How to ask Rabbi , Priest, Imam & others ?

hola Muslim Woman,

i do not mean to overburden you but could you tell us more about sins and mistakes? murder is against one of the ten commandments (which Moses brought) and against the noahide laws... i do not know how he could have forgotten such a thing...

and is murder not considered a major sin like adultery which you gave as an example? is it possible to accidentally commit adultery...

i am confused by this, what makes a sin a sin and a mistake a mistake in islam?

Dios te bendiga

format_quote Originally Posted by Muslim Woman

Salaam/peace;

I don’t know if all were Catholics ; normally news come as Christian missionaries did this & that.

Well , I never re-checked the stories ; but next time if I hear anything , then will try to collect more info & Insha Allah will let u know kay:

muchos gracias! hopefully if this sort of thing happens again i have given you enough information that you could go to a bishop or the missionary board themself and be able to site which things they are breaking in ad gentes... this is an abomination... breaking doctrine to teach heresy, this is horrible...

format_quote Originally Posted by Muslim Woman

About the chocolate story , well it was not a magic. Teachers just bought sweets , put those in bag or pockets . When Muslim kids prayed to Allah , they did not take it out. When they prayed to Jesus (p) , they kept those in front of them & then told them to open eyes to find sweets.

si... this is considered feigning "magic" according to Catholic doctrine... they are trying to "awe" the children with tricks claiming to have magic powers (even if they say it is given by God). they are telling the children to have faith in an act of God which is truly an act of man. this is blasphemous.

reducing prayer to a pretend activity and not teaching the true purpose of prayer. this is shameful and sinful... i hope someday these people come back to the true path... i just wish i knew where these kinds of activities were occuring, i know who to report this kind of thing to...

format_quote Originally Posted by Muslim Woman

Do all Churches believe that newborn babies who die will go to heaven ? I read in a story that a woman stopped going to church when a church member or someone related to church told her baby will go to hell....she was very hurt.

all Catholic Churches believe in the doctrine i quoted before, that they are entrusted into the mercy of God and we do not believe he would create babies to condemn them to hell with no choice. God is most merciful.

all Catholics must believe this... if they say otherwise they are speaking heresy... it would be like a muslim disagreeing with mohammed or saying something in the quran is wrong... this is what it means to disobey the Holy Church, we must obey.

according to Catechism 892 and Catholic Doctrine we must adhere to religious assent... assent to everything the Church teaches officially... if a catholic woman said such a horrible thing as above she is speaking heresy and commiting sin...

i do not know about protestants... they do not follow the Holy Catholic Church, i do not understand them

Dios te bendiga

oh!! I am having my babies baptize next sunday i am so happy, we were able to have a baptism in veracruz in my family's town there it is so beautiful, and our good friend the cardinal will perform it for us my whole family will be there and i have asked my BEST friend in the entire world to be my babies god parents, she is very pious and will be so important in our girls lives this is the best day! i am looking forward to it so much!

itis so funny because we are talking about this just now

muchos gracias Muslim Woman!

this explains what i wanted to know very well, now that you told me the circumstances of Moses in this story i now understand what you mean by mistake, this is very interesting

Dios te bendiga

I was not aware that there are so many Rabbis, Priests, and Imams on this board, but from the multiplicity of responses it appears that nearly everyone on this board seems to fit one of those categories.

format_quote Originally Posted by [email protected]

Question: Many Christians claim to be born-again and thereby claim to have priority to heaven...why?...isn't this promoting prejudice?

Man is flesh with a spirit. Man can not claim to be “born again” because man is not spirit. God is spirit. Man’s spirit always has flaws attached to it so in order to “enter into the kingdom of God” it is cleansed by God; THE SPIRIT IS BORN AGAIN in order to be a part of a perfect unity. Upon the bonding with the spirit host, the spirit continues eternally. Those born-again spirits are the souls of ALL, ALL, All who have lived righteously, not just the Christians or the ones who "claim" to be born again. Luke 23:46 And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, "Father, 'into Your hands I commit My spirit.' "Having said this, He breathed His last. This is when the spirit of Jesus was "BORN AGAIN" and united with God.

