Christian Beliefs, what are they?

Salam (Peace)

I guess I wasn't being perfectly honest when I said I don't imagine God. I think about Him but not with a particular form. To me He is God and He is infinite.
But I can't say that I believe we are like God because like I said earlier I believe that there is no one and nothing that is even remotely like Him. He is incomparable.

We are not like Him but we try to be like Him....yes I think I agree. For instance God is Merciful and we learn from Him and are merciful towards each other? I do believe this. Is this what you mean?

I think that in Christianity one is taught to love God and to believe that He loves us back unconditionally which is good because in Islam although we are taught this we are also taught to fear His Authority...not to be frightened of Him as though He is a monster but sort of like the fear a child has when obeying his mother ie. he knows his mother has the authority to punish him if he disobeys and he fears that but he also obeys because he loves her.
Maybe we are taught more fear than love, I don't know.

I am not an Arab btw (not that it matters).

Thanks again

Amatullah
 
Amatullah said:
Salam (Peace)

I guess I wasn't being perfectly honest when I said I don't imagine God. I think about Him but not with a particular form. To me He is God and He is infinite.
But I can't say that I believe we are like God because like I said earlier I believe that there is no one and nothing that is even remotely like Him. He is incomparable.

We are not like Him but we try to be like Him....yes I think I agree. For instance God is Merciful and we learn from Him and are merciful towards each other? I do believe this. Is this what you mean?

I think that in Christianity one is taught to love God and to believe that He loves us back unconditionally which is good because in Islam although we are taught this we are also taught to fear His Authority...not to be frightened of Him as though He is a monster but sort of like the fear a child has when obeying his mother ie. he knows his mother has the authority to punish him if he disobeys and he fears that but he also obeys because he loves her.
Maybe we are taught more fear than love, I don't know.

I am not an Arab btw (not that it matters).

Thanks again

Amatullah
Click to expand...
Ah' alan Amatullah,

In my faith, there is ONE who dared state that He is The Father, and the Father is Him, and the two are one, and the same. He took a human form, for our sake (which means He gave up his protective cover), He walked and talked some truly powerful ideas, and unlike others who run when the heat is on, He stuck to His guns, and they nailed Him to the tree for it. But that is when the wonder begins!

No one comes off a Roman Tree, in one piece. But this one did. Next thing you know He's making appearances here and there, but enough for many, many people to witness...(shock and awe, I think this is when that concept was invented).

No one rolls a stone away from a grave sight guarded by Roman soldiers who will die if they do not carry out their mission (let alone the fact that the average stone was over 4,000 pounds).

Women discovered the sight first (God is a sly God). Men better head up!

This makes perfect sense to me. Women are life, and men are the servants of life. Of course a woman is going to discover rebirth, or new life.

Men attempted to ignore the womens' declaration, then were berated for it...

The Bible kind of leaves that alone...

The Qu'ran kind of leave that alone as well...

Do you play chess Amatullah?... :D

v/r

Q
 
I personally believe that God is All-Knowing and therefore does not need to 'experience' to 'know' because that is a human weakness.
Click to expand...
I see this the same way you do Amatullah. God does not learn or become something to become perfected. He just always IS.

I guess when I say God is a spirit, I mean a BIG HUGE GIGANTIC infinite spirit, beyond total comprehension. Not a tiny little man spirit. But I feel we can still know God in certain ways because He loves us too and because He made us, so He would want us to know Him.

I believe that since He created Adam without a father nor a mother He is Able to create a man from a mother only, without a father.
Click to expand...
I am seeing this above the same way you see it also.

She said: My Lord! when shall there be a son (born) to I me, and man has not touched me? He said: Even so, Allah creates what He pleases; when He has decreed a matter, He only says to it, Be, and it is.
3:47
We are taught that he spoke when still in his cradle:


Quote:

But she pointed to him. They said: How should we speak to one who was a child in the cradle?
[size=-1]He said: Surely I am a servant of Allah; He has given me the Book and made me a prophet;[/size]
[size=-1]And He has made me blessed wherever I may be, and He has enjoined on me prayer and poor-rate so long as I live;[/size]
[size=-1]And dutiful to my mother, and He has not made me insolent, unblessed;[/size]
[size=-1]And peace on me on the day I was born, and on the day I die, and on the day I am raised to life.[/size]
Such is Isa, son of Marium; (this is) the saying of truth about which they dispute.
[size=-1]It beseems not Allah that He should take to Himself a son, glory to be Him; when He has decreed a matter He only says to it "Be," and it is.[/size]
[size=-1]19:29-35[/size]

That particular verse I highlighted does not imply that Jesus is already dead and has already been resurrected. It means that he was blessed on the day he was born, on the day he will die (because Muslims believe he was raised to Paradise and will reappear and eventually die because all humans are to taste death) and on the day he will be resurrected with all other humans.
Click to expand...
?I have two questions on this verse above. Was this written before or after the birth of Jesus? And the verse means the baby literally talked right when he was born or sometime when he was still a baby?

