Question for Muslims...

[Sister_Amy]

Jesus was first and foremost a person that has two natures - God and man. In his human nature, he was many things - he was the son of a carpenter, a teacher and a friend. In the sense that he is a teacher, one can say he is a prophet too because that what prophets do sometimes. He also healed people and one could say he is a doctor.

Any of those attribute does not change the nature of Jesus.

It was a simple question. Was Jesus a prophet or not? And the answer is yes, he was a prophet according to at least all four of the Gospels which refer to him as such.

 

[Sister_Amy]

It makes no sense to you because you do not listen to what is being said by those who explain it to you. You simply make up your mind regardless of what the explanation is and go into a one way train of thought.

Just because I believe one thing doesn’t make me incapable of understanding something else, right? I’m pretty sure KathleenGee made that mistake a while back and I don’t think that’s what you meant to say at all. I think that what you said defies logic for anyone who really sits and thinks about it.

Nobody says Jesus in the middle or anything like that.

The three persons in one God are:
The Father
The Son
The Holy Spirit.

They are one but manifest in three persons. Even the word manifest may not be entirely accurate description in the theological sense but one can get the idea from that.

The second person, that is the Son, has two natures, the other being a man.

So what so difficult about that.

I think what’s so difficult about that is representing it graphically. How can One God with One Nature have Three Persons, one of which has Two Natures.

The first part is the regular Trinity bit, and the second part also has a name (I forget what it is,) and you’re just marrying the two concepts together. I accept neither, but even if we get past that part, the two don’t seem to make sense together even ignoring their inherent flaws.

I tried to draw a diagram, and I started with a circle split into three parts to represent the Trinity. Because so far Catholics here seem to agree that God has “one nature.” So the circle I called N^G, i.e., God’s nature. But then, one of these three persons has, according to you, two natures. Doesn’t that mean that God has two natures?

Oh wait…

God’s natures

do not change for God is not governed by time and space. To mankind in history, yes, in the sense that there was no Jesus (the man) before he was born but God was always there.

Do you see why I’m not following your logic?

Now on to the point in this paragraph–you’re the one who said that god was one thing at one time and another thing at another time. How can you now remove time (and space, for good measure) from the discussion?

[quoteThey are not created if that is what they are in the beginning. It is your human mind that keeps thinking that the ‘stone’ must be created.

Uh, yeah, because God said that He **created **the heavens and the earth. (And God created humans, too.)

I will be simple here. But people dies before their time because of the sin they committed.

Sometimes people are punished for their sins and die from that punishment.
But everybody dies. So it doesn’t answer my question. Everybody pays the penalty regardless of what they believe.

But nobody dies “before their time.” All their time is from God. Every last second.

I can understand if the words in the parenthesis are the explanation. No problem for me then. What I understand about abrogation is that the command was being abrogated later like null and void.

Can you give an example? The one I used is in my mind the best example of something that was abrogated. It’s still in the Qur’an–both the rulings. And the scholars know which one is which, so it’s not like Muslims are confused about which. And we can learn so many lessons from the first punishment, the final one, the change, the reasons for both. So many lessons. The situation of problems changes and so the solutions change. Shari’ah is flexible like that. One thing I love about it–not black and white.

I was talking about a God that never changes. I don’t see how it can square with that no matter how much we like changes.

To me, this is one reason why Islam makes so much more sense compared to Judaism than Christianity does. If God had one set of rules for people at one time, why change them so much? In Islam, there are changes for societies based on where they are, but the gist is still the same.

Why stoning is still practiced, BTW?

I’ve never stoned anyone. And I think most stonings taking place today are more or less miscarriages of justice carried out by the ignorant. (That’s just my opinion though.)

But why?

Maybe those crazy Muslims haven’t been convinced that imprisonment, beheading, hanging, death by firing squad, electrocution, lethal injection, or indefinite detention are better alternatives. What do you think is the best way to administer the death penalty?

If God commanded one or the other, wouldn’t you prefer it?
[/quote]

 

[thedarknight]

Try reading the Qur’an yourself. I think most of the posters here are more informed than you think, if you think anyone’s going to believe you on this count.

I am reading the Koran but very slowly. I am but a poor learner, and I must humbly say there are more informed posters on this forum than I am

I don’t expect anyone to believe me because each person has free will and the help of the Holy Spirit to discern truth. I am merely pointing out the discrimination in the Koran against non-Muslims such as Christians and Jews.

