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

[dronald]

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.

I believe it’s false because it gets the history of Jesus on the cross wrong. But a good reason to accept Christianity over Islam is the higher moral values too.

 

[dronald]

So this just happened today:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=-N9JckT0PIY

I want the readers to understand that the umbrella these people are under (Shia Islam) is the same as the poster we’re discussing with. I’m used to more moderate posters here but this specific poster says that death for apostasy is permissible. This is Islam.

“Allah Akbar, Allah Akbar, death to America, death to England, death to the hypocrits” chanted by thousands in the presence of an Iranian leader in the open.

Enjoy.

 

[Contarini]

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.

As others have said, it depends on what you mean by “accept.” Only a tiny minority of Christians regards the OT laws as binding. Hence, it is by no means inconsistent for the rest of us to say that the Islamic acceptance of harsh laws gives the lie to the Islamic claim to be a fuller revelation. We follow the fuller revelation that came in Jesus. You reject that revelation and return to a religion of harsh law. That’s a very disturbing step in the wrong direction.

Edwin

 

[ptisme]

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.

That’s where the problem is. And that’s why separation of church and state is important. If someone kills someone, the government should get involved. If someone commits adultery that is between that person and God, not the government…

 

[ptisme]

So you think if the harsh laws were for a specific people and time they are justifiable. I don’t find that convincing at all.

The OT laws of eye for and eye no longer apply.

Matthew 5:38-48New International Version (NIV)

Eye for Eye

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Love for Enemies

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor** and hate your enemy.’ 44** But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven**. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.**

 

[ptisme]

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.

Once again, the “harsh laws” you speak of ended when Christ instituted the new law: Love one another (including enemies) as I have loved you… We are all God’s children.

 

[peace_at_last]

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”)*

What you quoted gives me an impression that is the exact opposite of what you were claiming. They are saying someone will come after Jesus.

 

[dronald]

What you quoted gives me an impression that is the exact opposite of what you were claiming. They are saying someone will come after Jesus.

The Holy Spirit.

 

[peace_at_last]

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.

Yes and the exact thing applies to Christians. Look at all the different sects and Churches. I find your insistence on this subject pointless for all your examples have a parallel in Christianity.

 

[peace_at_last]

I believe it’s false because it gets the history of Jesus on the cross wrong. But a good reason to accept Christianity over Islam is the higher moral values too.

And I believe the bible was distorted because it got the story of Jesus on the cross wrong and Islam’s moral values are higher. And we will end up with a pointless your word against mine discussion.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Yes and the exact thing applies to Christians. Look at all the different sects and Churches. I find your insistence on this subject pointless for all your examples have a parallel in Christianity.

No, it doesn’t. Christians may differ on doctrine, but we do not differ that what Jesus said in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the rest of the NT is what Jesus actually said. Therefore, we do not differ on whether what He said was authoritative. Nor do we disagree on which Scriptures make up the New Testament.

 

[dronald]

And I believe the bible was distorted because it got the story of Jesus on the cross wrong and Islam’s moral values are higher. And we will end up with a pointless your word against mine discussion.

Historically the crucifixion of Jesus is accepted, so my words actually mean something.

Islam kills apostates and you accept that, Christians don’t. Therefore Christianity is higher morally.

 

[ptisme]

Historically the crucifixion of Jesus is accepted, so my words actually mean something.

Islam kills apostates and you accept that, Christians don’t. Therefore Christianity is higher morally.

THIS:thumbsup:

 

[dronald]

No, it doesn’t. Christians may differ on doctrine, but we do not differ that what Jesus said in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the rest of the NT is what Jesus actually said. Therefore, we do not differ on whether what He said was authoritative. Nor do we disagree on which Scriptures make up the New Testament.

Thanks Per Crucem. I’m glad you got what I’ve been saying over again.

 

[peace_at_last]

So this just happened today:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=-N9JckT0PIY

I want the readers to understand that the umbrella these people are under (Shia Islam) is the same as the poster we’re discussing with.** I’m used to more moderate posters here but this specific poster says that death for apostasy is permissible. This is Islam.**

“Allah Akbar, Allah Akbar, death to America, death to England, death to the hypocrits” chanted by thousands in the presence of an Iranian leader in the open.

