Pay, convert or die. Muslims, do you believe this?

[7_Sorrows]

I knew the Shiites were also being denied food and aide along with the christians by ISIS.

 

[lutheran_farmer]

I would love to hear from Muslims about some things that have occurred to me recently.

First of all, while I see that history shows a lot of violence between Muslims and Christians in the Middle East and between Jews and Muslims, I do not see the level of hatred that is expressed today. I believe that, even when things were very dark, peace was found, as evidenced by the fact that there are still Christians in these countries. I believe that radical Islam is a modern invention.

Now, the question is ‘why?’. The thing that has always struck me is the incredible disparity between the rich and poor in Muslim countries. The wealth of the Saudi princes is unimaginable to most of us. When one has such wealth among the masses that scrape by, one fears for one’s safety. It’s natural. So, what is the solution? Fan the flames of hatred and blame someone else. A ready scapegoat is the West. The Bin Laden family is extremely wealthy and could have assisted the poor in Afghanistan and encouraged other very wealthy Saudi families to do the same. That is not what happened. Osama BL blamed the US for abandoning Afghanistan after our spat with the Soviets. Funny thing is, he didn’t blame the Soviets. He found that once the very poor had someone else to blame, he could fuel their fires into extremism. Modern radical Islam is a direct result of the very wealthy manipulating the very poor. And they use their religion as an excuse.

Could we Christians do the same? Could we fan the flames of disparity into hate? Not using Jesus’ words. Our religion doesn’t lend itself to such things easily. Even using the Old Testament doesn’t hold much water because Jesus Christ is very clear about how we should act towards our neighbors and our enemies. Our God knows the hearts of men.

The worst Christians can do is corrupt and manipulate the Gospel into something entirely different than it was intended to be (Westboro Baptist) but even then, they use only words and protests, not violence. Some have added on their own words and even entire books (JWs and Mormons) but even then there is no reasoning for violence.

Unfortunately. Islam’s prophet did use language which lends itself to violence and seems to encourage violence. This language has been used by the rich and powerful to create nothing but a world of misery for those who live in the Middle East. The real tragedy is that instead of helping their poorest people, the very rich are manipulating them and are the very source of the pain for so many. Their oil wells are safe. Their money is invested elsewhere (much of it in the West that they claim to despise). They are just sitting back and enjoying the show.

 

[Contarini]

Very recently it has come to light that ISIS is taking over Christian homes and Churches in Syria and Iraq. The message they have written on the walls is “Pay, convert (to Islam) or die”.

I do not know Islam well enough to know whether this is an extremist view or the standard Muslim position. Can a Muslim please help me here?

Thank you.

It is the historic, traditional position, but most governments expect their subjects to pay taxes. It looks as if ISIS is demanding an extortionate sum under the title of “jizya.” The traditional position would be that Muslims pay the “zakat” which is 2.5% of their income, and non-Muslims pay the “jizya.” As far as I know the precise amount of the “jizya” was not fixed. But the point is that it was the substitute for the taxes people would have paid to their previous rulers, and a counterpart to the zakat paid by Muslims. I have never understood why people speak of this as if it were some horrendous extortion.

The difference with what ISIS is doing is that they are getting around the letter of Islamic law (which requires them to give monotheists the chance to pay the jizya) by imposing a jizya that they know people in their area can’t pay. They are thus trying to drive Christians out of the territory, which is not the historic Islamic approach at all.

Here’s a Muslim explanation (a very conservative one, given that it comes from Saudi Arabia) of jizya.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I don’t think anyone is cutting any slack to the Muslims who are engaging in this abysmal behavior. The question, however, is whether or not this is mainstream belief.

One thing that I find very troubling is that we hear no Muslims publicly denouncing this behavior, at least I have not heard or seen any. If a “Christian” group was engaging in similar behavior it would be publicly denounced immediately by the Catholic Church and pretty much every denomination as well. This fact leaves me more than a little uneasy.

What is troubling, frankly, is your failure simply to do a Google search before posting this accusation. A search with the parameters “Muslim condemnation ISIS” brought up numerous articles listing condemnations by various Muslim groups.

Why didn’t you bother to do such a basic Google search before posting your “concerns” about the supposed (and wholly fictional) absence of Islamic condemnations of ISIS’ actions?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

It is believed that between 15 to 25% (as sourced by many government agencies throughout the world) of all Muslims are radicalized, that is not a minority when you consider the 1 600 000 000 Muslims that exist.

