The Koran - Whos Read It?

[e36Adz]

That would depend entirely on how you interpret that scripture to begin with.

Very difficult to do, requires time and effort to study in detail. Dismissing it all and saying no we don't need this anymore, it's out of date, I know better so I'll do what I want instead... isn't interpreting scripture at all. Not saying anyone has done that, just so we are clear on that point though.

I don't think he was implying that at all, I think he was implying what I said. I'm sure he will clarify anon...

I don't think that applies to Squark however. I think you are misunderstanding him, or he is not explaining himself very clearly. Probably a little of both.

I'll have a read through the thread tomorrow, been out for a few hours and can't even remember who I initially replied too.

I'm writing a big reply at the mo, give me a chance

Will have a read of it tomorrow.

Squark said this:

"Our response, as Christians, to God's great love is to seek to and keep God's law and live a life of gracious compassion just like Jesus."

And I agree with everything he says there, but that is not what I responded too.

 

[Squark]

I am not saying anything complicated. I can quote from the Bible if you wish, but I have a feeling you will say that doesn't apply for one reason or another?

I genuinely didn't understand the point you were trying to make though.

Gods law is indeed perfect, Gods judgement is perfect, God Almighty is far above all things. Love for God comes from striving to follow a righteous way of life as ordained by Him, not by you, me, or anyone else.

God is indeed perfect.
I love God because he first loved me, the response to love is to love. I can only love God because he loved us first.
The righteousness I have comes from the gracious gift of God, it is not of my own making.
'In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be a propitiation for out sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another' (1 John 4 v10-11)
I love the word propitiation, it means a complete atonement, appeasement or redemption, to make peace with.

But to say you believe in God, yet you feel it is ok to do what you want, completely go against His laws because you know better, and you're saved anyway because you believe in Jesus Christ PBUH is nothing but delusional.

I said nothing of the kind.
I haven't been saved by God's grace in order to go off an do my own thing. I want to do what God wants, for me to live his way. To bring restoration of God's kingdom on Earth, because that is his desire, Jesus taught God's kingdom way on Earth and it's up to Christians to call that into bring by God's power.
In my own strength I cannot keep God's law, given to Moses, but Jesus fulfilled the whole law and was righteous, by grace he took my sin on the cross and gave me his righteousness, so that now positionally I have fulfilled the law.
'Now the law came in to increase trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace might also reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?' (Romans 5 v20 - 6v2)
I no longer want to continue in sin because I have been saved to life, I still make mistakes though.

Do you understand what the above means? Each person will be accountable for them self, the son for himself and the father for himself. No one else will be held accountable for what you do, you must account for it.

Christ accounted for my sin on the cross, he took it all upon himself so that he could gift me with his righteousness, just as I have already said. My soul has been made clean by Jesus blood, and his blood alone. The law demands a sacrifice for sin, and Jesus was that sacrifice.

'For while we were weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.' (Romans 5v6)
'But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ - by grace you have been saved.' (Ephesians 2v4-5)
'Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ' (Romans 5v1-2)
'There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Jesus Christ from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.' (Romans 8v1-4)

So you actually agree that you have to make your utmost effort to 'seek and keep Gods law'. Where do you get this law from? Do you make it up from the top of your head, or do you get it from the Bible, or elsewhere? I am honestly very curious to know.

My effort to seek to keep God's law (specificly the 10 commandments) is not what saves me, it is a love response to God.

Jesus was asked what is the most important commandment and he replied: 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love you neighbour as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets' (Matthew 22 v37-40)

That, and how Jesus dealt and interacted with all people, is all the basis I have, and need, for how to live God's way. Our desire as Christians is to seek to do things and to live God's way.

Following Gods law and His commandments, is all that we as human beings can attempt to do while hoping and praying that He forgives us for our sins.

In Jesus I have a certainty that through his death and resurrection I am forgiven. It is not through my own self effort at all.

Making up our own laws to replace His divine laws, and saying that Gods laws are outdated and need updating is making a mockery out of your religion and your beliefs.

I'm making up nothing, and taking nothing away from God, only taking what Jesus has declared and done for us all.

Anyway, what you have said above and what Squark said is not the same. He implied that because human beings are not perfect, and Gods law IS perfect, we do not need to make any attempt to follow Gods law. Is this what modern day Christians are preaching?