Enjoy.

You seem very keen on presenting a faith based on the actions of its adherents that are not necessarily based on their canonical scripture. Those people have a reason for chanting those slogans. They have a problem with the American and English government that has been Sc***ing them for the last 100 years. The hypocrites is a reference to the MEK armed terrorist group that was in the US list of terrorist groups up to a few years ago.

Hey look this is Islam! Well, hey look the inquisitions are Christianity!
You want to cut the childish game? Do I have to flood the thread with church sanctioned violence and brutality and present those as true Christianity?

 

[peace_at_last]

As others have said, it depends on what you mean by “accept.” Only a tiny minority of Christians regards the OT laws as binding. Hence, it is by no means inconsistent for the rest of us to say that the Islamic acceptance of harsh laws gives the lie to the Islamic claim to be a fuller revelation. We follow the fuller revelation that came in Jesus. You reject that revelation and return to a religion of harsh law. That’s a very disturbing step in the wrong direction.

Edwin

Harsh laws are not a basis for rejecting a religion. You know very well that the laws of the OT are much much much more harsher than a few harsh laws in Islam. yet you firmly believe in the OT is true but you reject Islam.

The attitude I am seeing is that some people here are putting themselves in the place of God and are claiming it is up to THEM not GOD to decide when and when not too legislate harsh laws. I see this:
God was allowed to legislate extremely harsh laws in the OT and we accept them BUT GOD is not allowed to legislate harsh laws in any other religion and regardless of the teachings of that religion we will reject that religion.

 

[dronald]

You seem very keen on presenting a faith based on the actions of its adherents that are not necessarily based on their canonical scripture. Those people have a reason for chanting those slogans. They have a problem with the American and English government that has been Sc***ing them for the last 100 years. The hypocrites is a reference to the MEK armed terrorist group that was in the US list of terrorist groups up to a few years ago.

Hey look this is Islam! Well, hey look the inquisitions are Christianity!
You want to cut the childish game? Do I have to flood the thread with church sanctioned violence and brutality and present those as true Christianity?

You might have a case if they didn’t shout “Allah Akbar” three times before.

Also, the Qur’an and the Hadith can be used to sanction such chants against Jews. The infamous, “The rocks and the trees will say ‘O slave of Allah, there is a Jew behind me. Come kill him’”

Inquisition? So Islam is still in the dark ages you admit?

 

[peace_at_last]

That’s where the problem is. And that’s why separation of church and state is important. If someone kills someone, the government should get involved. If someone commits adultery that is between that person and God, not the government…

Well guess what! The government doesn’t care much if someone has sex before marriage. Once you start having sex in the public the government will get involved. Don’t most secular governments have similar laws?

 

[peace_at_last]

You might have a case if they didn’t shout “Allah Akbar” three times before.

Also, the Qur’an and the Hadith can be used to sanction such chants against Jews. The infamous, “The rocks and the trees will say ‘O slave of Allah, there is a Jew behind me. Come kill him’”

Inquisition? So Islam is still in the dark ages you admit?

1-The ISIS shout Allah Akbar all the time. But that doesn’t mean they are acting in accordance with Islam.

2-Sources then we can discuss that hadith.

3-You claim Christ changed the world yet his followers changed not a little (the inquisitions) and still have not changed:
"President Bush said to all of us: ‘I am driven with a mission from God’. God would tell me, ‘George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan’. And I did. And then God would tell me ‘George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq’. And I did."

And you claim Islam is in the dark ages.

 

[peace_at_last]

No, it doesn’t. Christians may differ on doctrine, but we do not differ that what Jesus said in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the rest of the NT is what Jesus actually said. Therefore, we do not differ on whether what He said was authoritative. Nor do we disagree on which Scriptures make up the New Testament.

And we don’t disagree about the Quran and what God said to Muhammad in the Quran. Put the bible aside and you end up with a bunch of books and scriptures that you have differences on. Why don’t you understand that this discussion is pointless?