Kurt

Kurt, since you quoted me, I'm guessing that you would like for me to respond. I think others have probably done so admirably in my absence. But thank you for asking the question and allowing me a chance to address it as well as I think that this is an area of confusion for many who might have been raised outside of the certain segment within Christianity which uses this sort of language.

First, I ask everyone to realize that language is always connected to culture. This is true not only between different languages, but even when people share a common language, if they have different cultures they may misunderstand what is meant by even a simple phrase. The term "born again" is one of those culturally laden phrases.

Second, one has to accept at face value what is recorded in the Bible if one is going to discuss the way that Christians use the term today. I know that there are many on this board who do not accept the authority of the Bible, and that is fine, I am not here to try to argue that point. But if one wants to understand those who do use this term, one must walk in their shoes, and that means (at least for the purpose of trying to understand how they use this term) that one must accept the authority of the Bible.

The term, "born again", is taken from a passage of scripture, John 3:3, in which Jesus declares: "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." I see from your post that you are familiar with the passage. However, I also see from your inference to Jesus' spirit being born again that your understanding of it is very different from that of the vast majority of Christians. Rather than debate the differences with you -- I don't see much point in saying "I'm right and you're wrong."; we could go round in claims and counter-claims ad nauseum -- in some things we may have similar understandings and in others none, so allow me to attempt to articulate the Christian understanding of the passage and subsequently the phrase.

Let me be clear, I am not looking for agreement, just a honest hearing from those who are truly seeking to understand where others are coming from.

The predominant Christian understanding of being "born again" is in the context of this discussion that Jesus is having with Nicodemus. In response to a question from Nicodemus about the source of Jesus' authority, Jesus turns the conversation on its ear and starts talking about entrance into the kingdom of God. Now this is sometimes thought of as merely a refernce to heaven by many today, but of course Jesus was referring to that and much more. For Jesus the kingdom of God was the totality of one's being belonging to God. Anyone for whom that would be a true statement would of course find themselves residing with God in heaven at the end of their earthly life, and this is the slant most Christians take on it today.

How does one become a part of this kingdom of God? Jesus says that it requires a new birth. That Nicodemus thinks Jesus is referring to physical birth can be seen from his question, "How can this be?" But Jesus is referring to a spiritual birth: ""I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit." Today some Christians think that water in Jesus' answer refers to baptism, others think it refers to the amneutic fluids of birth, but all agree that the "new birth" refers to a spiritual rebirth.

Now the concept of rebirth implies that there was a previous birth. Certainly we are all born physically. In contrast with other religions, Christians understand that simply being a good person is not enough to guarantee entry to heaven. We think there needs to be a new birth, that our spirits need something from outside us that is not already present within us to connect us with God. Even adhering to all the teachings of the prophets, even the keeping of 600+ points of the Torah would not be sufficient unless the Spirit of God is in us also. That is not something we can accomplish on our own, anymore than we can accomplish our physical birth on our own. It is something that God conceives and nurtures in us, but we cannot control it. As Jesus said, "The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.", so it is with how the Spirit of God moves in human lives. God determines it. The best we can do is be receptive and being willing to submit to it. If we do not harden our hearts and turn to our own worthiness, but we rely on God's worthiness and his grace, then God can and will work with and within us to shape our lives in accordance with his will.

I don't know, kkawohl1, if you view what I have stated about the connection the Spirit of God to be in harmony with what you spoke of your understanding of being "born again" in your post or not. I see some similar words, but I really think we have two different concepts in mind. Christians understand that one remains a unique individual, not simply bonded to a "spirit host" as you worded it. We, our very unique selves, continue for eternity with God in his presence, but not absorbed into him.

