• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

the only acceptable religion to Allah is Islam

firedragon

Veteran Member
Well, Christianity is very different.

Christianity says that God just wants people to love their neighbor as much as themselves. So loving the others is sufficient. You don't have to believe in any God to do that. God doesn't want neither submission, nor worship.
That's why even Atheists can be saved, as long as they are altruistic, good, and generous.

Submission nor worship. How about other commandments in the bible. To me, it seems like a hypocritical view to only take the doctrine of God and Messiah from a book and ignoring everything else. In that case you must agree that it is not Gods word. Only the very small portion that teaches the doctrine is Gospel truth...
 

Sega

Member
The title of this thread has got me thinking.

It says, "The only acceptable religion to Allah is Islam"

This in fact is very false. Throughout the Quran one will find that it often talks about the 'people of the book', and how Muslims should have close relationships with them because of the fact they are also people of God. Islam is not a new religion. We believe that this is the same message of Adam, Lot, Job, Moses, and Jesus. It's just the fact it's last messenger was not an Isrealite makes it seems somewhat outlandish in my opinion. Islam just calls for the return to the belief in one true God and that no partners should be associated with him. Although Muslims believe that it is better for the people of the book convert, if they should believe that God has no partners or people that could be associated on an equal level with him, it should be sufficient for them, and the fact that this God not be an idol or something that is on the human level.

I'm not the most eloquent person (I can when I want to be), but I believe that I'm getting my point across, no?
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Submission nor worship. How about other commandments in the bible. To me, it seems like a hypocritical view to only take the doctrine of God and Messiah from a book and ignoring everything else. In that case you must agree that it is not Gods word. Only the very small portion that teaches the doctrine is Gospel truth...


Well, I am Christian, not Jewish. So I acknowledge that the Old testament, also known as Tanakh, contains a very wrong vision of God, in some verses. A vengeful, bloody God has never existed for us Christians.
So I say that some verses in the old Testament are anti-Christian and certainly not inspired.

The Christians' God is a loving God. A God that doesn't expect adoration, but just wants all mankind to be happy. He's so good, that he loves believers and not believers absolutely equally.
He just asks everyone to love and to respect the others.
 
Last edited:

firedragon

Veteran Member
The title of this thread has got me thinking.

It says, "The only acceptable religion to Allah is Islam"

This in fact is very false. Throughout the Quran one will find that it often talks about the 'people of the book', and how Muslims should have close relationships with them because of the fact they are also people of God. Islam is not a new religion. We believe that this is the same message of Adam, Lot, Job, Moses, and Jesus. It's just the fact it's last messenger was not an Isrealite makes it seems somewhat outlandish in my opinion. Islam just calls for the return to the belief in one true God and that no partners should be associated with him. Although Muslims believe that it is better for the people of the book convert, if they should believe that God has no partners or people that could be associated on an equal level with him, it should be sufficient for them, and the fact that this God not be an idol or something that is on the human level.

I'm not the most eloquent person (I can when I want to be), but I believe that I'm getting my point across, no?

Sega I think your point is very sound. But hear me out k.

The belief that Islam, Christianity and Judaism etc are different religions etc is a questionable theology. It is cited that Abraham called people Muslims.

“And strive in the cause of God its truly deserved striving. He is the One who has chosen you, and He has made no hardship for you in the system, the creed of your father Abraham; He is the One who named you ‘those who have submitted’ (Muslimeen) from before and in this. So let the messenger be witness over you and you be witness over the people. So hold the contact prayer and contribute towards purifi cation and hold tight to God, He is your patron. What an excellent Patron, and what an excellent Supporter.” - Qur’an
22:78

See the following verses.

2:111 And they said: “None shall enter the Paradise except those who are Jewish or Nazarenes;” this is what they wish! Say: “Bring forth your proof if you are truthful.”

2:112 No; whoever submits (Aslamu) himself to God, while doing good, he will have his recompense with his Lord. There will be no fear over them, nor will they grieve.

2:113 And the Jews say: “The Nazarenes have no basis,” and the Nazarenes say: “The Jews have no basis,” while they are both reciting the Book! Similarly, those who do not know have said the same thing. God will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection in what they dispute.

Thus it is evident that Christians (Nazarenes) and Jews also can submit to God will be saved and God will judge between them. It is not for us to judge. Which indicates that one who submits or Aslamu is a Muslim and even one who calls himself Nazarene also can be a Muslim.

2:135 And they said: “Be Jewish or Nazarenes so that you may be guided!” Say: “No, rather the creed of Abraham, monotheism; for he was not of the polytheists.”