Below is one of my favorite scriptures to share with you. I hope you will like it too.
I see the LORD in these verses means God or Allah.

Psalm 27
1 [A Psalm of David.] The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the LORD is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?
2 When the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell.
3 Though an host should encamp against me, my heart shall not fear: though war should rise against me, in this will I be confident.
4 One thing have I desired of the LORD, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the LORD, and to enquire in his temple.
5 For in the time of trouble he shall hide me in his pavilion: in the secret of his tabernacle shall he hide me; he shall set me up upon a rock.
6 And now shall mine head be lifted up above mine enemies round about me: therefore will I offer in his tabernacle sacrifices of joy; I will sing, yea, I will sing praises unto the LORD.
 
Dear Amatullah (and all)

I hope everyone slept well last night. I just got up and read the overnight posts.

Amatullah, to not put too much emphasis on my "experience" comment. The purposes of God on earth are so manifold that I cannot list them (I'm not sure I'm even educated to list them) but the object-lesson of empathy, I think, was one objective - rather like I recall going to the doctor when I was young for my first shots - I was terrified and my dad held out his arm for the nurse to give him a saline injection in order to show me that it was surmountable - and of course my dad already knew what it felt like to be given a shot and he had told me it only hurt for a second but to actually see him get a shot with a smile on his face proved to my childish mind that what he said was true.

Among other purposes of God on earth was the example of how a perfect life could be lived and although I've never known anyone who accomplished it perfectly, the example is there for anyone to study and attempt. But, I'm pretty sure, the greatest purpose was the final sacrifice to reconcile humans to God.

I must confess, having seen many actions undertaken in my own times with "prayerful consideration" and awful outcomes, I am sometimes skeptical of some of the things that wound up in our New Testatment because I know that the best of people cannot help but let a little of themselves slip into their best work. But I do believe that the parables of Christ came through untainted so if you are interested in reading what comprises the best of Christian thought, I would try to get a copy of New Testament that has Christ's word printed in red and just read the red print. I began doing this years ago (it doesnt' take an hour to read everything in red) and it becomes pretty clear what Christ taught - and it becomes clear how difficult it is to do these relatively simple things - to love neighbors unconditionally, to refuse to defend oneself, to dwell only on spiritual things and accept that God will take care of the material things - virtually impossible but wonderful to strive for and wonderful to have a "safety valve" in the form of forgiveness when failure comes, as it inevitably does.

I hope all have a good weekend.


Tim
 
Salam (Peace)

Hi Bandit

?I have two questions on this verse above. Was this written before or after the birth of Jesus? And the verse means the baby literally talked right when he was born or sometime when he was still a baby?
Click to expand...
Muhammed lived after Jesus so this was revealed after Jesus was born of course. The Quran teaches us that Mary who had been instructed to have the baby in a remote place away from the people knew that they (the people) would be alarmed when they would see her come back with a newborn baby considering the fact that she was unmarried, but God assured her that when they asked her about the baby she should just point towards it and when she did, he spoke to them so that they would not doubt his mother. So the incident happened when she returned to her people which is not long after he was born.

I like the psalm of David, it is beautiful to read. Thanks.

Hi Tim

You say that one of the reasons why God lived on earth in human form is so that we have a perfect exemplar. I too believe that in order to reach perfection we do need a perfect role model to emulate but I believe for this purpose God chose special men (Prophets) who were our guides.

But, I'm pretty sure, the greatest purpose was the final sacrifice to reconcile humans to God
Click to expand...
I really don't know much about this sacrifice. Please enlighten me. Who was the sacrifice made to and what for?

Thanks for being patient with me.