Josie, you’re using the word “minority” very oddly. Normally it means less than 50%. It could be a very large number in absolute terms–which is of course your point, that even a minority of Muslims could still be a lot of people.

The further problem with the figure is what “radicalized” means. There are surely many degrees of “radicalization.” Think about how left-wing folks in this country lump people together as “the Christian Right,” so that for instance anyone who is opposed to abortion or gay marriage is seen as being the same as the folks at Westboro Baptist who say that God hates homosexuals, or the theonomists who want to establish OT law as the law of the land.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

No, it’s different. It’s more like this - back in 1845, the US and Mexico fought a war. The US dominated the war, and due to the treaty, annexed the Southwest US. The people in the Southwest US were born in Mexico but the land became US land, and were now living in the US by default. The US understood this. As such, the US government did not require these people to become Americans - they gave them a choice. The people could remain Mexican citizens or become American citizens. They were not immediately expected to submit to the US government just because the territory that they had lived in since birth had changed hands. Most of them did, of course, but mainly because the US government was more effective at meeting their needs than the Mexican and Spanish governments had been.

So your’e saying that the U.S. government allowed people to go on living indefinitely in the newly conquered lands without paying any taxes to the U.S. government?

That would surprise me very much. Do you have any documentation to support this rather extraordinary claim?

Simply allowing them to go on being Mexican citizens while paying taxes would not make your point, because it would in fact be identical to the Islamic procedure. Traditionally, Islamic governments have treated religions as nationalities. People who belonged to a different religion were not part of the Islamic “ummah” and thus were seen as subject people without full “citizenship” but with certain specific rights and duties. (Note: this is an analogy only. Obviously the whole concept of “citizenship” was different.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

So you believe pre-ISIS Mosul was a hell-hole for Christians. Why all the outrage now that ISIS has taken over.

False dichotomy. Things can be a lot worse now without having been perfect (from our point of view) before.

I think it’s hard to deny that Western countries are, taken as a whole, far more tolerant of Muslims than Muslim countries are of non-Muslim religions.

You throw a bunch of questions at me that are related to Isolated incidents committed by individuals towards Christians that I can find parallels for most cases in western countries against Muslims too. I’ve lost count of the number of hate-crimes and abuse of Muslims in western countries just because they were Muslims (Look at all the negative responses I’m getting here just because I’m a Muslim).

There’s a pretty big difference between unfair and nasty language and physical violence, wouldn’t you agree?

The point you are dodging is that there are apostasy laws in many Muslim countries, and mob violence against non-Muslims is a pretty common occurrence in these countries. In contrast, actual physical violence against religious minorities is relatively rare in the West and has no legal support, at least in the U.S…

Could I publish publish a book in Vatican city that criticizes Jesus and the Pope?

I’m not sure. Vatican City is rather a special case, since it’s a tiny “microstate” inhabited almost solely by clergy and support personnel of the Church. The closest Islamic equivalent would be Mecca. Am I right or wrong in supposing that non-Muslims aren’t allowed in Mecca at all? Isn’t it clear, then, that your analogy fails?

Could I entrust my children to a priest without having the fear that they might, just might, be raped or sodomized by him?

I don’t see that this is even remotely relevant to the question of religious tolerance. The same is true of any “professional” adult caregiver, Christian, non-Christian, religious, or secular.

Can a Muslim send his daughter to a public school in France without being forced to take off her headscarve?

No, and that’s outrageous. It is indeed a violation of religious liberty.

Why is it that most Christians who convert to Islam face harsh reactions from fellow Christians, family and friends?

Because families don’t like their family members joining another religion, especially one of which they have strongly negative impressions. I chickened out on becoming Catholic in my 20s in large part because of my family’s negative reaction. (Granted, if I had said I was becoming Muslim, they would if possible have been even more upset.) But the “harsh” reaction we’re talking about consists of emotional scenes, tearful pleas, offers of polemical literature showing that one is wrong, and at worst, being kicked out of the house. I have not heard of physical violence being used by Western Christians toward people who converted to Islam, though perhaps it has happened. It is quite often used in Muslim countries, and in many Muslim countries the apostasy laws provide legal sanction. There are no such laws in Western countries. A Christian parent who physically harmed their child for becoming Muslim would be prosecuted with rigor.

