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

[SteveVH]

So you are telling me that if God decides that a sin warrants a harsh punishment you will not protest it.

By the way, God has already decided that “the wages of sin is death…”. (Romans 6:23)

That is why Jesus Christ was absolutely necessary. He also says: “…but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 6:23)

Peace.

Steve

 

[peace_at_last]

For precisely the reasons I said above. I’ll try another example from my culture and history. In 1960, it would have been extraordinarily gracious and merciful for a white man on a public bus to get up and offer his seat to a pregnant black woman in an Alabama city. He’d be displaying a recognition of her basic human dignity and honoring her as a woman dealing with the difficulty of pregnancy. Compared to others of his day, he’d be very morally advanced. Now that same man might react with wild rage if he found out his daughter was dating a black man. By today’s standards he’d be considered a bit of a Neanderthal. What changed? Our society came much closer in conformance to understanding the dignity of all people as created in the image and likeness of God to the point where we’ve overcome much of the absurd notion that a particular skin color might make a man worth less. We got there by allowing the revelation of God that we’re all created in His image sink into our souls. Without that revelation it’s easy to suppose that somebody different than me and that talks ‘funny’ is dumber than I am and worth less.

The harsh laws of the OT were the initial stages of revelation by which God revealed to man our need for His mercy and Grace. Of COURSE that revelation had positive benefits on humanity. Why else would God bother with us? We have nothing to offer him! He revealed himself to us for our benefit out of love.

P.S. Don’t mistake my example for bragging about American culture. We’ve also gone BACKWARDS in the moral realm in areas where people have outright rejected the truth of God’s revealed character. I won’t derail the thread with any of many examples.

So you are saying God revealed harsh laws in the OT to show man our need for His mercy and Grace. I believe our need for God’s mercy and grace is obvious and there is no need to reveal some harsh punishments to show this.

 

[peace_at_last]

If God decides I certainly will not protest. But we Christians have a way to discern whether or not the decision is really from God. Does it line up with what we have been taught by Christ? Forcing people to submit to one’s faith or die, or to extort money from them under penalty of expulsion or even death is not in line with the teachings of Christ.

That is the whole point: If God decides I will not protest. That is what I have been saying all along.

 

[SteveVH]

That is the whole point: If God decides I will not protest. That is what I have been saying all along.

How do we know what God has decided?

 

[dronald]

How do we know what God has decided?

Or how do we know that we’ve interpreted God’s words correctly, especially in Islam? I’m pretty sure there’s quite some argument over who is deserving to interpret history and which Hadiths are authoritative.

What did Muhammad truly teach and how can we be certain?

 

[peace_at_last]

How do we know what God has decided?

We know about Gods decision about how he wants us to act through His Prophets. Other than that I believe we know mostly nothing about His decisions beforehand (although I’d rather not use the term ‘decide’).

 

[peace_at_last]

Or how do we know that we’ve interpreted God’s words correctly, especially in Islam? I’m pretty sure there’s quite some argument over who is deserving to interpret history and which Hadiths are authoritative.

What did Muhammad truly teach and how can we be certain?

The same applies to Christianity.

 

[SteveVH]

We know about Gods decision about how he wants us to act through His Prophets. Other than that I believe we know mostly nothing about His decisions beforehand (although I’d rather not use the term ‘decide’).

Agreed, if we have the ability to accurately interpret what the prophets (assuming they are true prophets) have said. When the prophet himself promotes violence against those who do not submit to his teachings, however, we have a problem from the start.

I also agree that the word “decision” is not an accurate term to use concerning God. He does not make decisions. We should probably substitute “Will”.

 

[manualman]

The same applies to Christianity.

Protestant Christianity, maybe. Catholicism has rather a good case logically.

1. Jesus is a demonstrable historical fact by any reasonable standard.
2. The gospel accounts about Jesus are so many and so varied in location and so consistent that they are reliable historically about what he said. Nobody could pull off a fraud this thorough.
3. Jesus claimed in those gospels to be God incarnate, the messiah promised Israel, the Savior of man from his sins.
4. Jesus appointed 12 apostles and gave them authority to convert the world in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He specifically gave them authority to govern the church.
5. He demonstrated his bona fides by being executed and then rose from the dead!
6. Those apostles immediately started ordaining replacements when one of the 12 died and by order of Jesus expanded the apostolic office beyond 12 as the church spread beyond Israel (St. Paul).
7. That progression of apostolic office never ended and remains in the bishops of the Catholic Church (and Eastern Orthodox, but that’s a whole 'nother messy story).