Amatullah
 
Lord, Amatullah, you're forcing me to think! Let me see, regarding the sacrifices. If you begin with the premise that Christianity is the fulfillment of Jewish Prophecy, then you have to go to ancient Jewish theology to follow the logic. If you will get hold of either a Christian Bible or a copy of the Jewish Torah and scan the books Leviticus and Deutoronomy you will find a somewhat complicated system of sacrifices that were ordained by God for propitiation for various sins. There is everything from sacrifices of pigeons (I think - don't quote this) for the birth of a first-born son - and something about when a murder has been commited in a village and the murderer cannot be ascertained that something is done with a he-goat and it's turned loose in the dessert and it seems that unblemished lambs are used a great deal as sacrifices to God for forgiveness. Anyway, it is generally considered that these acts of sacrifice are only good on a one-sacrifice-per-one-sin basis which is to say that if you commit a sin today and go to the temple and bring a lamb and have the priests sacrifice it before God, and then you commit the same sin tomorrow, you have have to take another lamb and so on and so on. The logic is that the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross is a permanent sacrifice that superceded and ended the animal sacrifices. In the language of my particular Christian denomination, we use such phrases as "one full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice" and Christ is referred to as "the lamb of God" implying that God provided the perfect sacrifice in the form of His earthly self. Amatullah, this thing is so multi-layered I can barely hold in my head but the layer beyond this that the both the original sacrifice system as well as the ultimate sacrifice were and are necessary based on the belief that God cannot look upon sin or sinful people and that for a brief moment after forgiveness, we are in a state of grace to the point where God can deal with us directly (until we goof up again) BUT now (in a post-resurrection time), in Christian theology, instead of another sacrifice having to be made to atone for the new sin, we can confess the sin, lay claim to the sacrifice of Christ and, if in earnest, we can be forgiven and restore ourselves. THEN the layer below that is the definition of sin: presumably the only unforgiveable sin is blaspheming the Holy Ghost (which I don't even know what means and I don't want to know because I'm afraid if I find out I might actually accidentally do it) but sin, in the theology of my particular denomination, can be static or fluid - it is static in that there are specific things a Christian should not do and for which he should ask forgiveness immediately if he does it and then there is this fluid line of sins where a thing that is not a sin becomes a sin if it causes weakness or pain in your fellow creatures. Therefore, though having a drink (alchaholic) in and of itself might not be a sin, it becomes a sin if you knowingly do it in front of someone whose faith deems it repugnant.

I have a headache now - but it's good to have to revisit these things from time to time as it provides (temporary) clarity! I thank you for the opportunity to dig through old, long-lost lessons. But I surely wish a real theologian would get on this board because I don't feel competent in explaining this. I mean, I understand it to my satisfaction but I'm not at all sure that what I understand is legitimate Christian theology.

Tim
 
Amatullah]Salam (Peace) wrote:

Quran teaches us that Mary who had been instructed to have the baby in a remote place away from the people knew that they (the people) would be alarmed when they would see her come back with a newborn baby considering the fact that she was unmarried, but God assured her that when they asked her about the baby she should just point towards it and when she did, he spoke to them so that they would not doubt his mother. So the incident happened when she returned to her people which is not long after he was born.

Comment:

To me the import of this reference to the Babe Jesus speaking is another way of saying He had innate knowledge... There's a similar legend about the infant Siddartha speaking soon after His birth:

"Queen Maya gave birth with little mourn,

The humble Buddha from the path now was born;

The babe had golden skin with star glistening;

The destiny of the world was about to change.

9 His eyes were like jewels; he was fully conscious;

And already he had knowledge to talk, and said to us:

"I have been born for compassionate enlightenment,

To free all life in the world from suffering."

10 Little Buddha stood up and walked by the brook,

And there in each gentle step that he took,

A pathway of golden grass carpeted the way;

Lotus blossoms grew in his tiny steps, they say."

Source:

http://www.bactervira.com/WisBib_07w1/16BUDD_S_07w1.htm
 
Salam (Peace)

From what I have understood so far your belief with regards to the final sacrifice is:

God lived on earth in the form of Jesus and sacrificed Himself to Himself so that humans do not need to sacrifice anything when asking for forgiveness from Him.

Did I get it right? Please correct me if I am wrong.

to refuse to defend oneself
Click to expand...
You believe that Jesus discouraged self defence then?

Thanks :)

Amatullah
 
Amatullah said:
Salam (Peace)

From what I have understood so far your belief with regards to the final sacrifice is:

God lived on earth in the form of Jesus and sacrificed Himself to Himself so that humans do not need to sacrifice anything when asking for forgiveness from Him.

Did I get it right? Please correct me if I am wrong.


Thanks :)

Amatullah
Click to expand...
I had to laugh a little at the way you wrote this because I never heard it put in those exact words. But I think in general what you wrote IS, how most are seeing that. I don't see it that way because I believe Jesus was a sacrifice all by himself- outside of God. I see Jesus as a man with his own seperate entity who sacrificed himself to God and for the people. Not God sacrificing himself to himself.