2:136 Say: “We believe in God and in what was sent down to us and what was sent down to Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the Patriarchs, and what was given to Moses and Jesus, and what was given to the prophets from their Lord; we do not make a distinction between any of them and to Him we submit.”

We are required to tell those call themselves Jewish or Nazarenes that Millat Ibrahim or the creed or religion of Abraham will save us all. See, there was only one prophet called Muhammed born in Arabia but Muslims are divided into various sects. Shia, Sunni, Wahabbi etc. But what ever the division you call yourselves of, you are a segment of Islam. Same way if we believe that Islam or submission was the only system authorised by God, whatever name we call ourselves is just a concocted name, the origin is Islam.

But Christians and Jews etc are clearly differentiated from the Mumeens.

3:67 Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Nazarene, but he was a monotheist
who submitted; he was not of the polytheists.
3:68 The most legitimate people to Abraham are those who followed him; and this prophet, and those who believed (Amanu); and God is the supporter of the believers.

As you can see, if Abraham himself was a Muslim and he called his followers Muslim as said in the Quran, Amanu or believers are differentiated from them and called one of the legitimate people. There is a clear difference between a Muslim and an Amanu or one who has submitted and a believer. This is where the real difference between Christian, Jews and Mumeens is. Muslim is more generic.

Thus, when the Quran says that Islam is the only religion or system, you actually dont have to be one who in current context calls himself a Muslim.

3:85 And whoever follows other than submission (Islam) as a system, it will not be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter he is of the losers.

See if Ahlil Kithab are clearly a different entity from Muslims, how can they be told that it will not be accepted from him while in so many other places the Quran says that people of the book can attain salvation.

So in the current world people do misunderstand misquote the Quran.

Peace
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Well, I am Christian, not Jewish. So I acknowledge that the Old testament, also known as Tanakh, contains a very wrong vision of God, in some verses. A vengeful, bloody God has never existed for us Christians.
So I say that some verses in the old Testament are anti-Christian and certainly not inspired.

The Christians' God is a loving God. A God that doesn't expect adoration, but just wants all mankind to be happy. He's so good, that he loves believers and not believers absolutely equally.
He just asks everyone to love and to respect the others.

I know that this is the Christian theology, but it is not biblical.

Brother, old testament is not known as the Tanakh. The Tanakh is a collection of books that contain three parts, the Torah (1st five books of the bible), the Neviim and Ketuvim.

See if you say the "Christian God" is different to the God in the Torah or the old testament, then is it two God's? You know some theorised such a claim due to this particular conflict?

I have heard theology of the good god who loves us and he dies for our sins, he was God and lamb of God etc. These are normal doctrines.

Alright, let me give an example of my earlier point.

You know that Corinthians is one of the most quoted books in the NT right. Now for doctrine people quote this. But if you believe in the doctrine why not believe in what it teaches.

e.g. But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. – Corinthians 11:2

Corinthians tells you that women should cover their hair and if they dont it is as good as shaving their hair off. Man is the image of God and the woman is the image of man. I am in no way telling you to follow this but isnt it double standards to believe in part of the book and totall ignore the other part as if it was written by another God or the devil himself.

And Jesus tell you that he came not to break law (Torah=Taurat=Law) but to fulfill them. So why are old laws not followed? Why are other things important more than what Jesus himself told you. e.g. shunning pigs meat, circumcision, stoning to death, prohibiting scaled sea creatures etc.

Do not misunderstand me. I in no way am telling you to follow these laws, I am only pointing out the facts.

Peace bro.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
e.g. But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. – Corinthians 11:2

Corinthians tells you that women should cover their hair and if they dont it is as good as shaving their hair off. Man is the image of God and the woman is the image of man. I am in no way telling you to follow this but isnt it double standards to believe in part of the book and totall ignore the other part as if it was written by another God or the devil himself.

And Jesus tell you that he came not to break law (Torah=Taurat=Law) but to fulfill them. So why are old laws not followed? Why are other things important more than what Jesus himself told you. e.g. shunning pigs meat, circumcision, stoning to death, prohibiting scaled sea creatures etc.

Do not misunderstand me. I in no way am telling you to follow these laws, I am only pointing out the facts.

Very good point. That's why most Catholic priests affirm that Saint Paul's teachings are obsolete and have to be dis-contextualized, that means, that in our modern society they cannot be accepted. Because Saint Paul belonged to a very androcentric nation, the ancient Jews.
So Christianity claims that woman and man have the same roles and the same importance in the eyes of God. That is, woman is supposed to cooperate with her husband, not to be submitted to him.

