Could Islam and Christianity both be right?

[Angelos]

Meedo wrote:

In Islam the greatest reward for believers in heaven is to look at Gods face. This is the greatest reward. not the Only reward.

**Angelos wrote: **

Dear Meedo, peace unto you! You seem to misunderstand and misinterpret what I say on the Islamic view of Hell. I never say that seeing God face to face in Heaven is the only reward promised in the Quran. NonetheIess, I know very well that the Quran refers to the gathering of men and jinns before Allah for the final judgment when it talks about some men looking towards their Lord with shining faces. Still, the Quran never promises that the ones going to Heaven will taste the ultimate joy of being close to Allah.

Meedo wrote:
Angelos, you were never a muslim. Just another christian arab who is trying to impress westerner christians that he was a muslim just because he knows arabic.

Angelos wrote:
Meedo, this is the second time you lie about me and insult me as well as Christian Arabs (even Muslims because what you are doing by claiming that Christians know the Quran better than Muslim converts is equal to praising Christians and despising Muslims!)

More, I do not feel at all obliged to convince you that I am telling the truth. I just want you to know that you have no knowledge of my character and you solely follow a conjecture! I cannot speak Arabic because I (like my compatriots) read the Quran in my native tongue

**Meedo wrote: **
Every single muslim knows that the interpretation for the verse you quoted is not in all honesty what you are trying to make people believe. Every body Pass above hell. NOT ENTER hell!! Even the ones who fall into hell from the bridge are not necessarily dommed to hell. If they are not idolaters they wont reside forever in hell , but will be punished according to their sins. And after that they will enter heaven.

**Angelos wrote: **
It is not true that every single Muslim concurs upon a single interpretation of that verse! Some of the prominent Muslim scholars in my country confirm my interpretation of Maryam 71 even though they make speculations and put forward their reasons for everyone’s temporary stop in Hell. (Interestingly, in my native language the verse reads “everyone will stop in Hell for a short time”.) A Muslim scholar contends that all will be gathered in Hell, where the righteous will be separated from the wicked and then transferred to Paradise. He presumes that Allah wants to bring all men together in Hell so that the righteous can see with their own eyes what befalls the evildoers and sinners.

If we follow your interpretation, it definitely misleads us. If everyone will pass over Hell (and this is such a significant promise in the Quran to be fulfilled by Allah’s particular decree), then who will be in Hell? The verse in question (Maryam 71) does not mention a bridge through which all will pass and from which some will fall into Hell. More to the point, the verses display a logical as well as structural unity on the basis of a comparison. Pay attention to the transitional conjunction ensuing the statement in verse 71: “But We shall save those who guarded against evil, and We shall leave the wrong-doers therein” Allah will save those who guarded against evil from what? Certainly from the fires of Hell. He shall leave the evil ones where? Of course, in Hell! The Quran does not say “ We shall throw evil ones into Hell” but It says “We shall leave them in Hell”. This entails their entering the Hell with the righteous ones! Those who guarded against evil versus the evildoers and the act of saving from Hell versus the act of leaving in Hell! Obviously, this verse points out that all will enter Hell first, but the chosen ones will stay there for a short time (a temporary stop) whereas the wicked forever (permanent stop).

**Meedo wrote: **
Angelos, quit the act.

Angelos wrote:
Meedo, please quit slandering me (it’s a sin!).

Blessings to you and all

 

[Ahimsa]

Honestly there is nothing particularly wrong with the Muslim articulation of ‘Paradise’ except for the fact that it was never updated or evolved to the nation of ‘Union with God’. Of course many Sufis would have a strong argument on this point.

Pax

I would go further and even suggest that any proper, or full, understanding of Muslim spirituality is necessarily incomplete without inclusion of the Sufic traditions, since it is those traditions that speak more clearly, and even explicitly, about ‘union with God’.

 

[Sixtus]

I have only ever known three Moslems. They all had three things in common: love, goodwill and a sense of peace. I have met many Christians who do not display those qualities.

It is not given to us to judge, only to love, forgive and pray.

What lies beyond the grave has not been given to us, except that St Paul tells us it is ‘our real life’.