How did I imply that? I'm not even sure how you got the that conclusion. What did I write that made you think that, because it's not at all what I can see in my post? What Castiel said is true 'Jesus Christ offers him salvation regardless of his previous actions'.
We cannot keep the whole law, if we could we would be righteous before God in our own self effort. We can try, but there is no way that we can do it, so therefore the law condemns us. What we need is a saviour to make us right with God, a way to be free from the condemnation of the law.
Does that make it any clearer?

And I agree with everything he says there, but that is not what I responded too.

What are you responding to then?

AArrrrrrrggghhhhh too many jokes, can't take it!

I meant food, don't be naughty.

Ok I think that's everything for the moment. No doubt other things/questions will come up.

 

[NickK]

It is the hypocritical aspect of some so-called religious people that gets to me, as I simply cannot understand why they would even choose to belong to that faith if they do not believe a single thing that the religion actually teaches. That does not mean interpreting it in a different way, it means going directly against everything it stands for. It makes no sense at all and I think even you would struggle to explain it, but by all means feel free to do so.

1. "teach" - a human aspect that incurs interpretation on the teacher and the taught.

2. "That does not mean interpreting it in a different way, it means going directly against everything it stands for." - however what it stands for is an interpretation and is based on teaching (see point 1) which results in interpretation.

The semantics that all religion argument is founded on is the notion built from truth (the formal logical definition of true) rather than the arguments supporting the truth. One you start from false the arguments cannot build to the conclusion that it is, indeed, the truth.

Given the argument that religion is flawed, the response is usually that it is flawed because humans are flawed thus all human teachings of the religion are flawed - including that god exists.

So without teaching - tell me what you know to be true about your religion.

It's interesting to take a back seat and research religion and explore them - I did this for part of a book I'm putting together. I needed to understand more about shamanic religions, thus looked around - including witchcraft. Traditional Witches (not wikka) - the path is not taught. There are no teachers - infact the idea of teaching is rejected and this the belief structure is entirely up to the individual. The idea of freedom of thought is a fundamental reason why they're demonised by taught religion (Christianity, Islam etc).

 

[RDM]

What was the need for that?

It is pretty much the truth isn't it? Do you or do you not believe that Christianity is inferior to Islam?

Isn't the standard thought in Islam that it is the only true message from God and that Christianity and Judaism are on the right lines but the message has become corrupted?

 

[e36Adz]

I genuinely didn't understand the point you were trying to make though.

Sorry for not responding last night, was too tired so I've had a look back through this thread this morning. I made this comment below in reply to someone else and your response to it is also below...

Many things that Christianity forbids and condemns are taking place freely and openly now, and just because the vast majority of Christians convince themselves it's ok, quite a fair amount know it isnt.

...those issues do not define Christianity in any way, shape or form, only the belief that Jesus died once for sin, was raised to life and that he is Lord.

From the above statement, you made it sound as though actions and intentions are completely irrelevant as long as a person holds that belief, that "Jesus died once for sin, was raised to life and that he is Lord." If that is not what you meant, I apologise, but it still sounds as though what you are saying there is that Christianity is not defined by any practice or way of life, by obeying Gods law, but rather by holding one belief and that is sufficient.

God is indeed perfect.
I love God because he first loved me, the response to love is to love. I can only love God because he loved us first.
The righteousness I have comes from the gracious gift of God, it is not of my own making.
'In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be a propitiation for out sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another' (1 John 4 v10-11)
I love the word propitiation, it means a complete atonement, appeasement or redemption, to make peace with.

You mention the word 'love' many times here. True love is accompanied by actions, eg. a person who loves their children will normally show that in their actions by providing for them, taking care of them, protecting them etc. Just by repeating the word love, I am sure you will agree doesn't make it so, it is something which resides in a persons heart therefore only they themselves really know if the feeling is genuine and as I pointed out, it is normally accompanied by certain actions. Love for God, is following Gods law to the best of your abilities. Love for God is standing up for right, and speaking out against wrong REGARDLESS of what mainstream society is telling you. Love for God is certainly not deciding that Gods word is out of date therefore it needs an updated version to suit people as they are now. Do you agree with what I am saying here or disagree?

The opposite of love is hate.

6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
6:17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
6:18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
6:19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren. (Proverbs 6:16-19)

There are certain things which God hates, and I can show more verses from the Bible to highlight this, so those people who break His laws openly and freely and still claim they love God are deluding themselves. Do you disagree with this? Infact, everything that I have been trying to say above, the Bible says so clearly in just one line...

Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. (Romans 13:10)

"Love is the fulfilling of the law." Love is not going around telling people you love God, it is fulfilling the law. Actions are required and although no human being can follow Gods law perfectly, it does not mean we completely give up and decide its not necessary.