The Torah looses its importance in front of the great Christ's teaching: that is, love thy neighbor as much as thyself. If you do, you obey all God's laws.
Because God is offended only when you disrespect or hurt your neighbor.
If you love your neighbor, you do God's will
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Very good point. That's why most Catholic priests affirm that Saint Paul's teachings are obsolete and have to be dis-contextualized, that means, that in our modern society they cannot be accepted. Because Saint Paul belonged to a very androcentric nation, the ancient Jews.
So Christianity claims that woman and man have the same roles and the same importance in the eyes of God. That is, woman is supposed to cooperate with her husband, not to be submitted to him.

The Torah looses its importance in front of the great Christ's teaching: that is, love thy neighbor as much as thyself. If you do, you obey all God's laws.
Because God is offended only when you disrespect or hurt your neighbor.
If you love your neighbor, you do God's will

See when you say most catholic priests affirm that Pauls teachings are obsolete, they quote pauls books to propagate their doctrine. Almost every single time let me tell you. But I am surprised at your assertion. And kind of Glad. To me, Pauls books are like chalk and cheese compared to the 4 Gospels.

Anyway, how about the rest?

And Jesus tell you that he came not to break law (Torah=Taurat=Law) but to fulfill them. So why are old laws not followed? Why are other things important more than what Jesus himself told you. e.g. shunning pigs meat, circumcision, stoning to death, prohibiting scaled sea creatures etc.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Firedragon,#96
I disagree with you on most of these points.

1. It's quite clear that Isa refers to Jesus in the Qur'an, simply because of the context in which the name is used! Your attempt to dovetail the use of 'Ahmad' and 'paraclete' is mistaken because the context in which the latter is used makes it impossible for the two to be the same!

2. I agree that there is a difference between the spirit of man and the spirit of God, but nowhere in my statement did I suggest otherwise. What should be noticed is the wording of John 3:6: "That which is born of the Pneuma is pneuma." First we have the Divine Nature; and then we have that which is born of or produced by it i.e. his operations and gifts, which are called pneuma.
The holy spirit sent by the risen Christ is most certainly the spirit of God. Please don't make me list all 385 passages of the Received Text in which we find the word pneuma rendered!
But I would like you to explain what you mean by, 'It does not mean the Holy spirit because the Holy spirit was there from the beginning with Jesus.'

3.In the parable of the Prodigal son, which you quote from Luke, the son is forgiven. Notice that it's a SON that's forgiven and that this story is told by Jesus who is preaching the Kingdom of God. A person does not gain the status of son of God until after the holy spirit is given i.e. after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. So Jesus may not have mentioned his own death, but it is a requirement that a person die before the testament (as in 'will') comes into effect!
When a person turns to God in repentance, they show their sorrow and admit their sinfulness. They demonstrate a desire to follow God and lead a righteous life. It is still up to God to respond with forgiveness. But if justice is to be maintained there is no room for forgiveness. He that lives by the law will be judged by the law.

The difference between the status of a believer in Jesus Christ and a believer in religion is that Jesus Christ has proven himself SINLESS. He is able to say, 'I have already paid the price for sin, and am able to forgive you now because I sit upon the throne.'

4. The Qur'an, as you rightly say, denies that Jesus was crucified. He only appears to be. But this invalidates the whole of God's planned salvation of mankind. God's only begotten son is a sinless sacrifice to pay the penalty for man's sin. By denying that it happened you are denying that salvation has come. People remain stuck in their predicament, unable to save themselves from sin and death.

You might say that salvation is built into the theology of Islam, but this does not overcome the problem of sin. Sin and 'sins' (as in Ezekiel) are different. The sin of Adam has had an effect on all humanity because it caused a spiritual separation from God's Holy Spirit. It also led to the death of the body and soul.
Jesus restores lost life. As it says in 1 Corinthians 15:22, 'For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.'

Firedragon, I am not out to cause division or strife, but it is important that the truth of Jesus Christ be made known.

Peace be unto you.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Firedragon, I want you to know that I disagree with Hay85. There is absolutely no grounds for treating the epistles of Paul as any less inspired than any other part of the Bible - Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim, or New Testament.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Firedragon,#96
I disagree with you on most of these points.

1. It's quite clear that Isa refers to Jesus in the Qur'an, simply because of the context in which the name is used! Your attempt to dovetail the use of 'Ahmad' and 'paraclete' is mistaken because the context in which the latter is used makes it impossible for the two to be the same!