If what I said is in error such as my understanding of Sura [Chapter 9] verse 29 AL-TAWBA (REPENTANCE, DISPENSATION):

009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

Source: usc.edu/schools/college/c…n/009.qmt.html

which commands Muslims to kill Christians and Jews, please do correct me so I may gain wisdom and to remove this veil of ignorance.

 

[Sister_Amy]

I am reading the Koran but very slowly. I am but a poor learner, and I must humbly say there are more informed posters on this forum than I am

I don’t expect anyone to believe me because each person has free will and the help of the Holy Spirit to discern truth. I am merely pointing out the discrimination in the Koran against non-Muslims such as Christians and Jews.

If what I said is in error such as my understanding of Sura [Chapter 9] verse 29 AL-TAWBA (REPENTANCE, DISPENSATION):

Source: usc.edu/schools/college/c…n/009.qmt.html

which commands Muslims to kill Christians and Jews, please do correct me so I may gain wisdom and to remove this veil of ignorance.

I’m not going to do your research for you. And I do encourage you to actually research this ayah.

But I will correct one mistake in your post–the ayah says fight; it doesn’t say kill. And there’s a distinction between the two. But the rest you’ll have to do on your own.

 

[Reuben_J]

I’m not going to do your research for you. And I do encourage you to actually research this ayah.

But I will correct one mistake in your post–the ayah says fight; it doesn’t say kill. And there’s a distinction between the two. But the rest you’ll have to do on your own.

Perhaps that depends on the translation.

 

[Reuben_J]

It was a simple question. Was Jesus a prophet or not? And the answer is yes, he was a prophet according to at least all four of the Gospels which refer to him as such.

I told you he was many things. Yes, a prophet. Yes, a friend. Yes, a son of a father or a mother, Yes, a miracle worker. Yes, a teacher. That should answer your question.

He is NOT just a prophet, he is also other things as well. He could function as a prophet by virtue of the fact that he was an inspired teacher. But that’s not the end of it nor it is his sole mission on earth. We shouldn’t pick and choose - well, you should know that very well.

 

[Reuben_J]

I think what’s so difficult about that is representing it graphically. How can One God with One Nature have Three Persons, one of which has Two Natures.

Yes, that’s right. I am glad you get it. It’s admittedly difficult to present it graphically.

But we can never know God fully. We can explain it in a humanly way as much as possible. Similalry when we use term like father or gender like he. These can never truly fully represent what God is but we do get the idea. God’s grace will help us to believe deeper.

The first part is the regular Trinity bit, and the second part also has a name (I forget what it is,) and you’re just marrying the two concepts together. I accept neither, but even if we get past that part, the two don’t seem to make sense together even ignoring their inherent flaws.

I can understand that you don’t accept the doctrine. it’s not so much of an acceptance but understanding of it that we want in this type of discussion so that we can move on.

The Trinity is what it is as mentioned – three persons in one God. God is the same from the beginning. Humanity experienced God in these three persons and yet they are the One and only God.

I tried to draw a diagram, and I started with a circle split into three parts to represent the Trinity. Because so far Catholics here seem to agree that God has “one nature.” So the circle I called N^G, i.e., God’s nature. But then, one of these three persons has, according to you, two natures. Doesn’t that mean that God has two natures?

Oh wait…

I am trying to explain it simply. My fellow Christians here may be better at it but it may get more technical.

God is of one. That is why he is one. His nature is that there are three persons in One God. The nature of the second person of the Trinity is two natures – God and man.

Someone please correct this if it is wrong.

Do you see why I’m not following your logic?

That’s logic enough, is it not? Can God be a man if he wants to? We believe he can. That’s the logic about it.

Now on to the point in this paragraph–you’re the one who said that god was one thing at one time and another thing at another time. How can you now remove time (and space, for good measure) from the discussion?

God never change.s He is always the same ALL the time. At one time he becomes a fire in the bush, at one time became a man for thirty three years or so, but in all these it does not mean he stopped being a God. While he was a man or a fire, he is still God in heaven. This is the thing that God can do and we believe he can do it.

Uh, yeah, because God said that He created the heavens and the earth. (And God created humans, too.)