As to the issue of priority....we don't really understand this new birth as giving us a priority - i.e we don't come first before others. We understand it as granting entry which is not possible outside of the new birth. Yet, this passage does not anyplace say that God cannot grant that same new birth to others who are not Christians. As to the issue of prejuidice....Yes, we are prejuidiced to the extent that we don't generally think of non-Christians being born again. But, based on the text alone, and leaving my personal prejuidices aside, I would not exclude the possibility of anyone being saved, for the wind (and hence God's Spirit) can blow wherever God wills for it to blow and all who then are born again through the intervention of God coming into their lives would likewise be born again as well.

I know that some prefer to have one post to answer all questions. I, however, find that some of the questions are so different as to be addressing completely different themes. Thus, though it means posting two times consecutively, it seems this is to be preferred in order to provide better clarity and focus in my answers and to make it easier for people who might be looking for my response to their posts. If this is against LI policy, I hope I can be forgiven.

format_quote Originally Posted by Muslim Woman

what's the main difference between Catholics , Protestants & other groups ?

I read somewhere that majority Christians are Catholics but non-Catholics are sending them to hell. Even ordinary Christians hear this from their Churches .................... how come ????

Priests can not marry but Pastors can , why ? Who decided all these ?

I heard the scandal about Catholic Churches ..... I have not heard anything much about other Churches...... do u think , as Catholics missionaries can not get married , that could be the reason behind those immoral
acts ?

Gay Bishops are allowed in all Churches ? Gay marriage, Gay parade .....what's the stand of ur Church about these issues ?

Sorry , i asked many questions. Take ur time :smile:

Speaking as a Protestant, and not a Catholic -- Jayda has given you a very good response from the Catholic perspective I believe on page 2 of this thread -- I think the biggest difference between protestants and Catholics is in our recognition of authority.

The protestant Reformation began as a protest by some Roman Catholic priests to what was seen as the Pope overreaching his authority in the life of the Roman Catholic Christians. Now such a terse description hardly does justice to the issues that dominated the discussions in the western church in the 1500s, and if this was a Christian forum, I would suggest starting a new thread to discuss it in depth. But suffice it to say that there was internal conflict regarding authority and the boundaries of that authority on the one hand, and insubordination and respect for authority on the other. No doubt both parties were in the right on some issues and in the wrong on others. But neither was willing to give an inch and a split occurred within the church that still exists till this day. In truth, both groups have softened their stance on positions adopted 500 year ago, but enough time has passed that there is no going back. So, today you have the Roman Catholic Church representing the largest single block within Christendom. As Jayda explained there are other groups beside Protestant and Catholic; I think her description is sufficient unless you have more particular questions about them.

Protestants are groups that split off from Roman Catholics within western Christendom. There are many protestant groups, because once the splitting process began each group would have their own complaint regarding Roman Catholicism and thus seperate themselves off. Each thought that the Roman Catholic Church had gotten away from what it was supposed to be, the way God had intended, and each group thought that they were going back to the way it was supposed to be. That's why it was called the Reformation, they were all trying to reform the Roman Catholic Church. But in the end all they really did was to make themselves separated from it. And sometimes those groups that split-off from the Roman Catholic Church couldn't agree among themselves and they would split again later.This is not the prettiest part of Church history, but it is true, so I will not try to pretend it is something it is not.

Now, regarding non-Catholics sending Catholics to hell.... Well, such people are few and far between. But every group has those within it who think that they are the only ones who are right and everyone else is wrong. That is what this is all about. And for reasons that I don't think are worth talking about, some of these people tend to be particularly against Catholics. In both my personal and my profession opinion as a United Methodist (a protestant church) pastor, I think such people are misguided.