I said nothing of the kind.
I haven't been saved by God's grace in order to go off an do my own thing. I want to do what God wants, for me to live his way. To bring restoration of God's kingdom on Earth, because that is his desire, Jesus taught God's kingdom way on Earth and it's up to Christians to call that into bring by God's power.
In my own strength I cannot keep God's law, given to Moses, but Jesus fulfilled the whole law and was righteous, by grace he took my sin on the cross and gave me his righteousness, so that now positionally I have fulfilled the law.
'Now the law came in to increase trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace might also reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?' (Romans 5 v20 - 6v2)
I no longer want to continue in sin because I have been saved to life, I still make mistakes though.

You didn't say it in such words, but when I re-iterated that fact to someone else you were quick to respond and say

...those issues do not define Christianity in any way, shape or form, only the belief that Jesus died once for sin, was raised to life and that he is Lord.

Although I accept you did not mean this gives anyone the free right to do what they want without consequence.

Again though, in regards to following Gods law, you are saying in your own strength you cannot, I would have to say you can to a certain extent, everyone can. Can then do it perfectly without sin? Absolutely not, but they can devote time and effort to dedicate themselves to living as righteous a way of life as possible, as ordained by God. As human beings, that is all we can do, and when we do sin we are also told we must repent sincerely. I don't actually think you are disagreeing with me here though.

Christ accounted for my sin on the cross, he took it all upon himself so that he could gift me with his righteousness, just as I have already said. My soul has been made clean by Jesus blood, and his blood alone. The law demands a sacrifice for sin, and Jesus was that sacrifice.

'For while we were weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.' (Romans 5v6)
'But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ - by grace you have been saved.' (Ephesians 2v4-5)
'Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ' (Romans 5v1-2)
'There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Jesus Christ from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.' (Romans 8v1-4)

So then what if you have a murdering rapist who also says he loves Jesus Christ PBUH. His actions are everything but christian, yet he says Jesus PBUH died for his sins? Do you agree or disagree with the following:

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. (Ezekiel 18:20)

What does the above verse mean to you? Just curious as to how you interpret it.

My effort to seek to keep God's law (specificly the 10 commandments) is not what saves me, it is a love response to God.

Jesus was asked what is the most important commandment and he replied: 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love you neighbour as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets' (Matthew 22 v37-40)

That, and how Jesus dealt and interacted with all people, is all the basis I have, and need, for how to live God's way. Our desire as Christians is to seek to do things and to live God's way.

As I already explained above and then confirmed from the Bible, love for God is following his laws which you agree with. Where do you personally get Gods law from? Is it something you get from someone else, do you use your own judgement to decide whats right and wrong, or do you use the Bible for guidance? What if your personal judgement on right and wrong conflicts with what the Bible is saying, what do you go with?

Sorry for so many questions but this will basically get at what I've been trying to say from the start. Just so you can have some idea on how I personally view things, I also believe in God, I also believe we will die and face judgement. I however also believe that God is sovereign, His law comes above all other law. If I ever feel a certain action of mine is right, and the Quran or Hadith (example of the prophet PBUH) suggests otherwise, I would at least accept that I was wrong. I will never, for as long as I live, try to replace what I believe to be Gods law for something inferior nor would I accept a sin to be 'perfectly normal' if mainstream society starts telling me that it is. As someone who believe in God, I hope you can see my point of view.

In Jesus I have a certainty that through his death and resurrection I am forgiven. It is not through my own self effort at all.

I'm making up nothing, and taking nothing away from God, only taking what Jesus has declared and done for us all.

How did I imply that? I'm not even sure how you got the that conclusion. What did I write that made you think that, because it's not at all what I can see in my post? What Castiel said is true 'Jesus Christ offers him salvation regardless of his previous actions'.
We cannot keep the whole law, if we could we would be righteous before God in our own self effort. We can try, but there is no way that we can do it, so therefore the law condemns us. What we need is a saviour to make us right with God, a way to be free from the condemnation of the law.
Does that make it any clearer?

What are you responding to then?

I think I've already answered this now.

 

[e36Adz]

It is pretty much the truth isn't it? Do you or do you not believe that Christianity is inferior to Islam?

Isn't the standard thought in Islam that it is the only true message from God and that Christianity and Judaism are on the right lines but the message has become corrupted?

The exact same could be said of Judaism though, don't they believe Christians and Muslims have it wrong? Or of Christianity, don't Christians believe that Jews and Muslims have it wrong? Islam at least recognises the others as being true and from God, at their respective times.