But the way you worded it is what it would come down to.;)
 
I don't think any of us are educated enough to answer this friends questions.

Best thing to do although a little extreme is to ask a preist.
 
Amatullah, That is probably a very succinct way of putting it (though funny!) The point that was always made to me was that Christ was not the first time God had provided a sacrifice. Again, if you can find an Old Testament or Jewish Torah and look in Genesis, Chapter 22, there is the story of Abraham who was commanded of God to sacrifice his only son (as a test of Abraham's faith.) Just after Abraham had built the altar and bound Issac to it, God directed Abraham's attention to an animal (I think it was a goat) stuck in some bushes nearby and directed him to sacrifice the goat instead.

Trinitarianism is dicey: I think you have to be a theologian to understand it. My questions have always been things like: when one of the disciples of Christ asked to be seated at his right hand, I wondered how he could be seated at Christ's right hand when the Creeds say that Christ "sitteth at the right hand of God the Father" and (with Trinitarianism) it seems as though They should be One at that point. It is, I confess, beyond me to comprehend. In any event, there's more to this particular sacrifice as Christ rises from the dead after two days and then later ascends into heaven which, in my denominational vernacular, is described as "overcoming the sharpness of death."

RE: the self-defence thing: In the Christian New Testament, in the Book of St. Matthew, Chapter 5, verse 39: Christ is quoted as saying "But I say unto you that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." There are other examples. The main one that comes to mind is when Christ was praying in the Garden and the soldiers were sent to capture him and one of His disciples took a sword and cut off the soldiers ear and Christ restored the ear and corrected the disciple for having done harm to the soldier. So I gather from that that self-defence is not permitted within a pure or exact interpretation of Christ's words and examples. (I must confess, I've never followed that example exactly - that's difficult - it's all difficult.)

Your questions are very thought provoking. Your question about the sacrifice reminds me of a discussion we had in college (30 years ago) about the Trinity and what we were after then was an explanation for the Lord's Prayer within the context of the Trinity. It was essentially the same question you posed about the sacrifice but ours was more to the point of: If the Trinity exists, then shouldn't Christ be praying "Dear Me, here on this earth, hallowed is my name." The theologian who was directing the debate had an answer for this but I don't recall that it was very satisfactory. It had something to do with the Separation of the Entities whilst Christ was on the earth. But I have often observed that while it is assumed or taught that the Trinity is the three persons of God, unseparable and indistinguishable, we are taught to pray, in my denomination, all prayers directly to God and conclude that the prayer is through the merits and satisfaction of Christ. We never pray to the Holy Ghost or through the merits of the Holy Ghost. So, it would seem, that though the entities are inseparable, they have quite different function. I suppose that must be it.

Tim
 
Salam (Peace)

I know about the ram that Abraham was directed to sacrifice in his son's stead. It is mentioned in the Quran. That is not difficult to understand because the ram was not God, it was a different entity. Jesus according to some was God in the form of a man, which makes it difficult to comprehend the final sacrifice.

About self defence, would that mean that if say, a country was to attack another country to enslave the people and subject them to the aggressor's influence and laws the country attacked is recommended to surrender and accept defeat without a struggle?

Thanks

Amatullah
 
Amatullah said:
Salam (Peace)

I know about the ram that Abraham was directed to sacrifice in his son's stead. It is mentioned in the Quran. That is not difficult to understand because the ram was not God, it was a different entity. Jesus according to some was God in the form of a man, which makes it difficult to comprehend the final sacrifice.

About self defence, would that mean that if say, a country was to attack another country to enslave the people and subject them to the aggressor's influence and laws the country attacked is recommended to surrender and accept defeat without a struggle?

Thanks

Amatullah
Click to expand...

My view is that the morality at the time of Jesus called for passive resistence to the Roman occupiers... Jesus counseled His followers to go the extra mile and carry burdens when requested. Turn the other cheek if slapped and so on.

Those who raised up armed struggle against Rome were called Zealots and these were destroyed or dispursed by the Legions. In 71 AD Jerusalem was sacked and not one stone was left on another as Jesus had prophesied years before.

Many of the early Christians were in effect pacifists and some denominations such as the Quakers, Brethren and some others, such as monastics are still pacifist and non-Combatants.

When Christianity became the State Religion of the Roman Empire this attitude about military service changed.