Catholic teaching has it that it is possible to reform in the next life. Who knows, we might be very surprised at WHO has renounced their sin and accepted the Lord Jesus Christ.

There was once a famous King in all majesty and splendour, who upon seeing a prison full of murderers, paedophiles, rapists and terrorists. He felt sorry for them as they had all been condemned to die. He pleaded with the Jailer to let them go, but the Jailer said ‘no’ so he asked the prison govenor who also said ‘no’ so he went to the judge and asked why they must die and the judge said ‘on account of their terrible atrocities’. So the King asked the judge if he was worth more than all these prisoners and the Judge said ‘but of course, you are a magnificent powerful rich king’. So the King said to the Judge ‘ok, let them go and kill me instead’. The Judge said ‘ok’ and so it was.

The rapists, murderers, paedophiles and terrorists are us, the King Jesus Christ. His blood has paid the debt in full and some. It is not for us to judge the ultimate fate of our brothers, but to pray for them and to love them and to pray that God will bring them home throughChrist Our Saviour!

 

[Contarini]

Absolutely correct.

Except for my understanding of Christian thinking, of course. I don’t know what your background is, but mine is Catholic. From a Catholic university with studies in Catholic history and philosophy, no less. If you want to question my understanding of Christianity, there are threads for that…but instead of debating, you seem to get frustrated and quit the discussion.

If you disagree with my characterizations, I welcome debate. But if we reduce ourselves to claiming that only misinformed people convert, we’re doing just as much disservice to our fellows as those who call all converts liars.

Well-informed, fully understanding people do convert, and they often do it for valid reasons.

Fair enough. I suspected you were suffering from CAS (Convert Amnesia Syndrome). Or perhaps it’s just AAS (Apostate Amnesia Syndrome). Sorry for the harsh term, but it’s more concise than “ex-whatever.” I’m not making a moral judgment about your abandonment of Christianity.

People who abandon any religious view generally find themselves unable to state its premises fairly. Quite possibly you did understand Christian theology well at one time (though the fact that you attended a Catholic university doesn’t necessarily prove this). But you don’t now. You have yet to state the Christian doctrine of Trinity and Incarnation in a form that Christians can recognize. Every time you describe it, you distort it.

I agree that not only misinformed people convert. But unfortunately it seems that most (not all) people who convert undergo a paradigm shift that renders them incapable of a fair understanding of their previous tradition.

That’s one of the reasons I don’t convert to Catholicism. I don’t want to become one of those people.

Edwin

 

[pro_universal]

Fair enough. I suspected you were suffering from CAS (Convert Amnesia Syndrome). Or perhaps it’s just AAS (Apostate Amnesia Syndrome). Sorry for the harsh term, but it’s more concise than “ex-whatever.” I’m not making a moral judgment about your abandonment of Christianity.

And I certainly don’t intend to judge your persistence with Christianity.

People who abandon any religious view generally find themselves unable to state its premises fairly. Quite possibly you did understand Christian theology well at one time (though the fact that you attended a Catholic university doesn’t necessarily prove this). But you don’t now. You have yet to state the Christian doctrine of Trinity and Incarnation in a form that Christians can recognize. Every time you describe it, you distort it.

What I say about the trinity when critiquing it comes directly from the Athanasian creed. The arguments I apply to it are in large part cribbed from Augustine and Aquinas.

I can see that you wouldn’t want to accept something contradictory as a recognizable form of the trinity, but it’s not true to claim that I’m being unfair to the teaching. The framework for my analysis rests squarely on the Catholic sources I learned during my Catholic education.

I agree that not only misinformed people convert. But unfortunately it seems that most (not all) people who convert undergo a paradigm shift that renders them incapable of a fair understanding of their previous tradition.

This is usually true, and I used to disdain converts to any religion for the same reason.

That’s one of the reasons I don’t convert to Catholicism. I don’t want to become one of those people.

Edwin

I didn’t want to be one either. But sometimes, it’s not possible to be honest with yourself without taking a different tack.

 

[L.Kraiger]

Well said, Sixtus.