That's one huge difference about Islam, it came to confirm everything that came before it. Islam confirms that Moses PBUH was indeed a prophet of God, and that Jesus Christ PBUH was indeed a prophet of God, that he was born miraculously without male intervention, that he was indeed raised up and that he is indeed a 'sign of the hour'. Those who reject Muhammed PBUH as a prophet and have therefore, rejected his message - I believe will not be able to recognise Jesus Christ PBUH when he returns because most of modern day Christianity is now worshipping a white man with blonde hair and blue eyes. Idol worship is something the Bible forbids. Can you imagine is Jesus Christ PBUH is brown skinned with dark hair and brown eyes? Christians/Muslims have also been warned of a liar who will emerge claiming to be God, now you tell me, do muslims worship a man as god or do christians? Who is more likely to be deceived by this false messiah? Sorry you don't need to answer any of that I know you don't believe it anyway.

 

[Castiel]

Do you agree or disagree with the following:

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. (Ezekiel 18:20)

What does the above verse mean to you? Just curious as to how you interpret it.

Ezekiel is in the Old Testament and as such is part of the Old Covenant, Squark is not beholden to the laws of the Old Covenant as he is a Christian, he is only beholden to the teachings of the New Testament and the New Covenant, so you would have to use the New Testament to get any real feeling for what Squark feels is Gods Law and how that impacts on his belief.

This difference between covenants is something I have found many of non-Christian religions don't quite get a handle on, and Muslims in particular do not seem to comprehend that Christianity doesn't have the Iman in the literal words of their Scripture that Muslims do in the Qur'an, their faith is based, not on what the Qur'an and the Hadith tell them to do, but in their personal relationship with the teachings and work of Jesus Christ.

There is a major difference in how Christians and Muslims see their respective faith. Muslims believe in submission and obedience, in other words the complete submission to the will of God.

Christians do not (generally) share this view of faith, They see faith as an act of trust and reliance on the teachings and lessons within the works of Christ as put forward in the Gospels. It is more about personal growth and understanding of the scriptures within the personal experience of the Believer.

I think this difference is something that you are not considering when trying to understand how Squark views his Christian faith and the responsibilities he feels he has under that faith.

They are not the same as those, you as a Muslim are obligated to follow.

 

[Squark]

...so you would have to use the New Testament to get any real feeling for what Squark feels is Gods Law and how that impacts on his belief.

Which is actually what I was seeking to do with my Bible quotations

 

[e36Adz]

Castiel, from your experience how do such Christians then respond when they themselves confirm (or do they?) that Jesus Christ PBUH would himself have been following Old Testament. Do they feel it is permissible to disregard or in some cases go completely against, what he himself PBUH would have practiced?

 

[[TW]Fox]

They are the vain desires of sinners

Can you just clarify - homosexuality is the vain desire of a sinner?!

 

[e36Adz]

Can you just clarify - homosexuality is the vain desire of a sinner?!

You seemed to have removed a fair bit of that post where I did explain what I mean, and here it is again and also what I was replying too.

Anyway those issues do not define Christianity in any way, shape or form, only the belief that Jesus died once for sin, was raised to life and that he is Lord.

They are the vain desires of sinners, that you can do as you please but as long as you believe in one thing you'll be fine. What then is the purpose of Gods law, if as you say it doesn't mean anything at all? In reality what has happened, as has happened before I should add, is man has changed Gods laws to suit his own desires and in order to justify his own sins which violates Gods law, and instead of actually saying we will not follow Gods law you prefer to say it can be changed and adapted to suit people. You have in essence replaced Gods laws with your own thus making yourself a god.

God states such and such is a sin. Man decides he likes to do such and such and decides for himself its ok. Man then says it doesn't matter what God said, we can still do what we want and still follow God. If such a person doesn't believe in God in the first place, it is irrelevant.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

In school you should have learned it is spelt with a Q.

And what should you have learned in school?

 

[trigger-happy]

And what should you have learned in school?

no srsly, its spelt with a Q. It was like that when I was in school - R.E.

 

[Castiel]

Castiel, from your experience how do such Christians then respond when they themselves confirm (or do they?) that Jesus Christ PBUH would himself have been following Old Testament. Do they feel it is permissible to disregard or in some cases go completely against, what he himself PBUH would have practiced?

I think that you will find that Christ himself although a Jew was reborn when he was Baptised by John the Baptist, after which he began his own Ministry, rather than that of the Judaism practised at the time and as such the teachings that Christianity follow have little to do with Moses or his laws even if Christ was Jewish himself.