2. I agree that there is a difference between the spirit of man and the spirit of God, but nowhere in my statement did I suggest otherwise. What should be noticed is the wording of John 3:6: "That which is born of the Pneuma is pneuma." First we have the Divine Nature; and then we have that which is born of or produced by it i.e. his operations and gifts, which are called pneuma.
The holy spirit sent by the risen Christ is most certainly the spirit of God. Please don't make me list all 385 passages of the Received Text in which we find the word pneuma rendered!
But I would like you to explain what you mean by, 'It does not mean the Holy spirit because the Holy spirit was there from the beginning with Jesus.'

I doubt you understood my point. Of course Isa is the same Jesus you quote. What I tried to explain that it was a language and even if Ahamed was mentioned in the bible it will be in Koine Greek. Thus you cannot simply drop an argument just by saying Ahamed was not mentioned in the NT.

Anyway Parakleetos cannot be the Holy Spirit because Jesus claims that he has to leave for the spirit of truth to come. If Mary was conceived through the holy spirit why does Jesus have to leave for him to come? Its not practical or logical.

3.In the parable of the Prodigal son, which you quote from Luke, the son is forgiven. Notice that it's a SON that's forgiven and that this story is told by Jesus who is preaching the Kingdom of God. A person does not gain the status of son of God until after the holy spirit is given i.e. after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. So Jesus may not have mentioned his own death, but it is a requirement that a person die before the testament (as in 'will') comes into effect!
When a person turns to God in repentance, they show their sorrow and admit their sinfulness. They demonstrate a desire to follow God and lead a righteous life. It is still up to God to respond with forgiveness. But if justice is to be maintained there is no room for forgiveness. He that lives by the law will be judged by the law.

The difference between the status of a believer in Jesus Christ and a believer in religion is that Jesus Christ has proven himself SINLESS. He is able to say, 'I have already paid the price for sin, and am able to forgive you now because I sit upon the throne.'

Bro, even Muslims believe that Jesus is sinless.
Anyway the assumption, though jesus doesnt mentione it, that he has to die for the sins to be forgiven is still to me, an assumption. It is not biblical.

4. The Qur'an, as you rightly say, denies that Jesus was crucified. He only appears to be. But this invalidates the whole of God's planned salvation of mankind. God's only begotten son is a sinless sacrifice to pay the penalty for man's sin. By denying that it happened you are denying that salvation has come. People remain stuck in their predicament, unable to save themselves from sin and death.

You say the whole of Gods planned salvation for mankind is the sacrifice of his only begotten son.

Sacrifice for salvation is not biblical, Jesus being the only begotten son is contradictory to the bible. As I said earlier if Jesus is the son, ephraim and Israel are older sons. In fact the first born's.

You might say that salvation is built into the theology of Islam, but this does not overcome the problem of sin. Sin and 'sins' (as in Ezekiel) are different. The sin of Adam has had an effect on all humanity because it caused a spiritual separation from God's Holy Spirit. It also led to the death of the body and soul.
Jesus restores lost life. As it says in 1 Corinthians 15:22, 'For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.'

According to Quran and bible sin is forgiven by repentance. The rest of the sacrifice of the lamb is a theory. Not scriptural. The only place in the Gospels this is touched is not in the old codexes but an addition by human intervention.

Firedragon, I am not out to cause division or strife, but it is important that the truth of Jesus Christ be made known.

Peace be unto you.

I truly respect your position but my intention is also to expose the truth. And of course learn a bit more.

Peace bro
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Firedragon, I want you to know that I disagree with Hay85. There is absolutely no grounds for treating the epistles of Paul as any less inspired than any other part of the Bible - Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim, or New Testament.

I understand the point, but I cannot see the reason for not following the biblical teachings while some parts are taken for doctrine and other parts are left idle.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Nor can I.

The one word of caution I would add, however, is that the New Testament is about fulfilment of law in love. It is not about replacing one set of laws with another.

What did concern the apostle Paul was the lack of order and discipline amongst some new converts; they may have been born again spiritually, but their minds still needed educating. This is possibly why he made suggestions on church organisation. People accepting Christ for the first time suddenly found themselves part of a wider community that required nourishment and teaching. Paul spread his teaching to prevent misunderstanding and immorality, and to encourage the converts.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
If the New Testament does not replace old laws and Jesus himself claims to not take the laws away but confirm them, how about circumcision, eating pigs meat, carrion and hare, imbibing alcohol and stoning adulterers to death?
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
These are interesting issues, and Paul discusses many of them with the elders of the church because they were relevant issues at the time. The question of circumcision was of particular concern to the established Jewish communities, and they wondered whether Gentile converts should be circumcised.
Paul's teaching is clear. A person who walks by the Holy Spirit cannot sin. But there's a constant battle within each believer, between the Holy Spirit and the flesh. So the law acts as a safety net against human sin and weakness of the flesh.