Could I build a minaret for a mosque in Switzerland or a church in Moscow ( shoebat.com/2013/12/03/russia-outlaws-building-mosques-will-get-tougher-islam/ )? Can a Muslim slaughter animals using the Halal method in Denmark? etc. etc. etc.

Many European countries are instituting these restrictions, true. I’m not claiming that religious liberty is perfect in the West, only that the level of intolerance is vastly different.

I am committed to fighting for the freedoms of Muslims in the area where I live (the U.S.). I have gone to an anti-Muslim meeting with the purpose of speaking against the disinformation and propaganda being spread, and have been yelled at and accused of being Muslim myself for my pains. That’s very minor, of course, and I would like to do much more to help build good relations between Christians and Muslims. I am very aware of the problem of anti-Muslim prejudice in the West. But I don’t like to see Muslims use the relatively minor examples of such prejudice to cover for the pervasive intolerance found in contemporary Muslim societies, and which seems to be growing steadily.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Why is it that you can easily worship a God that condemns his enemies to eternal hellfire but if He issues harsh punishments (that are in no way as harsh as eternal hellfire) in this world for sins He deems grave, those laws suddenly become outrageous?

Good point. The issue you have raised in several posts about OT punishments is a very serious one, and it seems to me that a lot of people have dodged your point.

First of all, I do not believe that God “condemns” people to eternal hellfire in a literal sense. I believe that hellfire is a symbolic way of speaking about the consequences of rejecting God’s love. To someone who rejects God, God (who is everywhere) is experienced only as torment. The combination of God’s omnipresence and the moral/spiritual distance of the damned from God is described in Scripture by the metaphors of fire and darkness.

In the second place, there is a big difference between what God does directly and what humans do in God’s name. Human beings harming or killing other human beings in the name of God is always corrupt and corrupting. It is never justified. Period.

That means that I do not believe that the OT laws on that point were in fact God’s fullest intentions for the human race. I believe that the OT laws reflect God’s genuine revelation of Himself in a way that people at that time were ready to understand. What I think you’re not getting is that many Christians, including myself, believe in “progressive revelation.” We believe that God is fully revealed in Jesus, not in OT law. OT law points to Jesus. In fact, many of us don’t believe that law, by its nature, can fully reveal God. God is personal and is most fully revealed in a person–Jesus.

This isn’t the same thing as the secular concept of “progress.” I disagree with the language of “civilized” vs. “uncivilized” which some posters have used. However, I also believe that Christians have taken a long while (and no doubt have much further yet to go) in understanding and living out the implications of God’s revelation in Jesus. In that sense I do believe in “progress” within Christianity. The fact therefore that medieval Christians treated unbelievers (particularly baptized heretics or apostates) harshly does not mean that it was OK, and it doesn’t mean that I am going to be unconcerned when Muslims continue to act this way today. Certainly it would be silly for me to claim that Islam is obviously false because of such “lack of progress”–perhaps there are simply implications in Islam that many Muslims have not yet discovered. But what does concern me is that revivalist, “back to the sources” movements in Islam seem more often than not to result in an even harsher version of Islam than the traditional version (the traditional version being pretty similar to–maybe even a little more tolerant than–the version of Christianity current in the Middle Ages). In other words, whereas Christians have almost unanimously come to reject the violence of our past, many Muslims seem to be going in the opposite direction. And the nature of Islam as a religion of law may have something to do with this.

Another word that needs to be said here: Christians continue to be extremely violent. Most of that violence is done under the aegis of the secular state. The drone strikes in Pakistan are murderous and morally indefensible. Religious violence for Christians sneaks in under cover of “respecting government authorities.” So we aren’t out of the woods by any means. However, it’s something that almost no Christians today would justify the killing of apostates or heretics.

Edwin

 

[peace_at_last]

False dichotomy. Things can be a lot worse now without having been perfect (from our point of view) before.

I think it’s hard to deny that Western countries are, taken as a whole, far more tolerant of Muslims than Muslim countries are of non-Muslim religions.

There’s a pretty big difference between unfair and nasty language and physical violence, wouldn’t you agree?