The next day he saw Jesus coming towards him and declared, ‘Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30This is he of whom I said, “After me comes a man who ranks ahead of me because he was before me.” 31I myself did not know him; but I came baptising with water for this reason, that he might be revealed to Israel.’ 32And John testified, ‘I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. 33I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptise with water said to me, “He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain is the one who baptises with the Holy Spirit.”

Paul of Tarsus in his letters to the Galatians wrote:

16yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law.

which is one of the passages from where Christians derive their Salvation through Christ doctrine.

The main issue however is that the New Covenant is a Hebrew and not a Christian concept, Christians simply believe that Jesus Christ was the Messiah which bought about the New Covenant, thus replacing the Old Covenant and depending upon the denomination of Christianity much of the Old testament became nothing more than a tool to understand their faith better rather than Gods Law to be followed.

8 God finds fault with them when he says:

‘The days are surely coming, says the Lord,
when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah;

9 not like the covenant that I made with their ancestors,
on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt;
for they did not continue in my covenant,
and so I had no concern for them, says the Lord.

10 This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
after those days, says the Lord:
I will put my laws in their minds,
and write them on their hearts,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.

11 And they shall not teach one another
or say to each other, “Know the Lord”,
for they shall all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.

12 For I will be merciful towards their iniquities,
and I will remember their sins no more.’

The difference between Jews and Christians is that Christians believe Christ was the Messiah in fulfilment of the Old Covenant, and Jews do not.

Which is why Early Christians were referred to as Messianic Jews (not to be confused with the modern Jewish sect started in the 1960's) by the Romans.



However, with respect, You could argue the same for Muhammed, that he wasn't a Muslim to begin with, he was a polytheist pagan by today's standards until at least the age of 40 and his first encounter with Gabriel.

Does that mean that as a Muslim you should accept polytheists idolatry and the practises that surrounded Arab Animism simply because your Prophet followed that faith prior to founding Islam?....of course it doesn't because he founded a new ministry on the authority of God through Gabriel, much like Christians believe that Jesus did in fulfilment of the Covenant given to Moses upon his Baptism and then reinforced by his sacrifice and resurrection.

 

[Squark]

From the above statement, you made it sound as though actions and intentions are completely irrelevant as long as a person holds that belief, that "Jesus died once for sin, was raised to life and that he is Lord." If that is not what you meant, I apologise, but it still sounds as though what you are saying there is that Christianity is not defined by any practice or way of life, by obeying Gods law, but rather by holding one belief and that is sufficient.

I was making a simple point that those issues you mentioned were nothing new and as such they were problems encountered by the early Church too. I certainly wasn't trying to legitimise them.

You mention the word 'love' many times here. True love is accompanied by actions, eg. a person who loves their children will normally show that in their actions by providing for them, taking care of them, protecting them etc. Just by repeating the word love, I am sure you will agree doesn't make it so, it is something which resides in a persons heart therefore only they themselves really know if the feeling is genuine and as I pointed out, it is normally accompanied by certain actions. Love for God, is following Gods law to the best of your abilities. Love for God is standing up for right, and speaking out against wrong REGARDLESS of what mainstream society is telling you. Love for God is certainly not deciding that Gods word is out of date therefore it needs an updated version to suit people as they are now. Do you agree with what I am saying here or disagree?

I was talking of love mainly within the context of 1 Corinthians 14 v4-13 (Love is patient and kind...) but also as explained through the New Testament, as giving praise and honour to God and seeing people from God's perspective and treating people in grace and truth, just as Jesus did.
It is not just a nice feeling but expressed through our actions towards those around us. I don't think I would ever say that God's word is out of date.

There are certain things which God hates, and I can show more verses from the Bible to highlight this, so those people who break His laws openly and freely and still claim they love God are deluding themselves. Do you disagree with this? Infact, everything that I have been trying to say above, the Bible says so clearly in just one line...

God cannot abide sin at all, any sin separates us from God. But in his gracious mercy he provided the way for us to be fully cleansed from sin, by Jesus blood, so that we are no longer separated from Himself.
The more we take hold of Jesus teaching and his sacrifice and God's kingdom to heart the more our desire to sin diminishes, and the more we become like him. There is still a struggle between the 'old self' and the new in Christ.

Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. (Romans 13:10)

"Love is the fulfilling of the law." Love is not going around telling people you love God, it is fulfilling the law. Actions are required and although no human being can follow Gods law perfectly, it does not mean we completely give up and decide its not necessary.