Our faith doesn’t involve taking one guy’s word for it. It was handed to us as a gift from one who proved his divinity and instructed his church in what to do after his ascension into heaven.

 

[dronald]

The same applies to Christianity.

We’re all agreed on everything Jesus and the Apostles said. There is no, “well maybe he didn’t say that” like there is in Islam.

There are some doctrinal disagreements yes, but when it comes to killing others in the name of Religion because God prescribes it? Nope.

 

[peace_at_last]

Protestant Christianity, maybe. Catholicism has rather a good case logically.

1. Jesus is a demonstrable historical fact by any reasonable standard.
2. The gospel accounts about Jesus are so many and so varied in location and so consistent that they are reliable historically about what he said. Nobody could pull off a fraud this thorough.
3. Jesus claimed in those gospels to be God incarnate, the messiah promised Israel, the Savior of man from his sins.
4. Jesus appointed 12 apostles and gave them authority to convert the world in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He specifically gave them authority to govern the church.
5. He demonstrated his bona fides by being executed and then rose from the dead!
6. Those apostles immediately started ordaining replacements when one of the 12 died and by order of Jesus expanded the apostolic office beyond 12 as the church spread beyond Israel (St. Paul).
7. That progression of apostolic office never ended and remains in the bishops of the Catholic Church (and Eastern Orthodox, but that’s a whole 'nother messy story).

Our faith doesn’t involve taking one guy’s word for it. It was handed to us as a gift from one who proved his divinity and instructed his church in what to do after his ascension into heaven.

That doesn’t resolve anything. Both Islam and Christianity have different sects and every sect has internal differences in interpreting some aspects of the religion. That is obvious and there is no need to go into the details.

Agreed, if we have the ability to accurately interpret what the prophets (assuming they are true prophets) have said. When the prophet himself promotes violence against those who do not submit to his teachings, however, we have a problem from the start.

I also agree that the word “decision” is not an accurate term to use concerning God. He does not make decisions. We should probably substitute “Will”.

Like the teachings of the OT!

**We’re all agreed on everything Jesus and the Apostles said. There is no, “well maybe he didn’t say that” like there is in Islam. **

There are some doctrinal disagreements yes, but when it comes to killing others in the name of Religion because God prescribes it? Nope.

No you don’t and you know that very well. Furthermore, you have great differences on interpreting their words too. It’s all the same in all religions and simply saying “we all agree on everything” will not solve your problem.

 

[peace_at_last]

Not a single convincing argument has been given as to why you accept the harsh laws of the OT but jab at Islam for similar laws.

 

[dronald]

Not a single convincing argument has been given as to why you accept the harsh laws of the OT but jab at Islam for similar laws.

To be honest most Muslims whitewash Islam and pretend there are no harsh laws.

As stated before (and I don’t get why it’s not a good explanation) the Old Covenant was for Israel during that time to establish them as God’s people. Now we are all meant to be established as God’s people and are given the New Covenant.

Our New Covenant trumps your sharia law because there is no freedom with Sharia. If you had your way, Americans would be forbidden to drink, leave Islam, speak out against Muhammad (especially if it’s something cruel), etc. Although the reverse would be sin in Christianity, we do not harm others for such things.

 

[dronald]

No you don’t and you know that very well. Furthermore, you have great differences on interpreting their words too. It’s all the same in all religions and simply saying “we all agree on everything” will not solve your problem.

I explained the doctrinal disagreements; but I made clear that we are in agreement of Jesus’s words and the words of the Apostles. You contend this?

 

[peace_at_last]

I explained the doctrinal disagreements; but I made clear that we are in agreement of Jesus’s words and the words of the Apostles. You contend this?

You agree on their words but disagree on their interpretation, we agree on the words of the Quran but disagree on its interpretation. It is pretty obvious.

 

[Catholic_farmer]

Not a single convincing argument has been given as to why you accept the harsh laws of the OT but jab at Islam for similar laws.

If you mean accept as in use it as a model (as you do) then, no, we don’t accept it as a model for punishment. Jesus Christ is the New Covenant and we follow His teachings. I am certain you have seen the biblical quotes here many times, so I won’t bother to post them unless you request it. Do we accept the Old Testament writings as God’s Word? Yes. And the Word contains many different types of writings including poems, historical writings, prophets that predicted the coming of our Lord, and stories meant to teach us lessons.

Now, I have two questions for you.