The point you are dodging is that there are apostasy laws in many Muslim countries, and mob violence against non-Muslims is a pretty common occurrence in these countries. In contrast, actual physical violence against religious minorities is relatively rare in the West and has no legal support, at least in the U.S…

I’m not sure. Vatican City is rather a special case, since it’s a tiny “microstate” inhabited almost solely by clergy and support personnel of the Church. The closest Islamic equivalent would be Mecca. Am I right or wrong in supposing that non-Muslims aren’t allowed in Mecca at all? Isn’t it clear, then, that your analogy fails?

I don’t see that this is even remotely relevant to the question of religious tolerance. The same is true of any “professional” adult caregiver, Christian, non-Christian, religious, or secular.

No, and that’s outrageous. It is indeed a violation of religious liberty.

Because families don’t like their family members joining another religion, especially one of which they have strongly negative impressions. I chickened out on becoming Catholic in my 20s in large part because of my family’s negative reaction. (Granted, if I had said I was becoming Muslim, they would if possible have been even more upset.) But the “harsh” reaction we’re talking about consists of emotional scenes, tearful pleas, offers of polemical literature showing that one is wrong, and at worst, being kicked out of the house. I have not heard of physical violence being used by Western Christians toward people who converted to Islam, though perhaps it has happened. It is quite often used in Muslim countries, and in many Muslim countries the apostasy laws provide legal sanction. There are no such laws in Western countries. A Christian parent who physically harmed their child for becoming Muslim would be prosecuted with rigor.

Many European countries are instituting these restrictions, true. I’m not claiming that religious liberty is perfect in the West, only that the level of intolerance is vastly different.

I am committed to fighting for the freedoms of Muslims in the area where I live (the U.S.). I have gone to an anti-Muslim meeting with the purpose of speaking against the disinformation and propaganda being spread, and have been yelled at and accused of being Muslim myself for my pains. That’s very minor, of course, and I would like to do much more to help build good relations between Christians and Muslims. I am very aware of the problem of anti-Muslim prejudice in the West. But I don’t like to see Muslims use the relatively minor examples of such prejudice to cover for the pervasive intolerance found in contemporary Muslim societies, and which seems to be growing steadily.

Edwin

The whole point was this: there is discrimination everywhere. Some places more some places less. I only wrote down those questions to show this point. The problem is this: an isolated incident, peoples personal beliefs/actions, laws in a specific country, or the actions of a specific sect, and even the cultural practices of a certain Muslim community are put forward as the general belief and directives of Islam.

 

[powerofk]

So your’e saying that the U.S. government allowed people to go on living indefinitely in the newly conquered lands without paying any taxes to the U.S. government?

That would surprise me very much. Do you have any documentation to support this rather extraordinary claim?

Simply allowing them to go on being Mexican citizens while paying taxes would not make your point, because it would in fact be identical to the Islamic procedure. Traditionally, Islamic governments have treated religions as nationalities. People who belonged to a different religion were not part of the Islamic “ummah” and thus were seen as subject people without full “citizenship” but with certain specific rights and duties. (Note: this is an analogy only. Obviously the whole concept of “citizenship” was different.)

Edwin

Okay, this is getting off-topic, but - even today, people in Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, etc., don’t pay any federal taxes. Why? Because they’re considered territories of the US and don’t have any voting representation in Congress (they do have elected non-voting delegates who only have the right to make speeches). The people in what are now Arizona and New Mexico did not pay any federal taxes until 1912 - 67 years after the territory they were part of was annexed by the US. So, no, they couldn’t live indefinitely without paying federal taxes, but as long as the area they were part of hadn’t yet been granted statehood, they didn’t pay federal taxes.

Regardless, getting back on topic, part of the problem is that, AFAIK, “religious freedom” is anathema to Islam. Islam (or at least the interpretation of ISIS and other extremists) pretty much teaches that it is that all people become Muslim by any means necessary.

 

[dronald]

The whole point was this: there is discrimination everywhere. Some places more some places. I only wrote down those questions to show this point. The problem is this: an isolated incident, peoples personal beliefs/actions, laws in a specific country, or the actions of a specific sect, and even the cultural practices of a certain Muslim community are put forward as the general belief and directives of Islam.

I agree; there are plenty of different interpretations of the Islamic belief, that’s why i’m curious what you believe specifically in regards to apostasy.

So if you don’t mind me asking; do you believe someone should be killed for leaving the Islamic Religion, or are you against it?