The later works of Leo Tolstoy also called on Christians to renounce serving in armies and participating in public executions, i.e., capital punishment. Tolstoy's writings influenced the Nonviolent philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi and through Gandhi of Martin Luther King.

Unlike Jesus, the Prophet Muhammad was a head of state and head of an Umma or nation, hence armed struggle was justified as in say the time of Moses adn Joshua.

- Art
 
Postmaster said:
I don't think any of us are educated enough to answer this friends questions.

Best thing to do although a little extreme is to ask a preist.
Click to expand...
but Postmaster, the priests and theologeons are going to say the same things we are,:p just using big words that we have to go look up to keep us at arms length. Then when they are finished they say something like, "Just stay in the gospels. Everything you need to know is in the gospels."

I have watched them (the professionals) debate this stuff for days and it never gets fully resolved. Actually they have been debating it for 1700 years and it still does not add up the way Rome gave it.

Someone around here said 'Perception is everything' and I think that is true.

I am a Christian and I see God the same way the Jews see Him and the same way Amatullah sees him. One. all the time ONE. God was constantly telling the OT that he is ONE. The Apostles taught the same thing.
It was Rome that started the 3 in 1.

No matter what discussion someone has, it will always come back to Jesus as the focal point. And there is where we have to focus. On Jesus and Not God. When we can understand Jesus, then we can start to understand God a little better.

But it does not matter to me, because I love everyone reguardless of how they percieve Jesus. Wether they see one two or three.
I am glad I joined this thread because now I can see how another person is seeing God as ONE in a different religion altogether. It has been a blessing for me from the start.:)

The main thing is Jesus is the last sacrifice and he is savior and messiah for all who will recieve him. He is more than a prophet and we have to go through Jesus to get to God.

You guys can bang it out from here and have fun. Just keep loving each other.
Thanks again Amatullah especially for introducing me to the Quran. It has been a blessing.
 
Dear Amatullah,

Regarding the ram: at the period of time when the ram was sacrificed, it was only good for one man and one time. The assumption is that the sacrifice of Christ was good for all people for all time because of His superior perfection. But I think it is a good example of the connection between the sacrificial nature of ancient Jewish theology and Christian theology - the sacrificial emphasis.

You bring up a very difficult point regarding national defence. I was brought up to look at our only documents, the Old and New Testements, as a collective whole. If you do this, then you can certainly find many instances in Old Testament Scripture where God is directing the Jews to engage in battle and ordering them to capture cities: this seemingly in contradiction to the commandment "Thou shalt not kill." Christ neither defended himself during his accusation and trial nor would he allow any defence. But the salient point regarding a nation is: a "nation" as such cannot have a soul. There cannot be a legislative act that can accept the offer of Christian salvation on behalf of an entire country; it's a relationship between an individual and God that transcends national or family relationships. So a nation can go to war or defend itself and who shall be guilty? The collective nation cannot: perhaps the individuals who instigate and maybe - a very large stretch - maybe those who make up the personnel of the armies - but I don't think so.

A better question would be: if a parent's house was broken into and their children were in peril, is it a sin to defend the children even if it causes the death of the intruder? Christ certainly went to bat (verbally) for the disenfranchised in His society and times. Would He have defended someone's life at the peril of another's? Scripture is silent - such an event never occurred. I imagine He would have let the deed be commited and then restored the victim's life. That seems to be more in tune with His example.

There are certain denominations here whose Christian beliefs lead them to believe that they cannot participate in a war because they literally view it as murder. These legitimate sects are listed as conscientous (I don't think I spelt that correctly - spelling is not my strong suit) but they are objectors and they serve in times of war in non-combatant roles - medics and such. But history (world history as well as religious history) shows us that, sadly, war is apparantly a part of the human condition and we don't seem to have the wherewithal to stop it. So, if we are violating Christ's injunction to turn the other cheek, I suppose we must ask forgiveness.

But, the short answer is: following Christ's example, I am sure He would not approve even of national defence. The only tool he offered in defence was to pray for our enemies and consider ourselves blessed. In the book of St. Matthew, Chapter 5: He said "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake rejoice and be exceeding glad; for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you." I'm pretty sure He would not approve. I think He would question national allegience taking precedent over Christian duty. But it's not really practical so no one can really do it so Christ must be very disappointed in us, I suppose.
 
Amatullah said:
Salam (Peace)

I know about the ram that Abraham was directed to sacrifice in his son's stead. It is mentioned in the Quran. That is not difficult to understand because the ram was not God, it was a different entity. Jesus according to some was God in the form of a man, which makes it difficult to comprehend the final sacrifice.