I think we're reading the same passage with different emphasis, from the context of Jesus, I read it that love towards our neighbour is the fulfilment of what the law wants, rather than (as I think you read it) that fulfilling the law is love.

Again though, in regards to following Gods law, you are saying in your own strength you cannot, I would have to say you can to a certain extent, everyone can. Can then do it perfectly without sin? Absolutely not, but they can devote time and effort to dedicate themselves to living as righteous a way of life as possible, as ordained by God. As human beings, that is all we can do, and when we do sin we are also told we must repent sincerely. I don't actually think you are disagreeing with me here though.

In my own strength I cannot WHOLLY fulfil the law, I may be able to keep parts of it at different times. But as the Bible says, if I have broken just one part of the law then I am guilty of all of it. I can seek to live as good a life as possible, but that in itself is unable to make righteous before God. But Jesus brings forgiveness from the guilt of breaking the law and acceptance by God.

So then what if you have a murdering rapist who also says he loves Jesus Christ PBUH. His actions are everything but Christian, yet he says Jesus PBUH died for his sins?

Murdering rapist can become Christians, in accepting that Jesus is Lord and died for sin so that we can be made clean.
True love of God brings about change for the better in that persons life.
I'm not saying that there aren't people who call themselves Christians whose lives and actions betray the fact they have no real living faith in Jesus.

What does the above verse mean to you? Just curious as to how you interpret it.

As I had already said, Jesus has already already fully accounted for sin on the cross, and only through that I stand forgiven.

As I already explained above and then confirmed from the Bible, love for God is following his laws which you agree with. Where do you personally get Gods law from? Is it something you get from someone else, do you use your own judgement to decide whats right and wrong, or do you use the Bible for guidance? What if your personal judgement on right and wrong conflicts with what the Bible is saying, what do you go with?

As I said in my other post, I get God's law from Jesus' life and his teaching.

'As the Father has loved me, so I loved you. Abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.' (John 15 v9-11)
'Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'show us the Father?' Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.' (John 14 v9-11)

I will never, for as long as I live, try to replace what I believe to be Gods law for something inferior nor would I accept a sin to be 'perfectly normal' if mainstream society starts telling me that it is. As someone who believe in God, I hope you can see my point of view.

I never want to replace and of God's word, but all things I have to see through the context of Jesus' teaching, his death and resurrection.

Paul of Tarsus in his letters to the Galatians wrote:

16yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law.

which is one of the passages from where Christians derive their Salvation through Christ doctrine.

Thanks, that's just the one I needed. I knew there was a passage somewhere I had missed out.

 

[RDM]

The exact same could be said of Judaism though, don't they believe Christians and Muslims have it wrong? Or of Christianity, don't Christians believe that Jews and Muslims have it wrong? Islam at least recognises the others as being true and from God, at their respective times.

Well it would be somewhat hard for Christianity to recognise Islam in scripture don't you think? I will take the above as a "Yes" though.

That's one huge difference about Islam, it came to confirm everything that came before it. Islam confirms that Moses PBUH was indeed a prophet of God, and that Jesus Christ PBUH was indeed a prophet of God, that he was born miraculously without male intervention, that he was indeed raised up and that he is indeed a 'sign of the hour'.

You don't think this has more to do with the fact that it came after and then built on those pre-existing religions?

Those who reject Muhammed PBUH as a prophet and have therefore, rejected his message - I believe will not be able to recognise Jesus Christ PBUH when he returns because most of modern day Christianity is now worshipping a white man with blonde hair and blue eyes. Idol worship is something the Bible forbids.

I would suggest that his appearance is relatively unimportant in the grand scheme of things, the fact that he doesn't look like the renaissance image of Christ will be rather unimportant if he ever did return. I like the little dig at Christianity for idol worship too, sort of helps cement the "Christianity is inferior" message don't you think?

Not to mention if Christianity is "right" and Islam is "wrong" then those that rejected Mohammed's message will be in a much better position than those that didn't...

Can you imagine is Jesus Christ PBUH is brown skinned with dark hair and brown eyes?

Yes, it doesn't seem to bother me in the slightest. A brief knowledge of history would suggest that he was of typical middle eastern appearance.

Christians/Muslims have also been warned of a liar who will emerge claiming to be God, now you tell me, do muslims worship a man as god or do christians?

To be honest I don't see a huge difference. Many muslims treat Mohammed with as much defference as they do God. Draw a funny cartoon of Christ and one of Mohammed and see which one gets you more grief. That said like I don't really see the whole "Buddha is not a God" argument working either, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck.

