Correct me if I’m wrong but I think one of the differences between Christianity and Islam is that we consider God as a loving Father, not a distant Master. Our relationship to Him is familial, we are His adopted children, not slaves.
Please leave this line alone. I have very recently read in other posts on CAF that bibleOT and NT admit the word slave. It is used by prophets. There is no harm in being a slave of God. The Mater / Servant relationship also tells us that we are to serve God. True service needs LOve and good faith. The best faith cannot be proved except to become a slave. The being a slave of God is not in the same sense as we may have about slave/ master relation in this bad world. God is not the bad Master.
We believe that God, the Father’s eternal Son, is our Redeemer who opened the gates of heaven by offering Himself for the sins of man. We believe that God, the Holy Spirit is, in essence, the love of the Father for the Son and the Son for the Father, so real that He constitutes the third person of the Holy Trinity.
That is your belief. Islam does not support such ideas. Islam does not support the original sin being found in the present day men and woman. The original sin theory of the church tells us that even a new born baby is a sinner. We Muslims do not believe in such things. We believe that Adam made a mistake (say sinned). Our Quran tells us that he repented. God forgave him.
Once forgiven, there is no sin to be carried forward in all the mankind.
Further we believe that God sent messengers / warners to all nations of the world. All nations received guidance. That Guidance was all correct and true, coming from One God. One God could not and would not tell one lesson to one nation and a different message / lesson to another nation. The message was all the same. That was peace, Peace and Love. No politics.
One of the best analogies I can think of is the substance of water. It can be in the form of liquid, solid (ice) and gas (steam), three completely different charactaristics, yet it remains one substance. God’s fatherhood does not depend upon His relationship with human beings; He is eternally a Father to the Son and eternally a Son to the Father.
The father (living) in the son and son (living) in the father is not understood. There is a complication and serious contradiction.
He lives in us through His Spirit. As scripture tells us, God is Love. In order to love, there must be an object of that love; thus God is eternally a family and must be in order to be Love.
If God is eternally a family and perhaps you mean that we are a part of that family, then it must be a big family of God. Then where will Jesus stand?? We know that Jesus cannot be a real, literal son of God. It can only be a symbolic son or metaphorical son. We do not deny that.
But we would wish that such things are explained to non-catholics in real terms. When catholics say that Jesus was the “begotten” son of God, that he was the “Only begotten son” of God, the matters become more complicated. That is because the word “begotten” is used in the bibleNT, mathew chapter one, verse one, two three…:
It says “Abraham begat Issac. Issac begat jacob. jacob begat Judas/Jehuda(?)…”
That word begat is being used in bible, gospels. That is the real use of the word, “beget”. So in what sense did Jesus become a begotten son?? It can only be in the spiritual sense. And we muslims will not deny that sense. We will believe that Jesus was spiritually begotten son, okay. But then there were many others like that… Abraham, Noah, Jacob, Moses, Krishna, Muhammad, Budha, they were all spiritually begotten. Why not?? Or, do not use such terms as begotten, under cover. Bring out the real meaning of such terms please.
Please think over, on a wider scale…