About self defence, would that mean that if say, a country was to attack another country to enslave the people and subject them to the aggressor's influence and laws the country attacked is recommended to surrender and accept defeat without a struggle?

Thanks

Amatullah
Click to expand...
Ah' alan Amatullah,

You are a credit to your (people). You accept no comprimise. But you attempt to understand people who do comprimise, yet your unyielding consistency in not understanding this, frustrates those you wish to understand, and who wish to explain to you their way of life. You believe in "saving face" (one takes back one's own honor, and the other does the same). The Arabic language has no word for "comprimise", hence no understanding of comprimise.

You must learn the "western" concept of comprimise, before you can understand the western way of thinking.

I have read your posts with great interest, and based on my "limited" exposure to the world of the Arab man, think I understand, and believe I am right.

Oh when I say "limited exposure". I only lived in an Arabic neighborhood for about 18 years. That makes me a babe in the Arab world, but...from the mouths of babes...

Of course your natural response might be that we must learn the Arabic way of thinking.

Majority rules here. You first. :D

Ma' a Salam

Q

p.s. crash course in "comprimise"...you step forward, the other steps forward. You both meet in the middle. Both save face and both keep honor. Win win situation.
 
Salam (Peace)

Someone here said I should ask my questions to a priest and maybe if I get a chance to I will but in the mean time why is it so hard for you to try to explain to me what you believe in and why you believe in it? I did not come here to debate or argue, but to understand the standpoint of Christians.

Hi Tim:

I'm pretty sure He would not approve. I think He would question national allegience taking precedent over Christian duty. But it's not really practical so no one can really do it so Christ must be very disappointed in us, I suppose.
Click to expand...
Yes it does seem humanly impossible for one to just allow oneself to be the victim of an aggression when one does have the power to stop the aggression. And now this brings a new question to my mind...

God created us and none can know the creature better than He Who designed the creature especially since He is All-Knowing. How could He want and expect us to behave in a way that He must know is humanly impossible?

I'm really sorry if I am frustrating you but I need to ask someone if I want to understand.

Hi Quahom:

I had to look up in the dictionary for the word 'comprimise' and it isn't there so I'm just going to assume you mean compromise!

So what is this Western concept of compromise that you insist I get used to? :)

Thanks

Amatullah
 
"God created us and none can know the creature better than He Who designed the creature especially since He is All-Knowing. How could He want and expect us to behave in a way that He must know is humanly impossible?"

Thats kind of the point of Christianity. We know that its impossible God knows its impossible.. but the whole object is understanding that it IS impossible and we have to submit and rely on God to rule us. He gave us Jesus to deal with the impossibility of it.. we are forgiven our sins if we repent and we move forward and keep trying to live in a Christ-like manner with the help of God.
 
Amatullah said:
I think that in Christianity one is taught to love God and to believe that He loves us back unconditionally which is good because in Islam although we are taught this we are also taught to fear His Authority...not to be frightened of Him as though He is a monster but sort of like the fear a child has when obeying his mother ie. he knows his mother has the authority to punish him if he disobeys and he fears that but he also obeys because he loves her.
Maybe we are taught more fear than love, I don't know.
Click to expand...
Trust me.. Christians fear God. He is our Heavenly Father and he disciplines us like any earthly father would. He has discplined me harshly in my past but very lovingly.
 
Amatullah said:
Salam (Peace)

From what I have understood so far your belief with regards to the final sacrifice is:

God lived on earth in the form of Jesus and sacrificed Himself to Himself so that humans do not need to sacrifice anything when asking for forgiveness from Him.

Did I get it right? Please correct me if I am wrong.

You believe that Jesus discouraged self defence then?

Thanks :)

Amatullah
Click to expand...
Trust me... lol Christians sacrifice to God. We give the sacrifice of praise.. we give the sacrifice of a broken spirit. When we deny our worldly desires to please God we are sacrificing. When we fast we are sacrificing. We sacrifice when we spend our time in prayer and studying the word because he we are told to do it. We sacrifice our lives when we put him on the throne and obey him. If you are talking about a blood sacrifice.. then no we no longer have to sacrifice blood to cover our sins. Jesus accomplished that for us on the cross with the blood he shed.

Did Jesus discourage self defense.. yes he did if it involves hurting someone who hurts us personally.
We do have a defense though and this is it.

Ephesians 6:11-18 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14 Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God; 18 praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints--

That my friend is our defense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top