If, by the admission of many of your faith, your prophet allows, and even encourages you to deceive your enemies, how can we trust anything you say? How do we know whether or not you are trying to deceive us?

Secondly, at the end of the New Testament, it is made very clear that there Age of Prophets is over. That means no more prophets will come before Our Lord comes again in glory. Therefore, how can your religion claim to have a prophet 300 years later?

 

[peace_at_last]

To be honest most Muslims whitewash Islam and pretend there are no harsh laws.

As stated before (and I don’t get why it’s not a good explanation) the Old Covenant was for Israel during that time to establish them as God’s people. Now we are all meant to be established as God’s people and are given the New Covenant.

Our New Covenant trumps your sharia law because there is no freedom with Sharia. If you had your way, Americans would be forbidden to drink, leave Islam, speak out against Muhammad (especially if it’s something cruel), etc. Although the reverse would be sin in Christianity, we do not harm others for such things.

The laws only apply to Islamic states with specific conditions. So you are free to drink in America no one is going to force anything unto you. Furthermore, there is no freedom in any law. Law means restriction.

Regarding the harsh rules of the OT: You believe Islam is fake because of some harsh punishments, do you not? Using that reasoning the OT is fake too. You keep ignoring this fact and act like hey it was so good of God to legislate those laws in the OT but if God does the same in another religion it is definitely not the law of God and that religion is fake.

 

[peace_at_last]

If you mean accept as in use it as a model (as you do) then, no, we don’t accept it as a model for punishment. Jesus Christ is the New Covenant and we follow His teachings. I am certain you have seen the biblical quotes here many times, so I won’t bother to post them unless you request it. Do we accept the Old Testament writings as God’s Word? Yes. And the Word contains many different types of writings including poems, historical writings, prophets that predicted the coming of our Lord, and stories meant to teach us lessons.

Now, I have two questions for you.

If, by the admission of many of your faith, your prophet allows, and even encourages you to deceive your enemies, how can we trust anything you say? How do we know whether or not you are trying to deceive us?

Secondly, at the end of the New Testament, it is made very clear that there Age of Prophets is over. That means no more prophets will come before Our Lord comes again in glory. Therefore, how can your religion claim to have a prophet 300 years later?

I didn’t say you must accept the OT as a model for punishment (although many people disagree and believe you must but I am not discussing that here and I won’t). I said you can’t label Islam as fake because of a few harsh punishments that you deem reasonable when they existed in the laws of God in the OT.

Now to answer your questions:
1-Our religion encourages us to deceive our enemy in a situation that they unjustly want to take our lives because of our beliefs? You see, if one can resort to non-violent methods it is encouraged. Is that the situation here? Are the Christians here trying to kill me here? And what did I say here to deceive you? Except for a few posts at the beginning of the thread both sides presented arguments that were based on reason not scripture? How can I deceive you using reason?

2-Where in the Bible does it say that there will be no messengers? And our religion didn’t claim a Prophet 300 years later. It is closer to 600 years.

 

[Catholic_farmer]

Rather than tell you that your religion was false because of the harsh punishment you use, I think it is more appropriate to say that we cannot use the harsh punishment described in the Old Testament because of Jesus Christ. There is an important distinction to be made regarding who should be punished and for what, but I will leave that to others.

Thank you for clearing up deception and when it may be used. That is reassuring.

I consulted my notes, and I thought Islam grew out of Arianism. If that is wrong, I apologize. I’ll take your word that it was closer to 600 years after the death of Our Lord (now that I know I can take your word ).

Concerning the evidence that the entire deposit of faith that had been delivered, here are some handy quotes from the New Testament (BTW, these also make it impossible for denominations such as Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons, both of whom claim revelations AFTER the time of the apostles):

Matthew 28:18-20 "Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And, behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

John 14: 26 “The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name - he will teach you everything and remind you of all that * told you.”

John 16: 12-13 “I have much more to tell you but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will take from what is mine and declare it to you.”

The first verse is a commissioning of the Apostles to go out. They have what they need to know. In addition, all of these verses make it very clear EXACTLY who will guide the Church: the holy Spirit. Not a prophet. Furthermore, that same holy Spirit will be with us until the end of the age (when Jesus returns).

(formerly known as “lutheran farmer”)*

 

[dronald]

You agree on their words but disagree on their interpretation, we agree on the words of the Quran but disagree on its interpretation. It is pretty obvious.

The difference is, is that Muslims hold the Hadiths as authoritative but differ on which ones; leading to different beliefs on what Muhammad said and taught.