Heaven and earth were his creations but he does not create his own nature. Thanks, I hope that is clear now.

Sometimes people are punished for their sins and die from that punishment.
But everybody dies. So it doesn’t answer my question. Everybody pays the penalty regardless of what they believe.

But nobody dies “before their time.” All their time is from God. Every last second.

That statement is true, but very definitely we are not talking about that.

A person was killed as a punishment of his sin. Now if the punishment was not death, he might as well still be alive.

To me, this is one reason why Islam makes so much more sense compared to Judaism than Christianity does. If God had one set of rules for people at one time, why change them so much? In Islam, there are changes for societies based on where they are, but the gist is still the same.

No changes. I did not mention changes, in fact the opposite. What happened was God’s action in history with mankind which was only completed until the death and resurrection of Jesus.

I am not sure about Islam and I don’t quite agree with it. Your laws are pretty much antiquated which you still practiced today despite the changes in societies.

never stoned anyone. And I think most stonings taking place today are more or less miscarriages of justice carried out by the ignorant. (That’s just my opinion though.)

But why?

Maybe those crazy Muslims haven’t been convinced that imprisonment, beheading, hanging, death by firing squad, electrocution, lethal injection, or indefinite detention are better alternatives. What do you think is the best way to administer the death penalty?

If God commanded one or the other, wouldn’t you prefer it?

That’s the problem with humans carrying out God’s justice – the element of its miscarriages. We leave it to God what is God’s.

Probably people who object to stoning of adulterers consider this a moral sin and therefore it should be between God and the sinners concerned.

I would not go into this topic but merely commenting on your statement that Islam is cool because it changes the rule for people as societies evolved.

If you don’t do those things then maybe you are a heretic Muslim?

 

[Sister_Amy]

Perhaps that depends on the translation.

No. There aren’t any translations which say “kill” because the word means “fight.” The word for “kill” is a different word altogether. I usually use the website “quran.com” to check translations–you can type the ayah (9:29) into the search box and then check all the available translations. They all say fight.

The word, in fact, is قاتل, or in its plural command form, قاتلوا. And it means fight. It’s from the فاعل يفاعل فعال و مفاعلة family of words, and definitely means fight.

Whereas the word for kill, or the word which uses the same root anyway, is قتل يقتل قتل. And it’s command form in plural is اقتلوا.

There’s a pretty clear and distinct difference. It’s not a matter of translation, but really an absolute distortion.

 

[Reuben_J]

No. There aren’t any translations which say “kill” because the word means “fight.” The word for “kill” is a different word altogether. I usually use the website “quran.com” to check translations–you can type the ayah (9:29) into the search box and then check all the available translations. They all say fight.

The word, in fact, is قاتل, or in its plural command form, قاتلوا. And it means fight. It’s from the فاعل يفاعل فعال و مفاعلة family of words, and definitely means fight.

Whereas the word for kill, or the word which uses the same root anyway, is قتل يقتل قتل. And it’s command form in plural is اقتلوا.

There’s a pretty clear and distinct difference. It’s not a matter of translation, but really an absolute distortion.

What about if you fight to kill? Isn’t that what people do in a fight?

 

[Sister_Amy]

Yes, that’s right. I am glad you get it. It’s admittedly difficult to present it graphically.

But we can never know God fully. We can explain it in a humanly was as possible. Similalry when we use term like father or gender like he. These can never truly fully represent what God is but we do get the idea. God’s grace will help us to believe deeper.

You may “get the idea.” I don’t. And this sounds a bit like a… Like, yeah, actually our minds are too inferior to comprehend this, and it doesn’t make sense, but we believe it anyway. And if it’s impossible to understand, then why try?

I can understand that you don’t accept the doctrine. it’s not so much of an acceptance but understanding of it that we want in this type of discussion so that we can move on.

The Trinity is what it is as mentioned – three persons in one God. God is the same from the beginning. Humanity experienced God in these three persons and yet they are the One and only God.

How did humanity literally "experience “God in these three persons?” Did all three persons create humanity, or just one of them?

I am trying to explain it simply. My fellow Christians here may be better at it but it may get more technical.

God is of one. That is why he is one. His nature is that there are three persons in One God. The nature of the second person of the Trinity is two natures – God and man.
Someone please correct this if it is wrong.

