the History channel last night, wish I had caught it all, but it was called "Banned From the Bible" and it was about stories that over the years have been removed from the Bible, including one where Jesus kills a friend as a child.
Yes, I watched that, it was very intriguing and it was interesting to see how many of the passages in those "banned Books" while didn't make it in the Bible was mentioned in some Hebrew books and the Koran (like parts of the Adam and Eve story). I was wondering what is rhester's take on that, and why were those books 'removed' or 'banned' from the Bible. Also, who made the decision to include and exclude certain books? Wouldn't that be considered 'tampering' with the Bible? Very interesting program, you guys should check to see when it replays and TiVo it or something, because it's worth watching.
they were never part of the Bible to begin with. they were excluded for various reasons...including not being reliable...being entirely uncorroborated by other texts.
Was the Church the determinant of what books were included and what weren't? Thanks for the answer MadMax