As to who can marry and who cannot, and who decides..... Such questions go back to the question of authority. Most protestant churches recognize the Bible and the guidance of the Holy Spirit in interpreting the Bible as the primary sources of authority. In my denomination we recognize the Bible as the primary authority, and then we also recognize the place of tradition, experience, and reason to help us arrive at decisions under the guidance of God's Spirit. We see that there is a reference in scripture to Peter having a wife -- "When Jesus came into Peter's house, he saw Peter's mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever." (Matthew 8:14) -- and we know that for many years of even Roman Catholic Church history that priests were married, plus even today there are some exceptions where a Catholic priest can be married, so give all of this Protestant churches see no order against marraige. Thus we leave it to each individual to determine what God's will is in that individual's life as to whether God wills for the person to be married or single. But within the Roman Catholic Church, there is another authority that must be respected, and that is the Church herself. It is the Roman Catholic Church, not the Pope, who has said that its clergy should not marry.

Really it is the same within protestantism. By that, I mean that the authority rests in the church and the respect its members have for the church to make decisions. In my denomination we have said that practicing homosexuals should not be admitted to the role of pastor of a church, nor can a pastor conduct a marriage ceremony for a gay couple. Now there are some people who are homosexuals that would like to be pastors in our churches, but our church has made a decision on it. That decision continues to be discussed and debated, but for the present at least, that is the decision of the church, and those who respect the church's authority to make a decision keep it. And I suppose that those who do not respect the church's authority on this matter, go and find some other church or break the rule and then if later found out face church discipline.

Now someone who was from a different protestant denomination may or may not agree with the decision of my church, but it really doesn't matter to them one way or another. What matters to them is the decision of the authority they submit to. We would all like to say that we submit to God's authority. But reality is that we also depend on others to help us interpret and articulate what it is that God is saying. Thus they become authorities for us --just like you, Muslim Woman, have referenced interpreters of Islam for us in others of these threads, because you respect their authority. In recognizing some to be in positions of official authority over us, we then say that others, perhaps equally desiring to follow Christ, are not in the same position of authority over us. We do not say they are less Christian in any way, but they have less authority in terms of providing governance to our life. In my opinion, this is the primary difference between the Roman Catholic Church and protestant churches today -- who we look to for authority in terms of governing the church.

format_quote Originally Posted by Muslim Woman

So , how come , gays are not punished but honoured by some Churches ? I found it Very confusing.

I don't desire to punish anyone; I try to leave judgments for God. But I too find the "honoring" that appears to happen in some churches confusing. Sorry, I can't really answer any better than I already have.

format_quote Originally Posted by Muslim Woman

salaam/peace;

Is it up to individuals to think/decide who should be punished or not ? When ur holy books prescribes specific punishments for specific sins , then are Christians allowed to take decision like that " leave judgments for God ?



If Bible is from God , then God already gave His decisions to punish the sinners if they don't repent....is not it ?



what about punishing a serial killer or child rapist ? How many family members of the victims ( murdered persons/raped victims ) will leave the matter for the last day only ? Normally , they go to police to punish the culprits .

So, why , when it's come to the matters like gay people , adultery , many Christians hesitate to punish the sinners ?

Hope , i m not offending u . I want to know , besides homosexaulity & adultery , which more sins are allowed to do in this world without any punishment ?

You're not offending me at all. I think your questions are an honest, sincere effort to understand something that is outside of your own experience. But I think I am having some trouble understanding what you are driving at.

What do you mean by "punish"?

Christians don't understand that we have any legal power over people to punish anyone: not a homosexual, not a thief, not a rapist, not a murder, not an adulterer, not a blasphemer, not any sinner. The civil government might exercise power in regard to some of these things, and Christians are suppose to submit to governmental authorities (and also try to influence the government to make righteous decisions) but we are not invested with that type of authority ourselves. Christians can only discipline within the context of the church.

Different churches have exercised this church discipline in different ways. Sometimes a member of a church is kicked out of the church. Sometimes they remain within the church and are shunned, or lose the right to hold a certain office, or are simply admonished and then upon repentence are restored to fellowship.

Not presently, but in the past (like the 1600s), in some communities that were seen as entirely Christian communities, they would mix the authority of the civil and church governement and impose other punishments like confinement in the stocks, whipping, and even execution as they sought to impose church doctrine on all the inhabitants of a community, but that practice is no longer understood to be in harmony with scripture to judge non-Christians by Christian standards.