 

[peace_at_last]

Good point. The issue you have raised in several posts about OT punishments is a very serious one, and it seems to me that a lot of people have dodged your point.

First of all, I do not believe that God “condemns” people to eternal hellfire in a literal sense. I believe that hellfire is a symbolic way of speaking about the consequences of rejecting God’s love. To someone who rejects God, God (who is everywhere) is experienced only as torment. The combination of God’s omnipresence and the moral/spiritual distance of the damned from God is described in Scripture by the metaphors of fire and darkness.

In the second place, there is a big difference between what God does directly and what humans do in God’s name. Human beings harming or killing other human beings in the name of God is always corrupt and corrupting. It is never justified. Period.

That means that I do not believe that the OT laws on that point were in fact God’s fullest intentions for the human race. I believe that the OT laws reflect God’s genuine revelation of Himself in a way that people at that time were ready to understand. What I think you’re not getting is that many Christians, including myself, believe in “progressive revelation.” We believe that God is fully revealed in Jesus, not in OT law. OT law points to Jesus. In fact, many of us don’t believe that law, by its nature, can fully reveal God. God is personal and is most fully revealed in a person–Jesus.

This isn’t the same thing as the secular concept of “progress.” I disagree with the language of “civilized” vs. “uncivilized” which some posters have used. However, I also believe that Christians have taken a long while (and no doubt have much further yet to go) in understanding and living out the implications of God’s revelation in Jesus. In that sense I do believe in “progress” within Christianity. The fact therefore that medieval Christians treated unbelievers (particularly baptized heretics or apostates) harshly does not mean that it was OK, and it doesn’t mean that I am going to be unconcerned when Muslims continue to act this way today. Certainly it would be silly for me to claim that Islam is obviously false because of such “lack of progress”–perhaps there are simply implications in Islam that many Muslims have not yet discovered. But what does concern me is that revivalist, “back to the sources” movements in Islam seem more often than not to result in an even harsher version of Islam than the traditional version (the traditional version being pretty similar to–maybe even a little more tolerant than–the version of Christianity current in the Middle Ages). In other words, whereas Christians have almost unanimously come to reject the violence of our past, many Muslims seem to be going in the opposite direction. And the nature of Islam as a religion of law may have something to do with this.

Another word that needs to be said here: Christians continue to be extremely violent. Most of that violence is done under the aegis of the secular state. The drone strikes in Pakistan are murderous and morally indefensible. Religious violence for Christians sneaks in under cover of “respecting government authorities.” So we aren’t out of the woods by any means. However, it’s something that almost no Christians today would justify the killing of apostates or heretics.

Edwin

Although you present some very good discussions in your posts, but they are sometimes so long and you speak about so many different concepts at the same time that I tend to lose the point and get lost therein.

Allow me to go along with one of the points you raised. You said Christians believe in “Progressive Revelation” and I believe this is the key point in our discussion. There is a progress and you are going from point a to point b. Can you tell me exactly from where does this progress start and where does it end at? I mean, like, what changed from point a to point b and why?

 

[peace_at_last]

I agree; there are plenty of different interpretations of the Islamic belief, that’s why i’m curious what you believe specifically in regards to apostasy.

So if you don’t mind me asking; do you believe someone should be killed for leaving the Islamic Religion, or are you against it?

This is not a matter of ME believing someone should or should not be killed. It is not up to me to decide who lives or who dies. Only God can decide on that matter for He gives life whenever He wants to whoever He wants and He takes life from whoever He wants whenever He wants.

Regardless of Islam or the OT or any other religion, I believe that if God gives a harsh punishment for anything that he has labelled a Sin, I cannot protest it. If you think my statement is wrong then it would probably mean you deem it appropriate to protest God’s laws and if you believe my statement is correct, then you too will accept what harsh punishment God legislates.

 

[dronald]

This is not a matter of ME believing someone should or should not be killed. It is not up to me to decide who lives or who dies. Only God can decide on that matter for He gives life whenever He wants to whoever He wants and He takes life from whoever He wants whenever He wants.

Regardless of Islam or the OT or any other religion, I believe that if God gives a harsh punishment for anything that he has labelled a Sin, I cannot protest it. If you think my statement is wrong then it would probably mean you deem it appropriate to protest God’s laws and if you believe my statement is correct, then you too will accept what harsh punishment God legislates.