That’s logic enough, is it not? Can God be a man if he wants to? We believe he can. That’s the logic about it.

Then I guess Christians might have a problem with that atheist question about whether or not God could create a rock too heavy for Him to lift? Ever hear of that one?

It’s kind of like saying God can do whatever God wants, even not be God. Which just leaves me confused, honestly. Blue screen of death.

God never change. He is always the same ALL the time. At one time he becomes a fire in the bush, at one time became a man for thirty three years or so, but in all these it does not mean he stopped being a God. While he was a man or a fire, he is still God in heaven. This is the thing that God can do and we believe he can do it.

Interesting–so you believe that God actually was

the fire in the bush?
And that God actually was a man for 33 years or so?

Or “part” of God?" Or one of his persons? Maybe the fire was a 4th person you don’t know about?

Heaven and earth were his creations but he does not create his own nature. Thanks, I hope that is clear now.

But He did create human nature. And if God, in one of his persons, does have a human nature, then he created that nature as much as that human, meaning that one of God’s person’s natures is created.

A person was killed as a punishment of his sin. Now if the punishment is not death, he might as well still be alive.

But some people are killed seemingly by accident, or by crazy people, natural disasters, disease, etc. And everybody dies. So even if someone isn’t punished by death, they’re still going to die. Even if they believe in Jesus.

No changes. I did not mention changes, in fact the opposite. What happened was God action in history which was only completed until the death and resurrection of Jesus.

I am not sure about Islam and I don’t quite agree with it. Your laws are pretty much antiquated which you still practiced today despite the changes in societies.

I think the laws of Islam are remarkably advanced, personally. Who’s to say what is more civilized? Americans have had many forms of the death penalty. Why is stoning a less preferred alternative? (It’s gruesome, and people don’t like to think about having to execute people, maybe?) What is the best way to execute the death penalty?

That’s the problem with humans carrying out God’s justice – the element of its miscarriages. We leave it to God what is God’s.

So if someone murders a person, then Catholics aren’t allowed to punish the murderer? Or even imprison him? Or employ any sort of penal measure? Do Catholics have an excuse when it comes to jury duty? Not allowed to convict for religious reasons?

Probably people who object to stoning of adulterers consider this a moral sin and therefore it should be between God and the sinner concerned.

Muslims agree. Which is why when a woman came to the Prophet Muhammad admitting to having committed this heinous sin, he told her that maybe she was mistaken. The adultery which is to be punished has to be pretty public–I mean, how do you get 4 eyewitnesses if it’s not in public? But adultery can do so much harm to the other spouse, can’t it? How can it be then just a “moral sin?” How can there not be justice when one person has become a victim like that?

 

[Sister_Amy]

What about if you fight to kill? Isn’t that what people do in a fight?

No. Read the ayah. It says when to stop fighting. Fight until… And hint, it doesn’t say “when they’re all dead.”

 

[thedarknight]

No. Read the ayah. It says when to stop fighting. Fight until… And hint, it doesn’t say “when they’re all dead.”

I am trying to understand the ayah (re: Sura 9, verse 29). I will post again:

YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

I see the ayah as an** either/or**:

Either the non-Muslim converts to Islam and pay the “Jizya” [tax]

or

continues to fight against the Muslims and die trying.

As we know from past history between Christianity and Islam (Battle of Lepanto, Battle of Vienna in 1683) there have been a series of fights.

Fights end with the loss of life, casualities.

It is interesting to note that Father Zakaria Botros speaks of Sura 9, verse 29 in this youtube video: Father Zakaria - Islam Explained at 1:29 min. He quotes the verse and then says, “I do not want to live low, or be killed. But according to that verse above, my only choice is to become Muslim.”

 

[Sister_Amy]

I am trying to understand the ayah (re: Sura 9, verse 29). I will post again:

I see the ayah as an** either/or**:

Either the non-Muslim converts to Islam and pay the “Jizya” [tax]

or

continues to fight against the Muslims and die trying.

As we know from past history between Christianity and Islam (Battle of Lepanto, Battle of Vienna in 1683) there have been a series of fights.

Fights end with the loss of life, casualities.

It is interesting to note that Father Zakaria Botros speaks of Sura 9, verse 29 in this youtube video: Father Zakaria - Islam Explained at 1:29 min. He quotes the verse and then says, “I do not want to live low, or be killed. But according to that verse above, my only choice is to become Muslim.”