Who is more likely to be deceived by this false messiah? Sorry you don't need to answer any of that I know you don't believe it anyway.

So if Christ does come back and it turns out that Mohammed was in fact lying and his religion is more of a political movement how will that turn out?

 

[linktoinsanity]

No, I have no interest in it. I remember trying to read the bible as a child and had no interest in it either (with no interest to read that now).

Pretty much what Nitefly said here.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

no srsly, its spelt with a Q. It was like that when I was in school - R.E.

I wasn't getting at that.
You were getting at another posters grammar and you post:

In school you should have learned it is spelt with a Q.

It is HAVE not OF

 

[e36Adz]

The difference between Jews and Christians is that Christians believe Christ was the Messiah in fulfilment of the Old Covenant, and Jews do not.

Which is why Early Christians were referred to as Messianic Jews (not to be confused with the modern Jewish sect started in the 1960's) by the Romans.

Well Muslims also believe that Jesus Christ PBUH was indeed the Messiah. I guess the difference here is that some Christians still follow the Old Testament while others say it was replaced by the New? Either way surely if the Old Testament instructs on certain issues which are not raised at all in the New Testament, wouldn't that logically suggest that it is still valid? After all didn't Jesus Christ PBUH say:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Matthew 5:17)

In fact, you would expect most of Gods law to remain the same would you not?

However, with respect, You could argue the same for Muhammed, that he wasn't a Muslim to begin with, he was a polytheist pagan by today's standards until at least the age of 40 and his first encounter with Gabriel.

Does that mean that as a Muslim you should accept polytheists idolatry and the practises that surrounded Arab Animism simply because your Prophet followed that faith prior to founding Islam?....of course it doesn't because he founded a new ministry on the authority of God through Gabriel, much like Christians believe that Jesus did in fulfilment of the Covenant given to Moses upon his Baptism and then reinforced by his sacrifice and resurrection.

Although Muhammed PBUH grew up in a society of idol worshippers, he himself PBUH never worshipped any idols in his life. Even before revelation came to him, he stood out from others around him and this was quite noticeable by everyone. His character was impeccable, he was well mannered and kind, he was given the nickname Al-Amin (meaning the trustworthy one) and he did not follow the religion of his forefathers. He never even did things like drink alcohol which at that time was permitted even by the jews and christians.

Saying that though, had the arabs at the time been following the religion of a former prophet, it may well have been that the prophet Muhammed PBUH would have followed those laws until revelation came to him, but Gods law would not have been completely overturned. It is most likely that most of the Old Testament still applies today for Christians.

I was making a simple point that those issues you mentioned were nothing new and as such they were problems encountered by the early Church too. I certainly wasn't trying to legitimise them.

Fair enough then. Problems will always be encountered though because for as long as man has been on Earth, man has sinned.

I was talking of love mainly within the context of 1 Corinthians 14 v4-13 (Love is patient and kind...) but also as explained through the New Testament, as giving praise and honour to God and seeing people from God's perspective and treating people in grace and truth, just as Jesus did.
It is not just a nice feeling but expressed through our actions towards those around us. I don't think I would ever say that God's word is out of date.

Nor would I ever say such a thing, so that's something we agree on. Irrespective of what mainstream society is telling me, if it goes against what I believe God has commanded (from Quran and Hadith), I will never accept it even if it becomes the norm.

God cannot abide sin at all, any sin separates us from God. But in his gracious mercy he provided the way for us to be fully cleansed from sin, by Jesus blood, so that we are no longer separated from Himself.
The more we take hold of Jesus teaching and his sacrifice and God's kingdom to heart the more our desire to sin diminishes, and the more we become like him. There is still a struggle between the 'old self' and the new in Christ.

I think we're reading the same passage with different emphasis, from the context of Jesus, I read it that love towards our neighbour is the fulfilment of what the law wants, rather than (as I think you read it) that fulfilling the law is love.

Loving thy neighbour I would regard as one very important law but not the entirety of Gods laws. One way of expressing our love for God is to show compliance to his laws, firstly in belief (ie. accepting right and wrong as prescribed by God) and secondly attempting to follow such a way of life as best we can. I don't believe we can pick and choose which parts of Gods law suits us and leave/ignore the parts which don't, which I think some people do.

In my own strength I cannot WHOLLY fulfil the law, I may be able to keep parts of it at different times. But as the Bible says, if I have broken just one part of the law then I am guilty of all of it. I can seek to live as good a life as possible, but that in itself is unable to make righteous before God. But Jesus brings forgiveness from the guilt of breaking the law and acceptance by God.