I agree that we ought to reiterate what God wants and commands. For example, I believe the penalty for sin is death; therefore any sin is deserving of death. However as Christians we have no right to carry out such sentences and therefore it is not okay to ever kill someone for any sin seeing as we all have sin.
But I don’t know if it’s been intentional or unintentional that you haven’t answered, I’m just wondering if a Muslim is a Muslim then leaves Islam if you have the right to kill said person? That’s all I want to know, and it’s a yes or no question.

Either Allah said you should or you shouldn’t kill said person. That is; take the punishment into ones own hands. It’s hard to get an understanding of what Islam teaches when the Muslims don’t directly answer the questions.

 

[peace_at_last]

I agree that we ought to reiterate what God wants and commands. For example, I believe the penalty for sin is death; therefore any sin is deserving of death. However as Christians we have no right to carry out such sentences and therefore it is not okay to ever kill someone for any sin seeing as we all have sin.
But I don’t know if it’s been intentional or unintentional that you haven’t answered, I’m just wondering if a Muslim is a Muslim then leaves Islam if you have the right to kill said person? That’s all I want to know, and it’s a yes or no question.

Either Allah said you should or you shouldn’t kill said person. That is; take the punishment into ones own hands. It’s hard to get an understanding of what Islam teaches when the Muslims don’t directly answer the questions.

I’m just curious, why do you think the penalty for sin is death? Are you saying this based on scripture (where?) or is it your personal belief?

To answer your other question: for the few sins that God has prescribed a worldly punishment for, it is not up to the normal citizens to impose this punishment on the sinner. It is up to the government and under very strict conditions which are most of time not fulfilled and are in most cases simply put aside for a variety of reasons.
So you won’t see me or anybody else running around after people trying to punish them using God’s prescribed laws or interrogating them to make them admit to a sin they have committed.

 

[SteveVH]

I’m just curious, why do you think the penalty for sin is death? Are you saying this based on scripture (where?) or is it your personal belief?

“For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 6:23)

We are speaking of spiritual death and only God can make that judgment.

 

[dronald]

I’m just curious, why do you think the penalty for sin is death? Are you saying this based on scripture (where?) or is it your personal belief?

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

To answer your other question: for the few sins that God has prescribed a worldly punishment for, it is not up to the normal citizens to impose this punishment on the sinner. It is up to the government and under very strict conditions which are most of time not fulfilled and are in most cases simply put aside for a variety of reasons.
So you won’t see me or anybody else running around after people trying to punish them using God’s prescribed laws or interrogating them to make them admit to a sin they have committed.

Fair enough. So you would say then that Allah’s law on apostasy is only whatever the government decides? So Allah is sort of bound by whatever the government comes up with?

Or does Allah have an official stance on someone who leaves the Islamic faith?

 

[peace_at_last]

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Fair enough. So you would say then that Allah’s law on apostasy is only whatever the government decides? So Allah is sort of bound by whatever the government comes up with?

Or does Allah have an official stance on someone who leaves the Islamic faith?

No. I am saying that for every law or punishment to be implemented certain conditions must be met (this true for every legislative system, religious or secular). These conditions are legislated by God and based on the conditions the Government can decide what to do (I am not speaking about any government, even the government that can implement these laws must meet specific conditions). There are even Islamic laws that the person who is in charge of executing, can simply put aside for whatever reason he deems appropriate (this too is based on God’s orders).

 

[Elizium23]

"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23)

We are speaking of spiritual death and only God can make that judgment.

Physical death too. It came into the world through original sin and Christ’s sacrifice destroyed it forever, in the sense that the righteous will rise on the last day and live eternally in the Kingdom of God. Therefore the physical death that we suffer due to sin is only a temporary penalty for the righteous but an eternal condemnation for the sinner.

 

[peace_at_last]

Physical death too. It came into the world through original sin and Christ’s sacrifice destroyed it forever, in the sense that the righteous will rise on the last day and live eternally in the Kingdom of God. Therefore the physical death that we suffer due to sin is only a temporary penalty for the righteous but an eternal condemnation for the sinner.

Wait, I didn’t quite grasp what you said. Are you saying that anyone who sins must be killed according to the law of God but since Christ sacrificed himself, no one is killed anymore?!