Fighting has some pretty specific rules, actually. At least in Islam. Look into it.

 

[Reuben_J]

You may “get the idea.” I don’t. And this sounds a bit like a… Like, yeah, actually our minds are too inferior to comprehend this, and it doesn’t make sense, but we believe it anyway. And if it’s impossible to understand, then why try?

I did not say it does not make sense. It makes sense to me. I just don’t want to speculate on what’s not there like what you do.

We can never know God fully – do you know what is God fully? Is your descritption of God is complete that there is nothing left to say about God?

We know God as much as our human mind can understand him and that’s what we do.

How did humanity literally "experience “God in these three persons?” Did all three persons create humanity, or just one of them?

Yes, it is all in the Bible. Adam experienced God. Prophets experienced God. Disciples experienced God, maybe in different way but ti was God that they experienced. Some expereinced God as the father, some as the Holy Spirit and some as the Son.

Then I guess Christians might have a problem with that atheist question about whether or not God could create a rock too heavy for Him to lift? Ever hear of that one?

This does not arise because the God that we have is not like in this supposition. God’s creations are God’s creations and they can never become more powerful than him.

He is, is what he is, no beginning and no end. He was like how he was from the beginning. There is no creation of himself. He can become a fire if he wants to. He can become a man if he wants to. But he does not create himself. Since the Son of God is God, he does not create himself.

It’s kind of like saying God can do whatever God wants, even not be God. Which just leaves me confused, honestly. Blue screen of death.

In theory yes, there is nothing that God cannot do. You are a limiting the capability of God if you believe he cannot do what he wants to. But there is never a time when he is not God. When Jesus was a man, he was still God. That’s why the two natures.

Interesting–so you believe that God actually was the fire in the bush?
And that God actually was a man for 33 years or so?

Or “part” of God?" Or one of his persons? Maybe the fire was a 4th person you don’t know about?

This is explained in the quote above.

But He did create human nature. And if God, in one of his persons, does have a human nature, then he created that nature as much as that human, meaning that one of God’s person’s natures is created.

No, he does not create his own nature, duh. He is what he is.

But some people are killed seemingly by accident, or by crazy people, natural disasters, disease, etc. And everybody dies. So even if someone isn’t punished by death, they’re still going to die. Even if they believe in Jesus.

Yes, true, but we are not talking about this.

I think the laws of Islam are remarkably advanced, personally. Who’s to say what is more civilized? Americans have had many forms of the death penalty. Why is stoning a less preferred alternative? (It’s gruesome, and people don’t like to think about having to execute people, maybe?) What is the best way to execute the death penalty?

I think Christianity is more civilized but that’s just an opinion based on the laws of the two religions respectively. Maybe Islam is more civilized than American laws perhaps. You can argue that with them or your friends the atheists.

So if someone murders a person, then Catholics aren’t allowed to punish the murderer? Or even imprison him? Or employ any sort of penal measure? Do Catholics have an excuse when it comes to jury duty? Not allowed to convict for religious reasons?

There is civil law for this. No, a Catholic should not kill; he should forgive. The only time he may kill is when he has to defend his own life.

Muslims agree. Which is why when a woman came to the Prophet Muhammad admitting to having committed this heinous sin, he told her that maybe she was mistaken. The adultery which is to be punished has to be pretty public–I mean, how do you get 4 eyewitnesses if it’s not in public? But adultery can do so much harm to the other spouse, can’t it? How can it be then just a “moral sin?” How can there not be justice when one person has become a victim like that?

And the witness of a man is stronger than many women, right?

I don’t know Amy, all I can say is let God serves his own justice and not humans. We can never be perfect and if we don’t it will not be fair to the sinners. Many criminals are wrongly punished for the sins they don’t commit. The human witnesses can always conspire and those things happen in Islamic societies. You already admit there are miscarriages of justice – exactly because they are human beings who are not perfect. Only God is perfect that can carry out his perfect justice. Well, that’s another problem with Islam.

 

[Reuben_J]

No. Read the ayah. It says when to stop fighting. Fight until… And hint, it doesn’t say “when they’re all dead.”

But fight them until they are subdued, until they are humiliated and then force them to pay tax and when you collect it from them make sure they are in the most undignified position of all. Well, that’s not nice either.