Circumcision in the flesh is not necessary. As Paul says, 'In Christ Jesus, neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcising.' (Galatians 5:6)

'The letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life.' (2 Corinthians 3:6)

'Meat commendeth us not to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we eat not are we the worse;' (1 Corinthians 8:8) and 'the kingdom of God is not meat and drink.' (Romans 14:7)

There is no blanket ban on alcohol, just a warning not to get drunk. (See 'lusts of the flesh' below)

Believers are encouraged to forgive those that do them wrong. As regards capital punishment, that is a matter for the state. If I were to vote on the issue, I personally would not be in favour.

Here is what Paul says in Galatians:
'This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lustest against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Now the works of the flesh are manifest which are these ; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperence: against such there is no law.
And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.' (Galatians 5:16-25)
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
These are interesting issues, and Paul discusses many of them with the elders of the church because they were relevant issues at the time. The question of circumcision was of particular concern to the established Jewish communities, and they wondered whether Gentile converts should be circumcised.
Paul's teaching is clear. A person who walks by the Holy Spirit cannot sin. But there's a constant battle within each believer, between the Holy Spirit and the flesh. So the law acts as a safety net against human sin and weakness of the flesh.

Circumcision in the flesh is not necessary. As Paul says, 'In Christ Jesus, neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcising.' (Galatians 5:6)

'The letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life.' (2 Corinthians 3:6)

'Meat commendeth us not to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we eat not are we the worse;' (1 Corinthians 8:8) and 'the kingdom of God is not meat and drink.' (Romans 14:7)

There is no blanket ban on alcohol, just a warning not to get drunk. (See 'lusts of the flesh' below)

Believers are encouraged to forgive those that do them wrong. As regards capital punishment, that is a matter for the state. If I were to vote on the issue, I personally would not be in favour.

Here is what Paul says in Galatians:
'This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lustest against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Now the works of the flesh are manifest which are these ; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperence: against such there is no law.
And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.' (Galatians 5:16-25)

Pretty good answer brother and I appreciate you had taken time for your doctrine.

I am not asking you to believe in my doctrine for sure but my concern is that Paul supersedes Jesus. I have a lot to say but I shall refrain.

Thanks and best regards

FD
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Dear Redemptionsong. (That is one my favourite songs by the way)

I hope you dont mind me asking another view.

Paul says

"praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head
uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.

Aman ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own d head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent
of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God."

Since Pauls word is taken to form your doctrine why is part of his word dropped or ignored? How about this passage and what is your explanation? I would like to know.
 

Pastek

Sunni muslim
The Christians' God is a loving God. A God that doesn't expect adoration, but just wants all mankind to be happy. He's so good, that he loves believers and not believers absolutely equally.
He just asks everyone to love and to respect the others.

Are you sure that's all God wants ?


Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.
(John 3.36)

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

(Apocalypse 21.8)

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
(Mark 16.16)


I think you have a watered-down view of God, that doesn't take in count many points.
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
Are you sure that's all God wants ?


Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.
(John 3.36)

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

(Apocalypse 21.8)

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
(Mark 16.16)


I think you have a watered-down view of God, that doesn't take in count many points.

Sounds like a very insecure god to me, if he needs people to worship him and threatens them with severe punishment if they don't.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Sounds like a very insecure god to me, if he needs people to worship him and threatens them with severe punishment if they don't.

Though I am not a firm believer in the bible, I must say that none of the quotes you responded to as above say "Worship or be punished".
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Firedragon, I like your questions! These are the issues that often exercise the minds of Christian church leaders!
I happen to know a Fellowship where the women have decided that wearing head covering is right, and have therefore adopted scarves during services. It used to be that many women would wear hats to services, with the same idea in mind.
What's apparent from the quotation of Paul is that he does not wish to be too dogmatic, and says 'Judge for yourselves:' HE clearly believes that it is the right thing to do, but he recognizes that for some it may not be the way forward. When I think of hair styles amongst many western women today, they do like to have it cut fairly short, and so maybe it's not so much of an issue anyway.
Once again, I believe that Paul is encouraging 'born again' believers to act in a manner befitting of their position in Christ. To act in humility and with love, not allowing food, or holy days, or clothing, or rituals, to obscure the truth that when a believer walks by the Spirit they walk in love - and there is no law that supersedes the love of God.

The message of Paul is, of course, a revelatory interpretation of the baptism that Jesus Christ came to bring. Having first occurred at Pentecost, following the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, it was Paul's job to explain and spread this good news to the Gentiles.
 
Top