I partly agree with you, we as human beings cannot be sin free, or perfect. All we can do is strive to be the best we can.

Murdering rapist can become Christians, in accepting that Jesus is Lord and died for sin so that we can be made clean.
True love of God brings about change for the better in that persons life.
I'm not saying that there aren't people who call themselves Christians whose lives and actions betray the fact they have no real living faith in Jesus.

Again I agree that even one of the worst kinds of people eg. a murdering rapist can be rightly guided, however, this would require a change of their actions first. If they continued to be the same as they were yet claimed they are Christian and believe Jesus PBUH died for their sins, so they are saved, I would really doubt the sincerity of their beliefs. This highlights my point that actual love for God is normally not just words, but it is accompanied by actions to some degree.

As I had already said, Jesus has already already fully accounted for sin on the cross, and only through that I stand forgiven.

As I said in my other post, I get God's law from Jesus' life and his teaching.

'As the Father has loved me, so I loved you. Abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.' (John 15 v9-11)
'Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'show us the Father?' Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.' (John 14 v9-11)

I never want to replace and of God's word, but all things I have to see through the context of Jesus' teaching, his death and resurrection.

I suppose this is a fundamental difference between Islam and some sects of Christianity. We believe that each person will have to account for themselves only, similar to what the Old Testament says. I do not believe that Jesus PBUH died for the sins of anyone else as you are probably aware the Islamic belief is that Jesus Christ PBUH is the only prophet of God that did not die, instead he was raised up and he must one day return and then he will die naturally.

 

[e36Adz]

Well it would be somewhat hard for Christianity to recognise Islam in scripture don't you think? I will take the above as a "Yes" though.

It is not a 'yes', instead I will say I believe all law is inferior to Gods law, which I believe at this point in time lies in the Quran and Hadith for all of mankind.

You don't think this has more to do with the fact that it came after and then built on those pre-existing religions?

It has nothing to do with the fact it came after, it is because it came from the same source.

I would suggest that his appearance is relatively unimportant in the grand scheme of things, the fact that he doesn't look like the renaissance image of Christ will be rather unimportant if he ever did return. I like the little dig at Christianity for idol worship too, sort of helps cement the "Christianity is inferior" message don't you think?

I would say it's very important! After all the Bible does say:

20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them Exodus

I wasn't taking a 'dig' at Christianity. I was simply pointing out that the very fact that certain Christian groups or sects have made so many images and idols of Jesus Christ PBUH, when it was strictly forbidden, it has and ultimately will lead to their own downfall. They have planted an image in peoples mind of Jesus PBUH and if the real Messiah does not look anything like this (white skin, blonde hair etc) I don't think they will be as quick to accept him as you are making out.

Not to mention if Christianity is "right" and Islam is "wrong" then those that rejected Mohammed's message will be in a much better position than those that didn't...

It's not a simple flip of a coin to see who's right and wrong here. I wonder how many Christians have studied what the prophet PBUH said of Jesus Christ PBUH and if they know how highly Islam regards his mother Mary PBUH, being the only woman who has a verse in the Quran named after her.

Yes, it doesn't seem to bother me in the slightest. A brief knowledge of history would suggest that he was of typical middle eastern appearance.

It may not bother you but you can't deny we all have an image of Jesus PBUH which has been planted in our minds. Can you imagine if the Anti-Christ was to actually look like that? :|

To be honest I don't see a huge difference. Many muslims treat Mohammed with as much defference as they do God. Draw a funny cartoon of Christ and one of Mohammed and see which one gets you more grief. That said like I don't really see the whole "Buddha is not a God" argument working either, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck.

I am not gonna deny that some muslim sects probably do cross the line in regards to the prophet Muhammed PBUH, but all muslims recognise that 'There is no god but God, and Muhammed PBUH is the messenger and slave of God'. Anyone who tells you that Muhammed PBUH is actually a god, is not, and cannot be a muslim.

Drawing a funny cartoon of the prophet PBUH is simply to try and insult muslims, it is to provoke a reaction and it does work. It personally doesn't bother me one bit because I know I will not be held accountable for that.

So if Christ does come back and it turns out that Mohammed was in fact lying and his religion is more of a political movement how will that turn out?

If Christ PBUH came back tomorrow he would most likely be branded a terrorist because he would vehemently oppose the current rulers in the world. Muhammed PBUH was Al-Amin, the truthful one, a nickname given to him by his people before he ever claimed prophethood. He never spoke a lie, you can try and argue he was deluded if you wish but you won't get very far trying to argue that he PBUH was a liar.