To some people especially those who cry for “give me freedom or give me death”, the command to fight in Islam is infact worse than death. I don’t know which has less pain; to be the victim of Islamic fighters or die a swift death.

In any case that type of command contradict God’s and therefore not from God.

 

[elwill]

But fight them until they are subdued, until they are humiliated and then force them to pay tax and when you collect it from them make sure they are in the most undignified position of all. Well, that’s not nice either.

To some people especially those who cry for “give me freedom or give me death”, the command to fight in Islam is infact worse than death. I don’t know which has less pain; to be the victim of Islamic fighters or die a swift death.

In any case that type of command contradict God’s and therefore not from God.

i’m curious to know how your governments deal with ** criminal tax law violation **?

 

[mdrummer5]

So. Same God as the Old Testament, right?

I find it interesting that nobody’s adressed this (unless I missed it).

Amy pointed out that God was essentially ok with stoning. The response was “not in the new testament” which lead to the reply above. So I guess what I would have to ask is, are we to ignore the teachings of the old testament as we find it convenient for the topic of such a debate? Did the ten commandments not come from the old testament?

 

[FightingFat]

I find it interesting that nobody’s adressed this (unless I missed it).

Amy pointed out that God was essentially ok with stoning. The response was “not in the new testament” which lead to the reply above. So I guess what I would have to ask is, are we to ignore the teachings of the old testament as we find it convenient for the topic of such a debate? Did the ten commandments not come from the old testament?

Basically, Jesus fulfilled the Law. The Ten Commandments are broad brush strokes, pegging the outer limits, they do not define what it means to be a child of God, Jesus fleshed that out for us, especially in Matthew 5.

He specifically deals with stoning in John 8:1-11

 

[mdrummer5]

Basically, Jesus fulfilled the Law. The Ten Commandments are broad brush strokes, pegging the outer limits, they do not define what it means to be a child of God, Jesus fleshed that out for us, especially in Matthew 5.

He specifically deals with stoning in John 8:1-11

Thank you. So then the question is… God changed his mind… does He think his original view was wrong?

 

[Sister_Amy]

I did not say it does not make sense. It makes sense to me. I just don’t want to speculate on what’s not there like what you do.

We can never know God fully – do you know what is God fully? Is your descritption of God is complete that there is nothing left to say about God?

We know God as much as our human mind can understand him and that’s what we do.

Yes, it is all in the Bible. Adam experienced God. Prophets experienced God. Disciples experienced God, maybe in different way but ti was God that they experienced. Some expereinced God as the father, some as the Holy Spirit and some as the Son.

This does not arise because the God that we have is not like in this supposition. God’s creations are God’s creations and they can never become more powerful than him.

He is, is what he is, no beginning and no end. He was like how he was from the beginning. There is no creation of himself. He can become a fire if he wants to. He can become a man if he wants to. But he does not create himself. Since the Son of God is God, he does not create himself.

In theory yes, there is nothing that God cannot do. You are a limiting the capability of God if you believe he cannot do what he wants to. But there is never a time when he is not God. When Jesus was a man, he was still God. That’s why the two natures.

This is explained in the quote above.

No, he does not create his own nature, duh. He is what he is.

Yes, true, but we are not talking about this.

I think Christianity is more civilized but that’s just an opinion based on the laws of the two religions respectively. Maybe Islam is more civilized than American laws perhaps. You can argue that with them or your friends the atheists.

There is civil law for this. No, a Catholic should not kill; he should forgive. The only time he may kill is when he has to defend his own life.

And the witness of a man is stronger than many women, right?

I don’t know Amy, all I can say is let God serves his own justice and not humans. We can never be perfect and if we don’t it will not be fair to the sinners. Many criminals are wrongly punished for the sins they don’t commit. The human witnesses can always conspire and those things happen in Islamic societies. You already admit there are miscarriages of justice – exactly because they are human beings who are not perfect. Only God is perfect that can carry out his perfect justice. Well, that’s another problem with Islam.

As for witnesses adultery, the witness of a man is equal to that of a woman. In some other cases one might be more reliable than the other. It’s something frequently distorted by evangelists, though, so most non-Muslims don’t understand.

But anyway. I just wanted to thank you for answering all my (possibly annoying) questions about your beliefs. It was really interesting for me to hear your responses.