Questions about the Bible/Christianity

[Umar001]

Re: Biblical Errors in GENESIS

It is for me personally both hillarious and annoying that Muslims, out of all people, Muslims would post such things. If I had it my way I'd close this down.

But since it's hear I guess I might aswell share my view in the hope that I might learn something.

No where does it say he will die the day he eats the fruit:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

You sho your lack of brain power because what it says is basically "when you eat this the day you do, you will surely die" as in YOU WILL DIE AT A POINT IN TIME.

Adam did die, because he ate from the tree. Many say Adam would not have died ever is he did not eat from it.

It is amazing, the passage is clear, and even your rendering is clear upto 'you will surely die' I don't know where you got 'YOU WILL DIE AT A POINT IN TIME' the passage is clear, 'for the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die' The link is there, the day you eat of this fruit you will die. Simple, I think maybe you could look at some more spirit lead answers as some claim, I remember a member of this forum saying that it was that day that Adam died spiritually, the member actually quoted this verse to prove to Muslims that God said Adam will die that die yet Adam did not die physically so it must have meant spiritually.

Genesis 6:6 says: 6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Exodus 32:14 says: 14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Numbers 23:17-19 shows God did not contradict. Balak did!


17 And when he came to him, behold, he stood by his burnt offering, and the princes of Moab with him. And Balak said unto him, What hath the LORD spoken?
18 And he took up his parable, and said, Rise up, Balak, and hear; hearken unto me, thou son of Zippor: 19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Some emphasis above is mine.

So God can hate people who do something and still do it. God in Christian tradition is all powerful.

In Islam Allah hates other pretend God or "idols" yet Allah is a God. Therefore, he hates other humans things that emulate Allah.

Very simple. He can do it, but you can't.

Just so you know, the thing you brought forward is abit wrong, God hates people who worship anything besides him, why? Because there is nothing that has a right to be worshipped. Also, the verses showed God doing something and God hating those who do it, then you brought something about God hating people who pretend to be God, are you saying that the True God is pretending to be God? because the whole point of the verses was to show God hates people who do something yet does it himself.

Should I go on or not? Most of the New Testament says it is a New covanent of God so according to Christians the Old Testament laws do not matter, so they aren't contradictions but changes according to Christians.

If they don't matter then what laws do you go by if any??

Eesa,

Hi Jayda

hola ironbeard,

these are the passages you identified:

"As the crowds were increasing, He began to say, "This generation is a wicked generation; it seeks for a sign, and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah." (Luke 11:29)

"But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet;" (Matthew 12:39)


And here is a link to Matthew 16 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 16;&version=49;


The answer to your question comes to us from Matthew 12: 40

"for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

Jesus actually explains what he means by "the sign of Jonah," he is not directly saying that what happened to Jonah will happen to Him, (otherwise he would have been eaten by a whale), His sign is that He will be buried in the heart of the Earth for three days and three nights... which He was.


okay so here is your question again:


Jesus did not mean that what literally happened to Jonah would literally happen to Him, he was saying that just like JOnah was in a whale for 3 days, He would be buried in the Heart of the Earth for three days... that is the only likeness to Jonah's situation that he promises.

gracias

Well that's just your interpretation, I thought I'd clear that up, actually the text seems clear, as you have quoted, '"for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."'

You chose to put in caps the three days and three nights, which in of itself is a problem, but the first three words are not in caps, why is that? They explicitly tell the listener, FOR JUST AS, just as Jonah was three days and three nights, so here we are told the same way that Jonah was three days and three nights.... and what way was Jonah in there?? This is something which can be debated I guess for either way, I guess us without the 'holy spirit' are left stuck.

With regards to the following question

6. When Jesus was asked what the only way was to true salvation, he replied: keep the Commandments (Matthew 19:17). The first of the Commandments was to believe in the Oneness of God (Exodus 20:3). Why did Jesus answer so if he believed in and was part of the Trinity? Why did he not refer to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost?

The answer given was here,

hola ironbeard,

From my understanding what you basically have mentioned is that the question was of a nature which did not need the answer of WHO God is but what the duties are as such, so that to attain eternal life one should follow the Commandment to know what is expected, and you showed a verse from the Old Testament.

My objection comes here, first that as many Christians have said the reason the Trinity is not spoken of much in the old testament is because God reveals himself at appropiate times and only when Jesus came was the time right for the Trinity to be CLEARLY spoken of, a child is given milk until it is old enough for meat. The whole God did not need to tell people he was three in one because he was not talking about his nature, well actually God wanted to make clear who he was, 'I am the LORD your God' is spoken many times, the Lord is a Jelouse God, His nature was something which would not have been hidden, not by a Jelouse God who wanted people to Know Who He Was.

Further more, according to the author of John, Jesus says, "3Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." So knowing about God, loving him with all thy soul and thy mind is essential, there is no reason for God to not reveal his nature, and tell people who he is, specially through Jesus, at a time when Jesus, who some think himself is God, had the perfect oportunity to explain it.

It is not about a question about different subjects, for even knowing what is required of us entails understanding who is requiring us to do it, eternal life lies in knowing God.

Also, thank you for your time and patience.

Eesa

 

[Malaikah]

The short answer is yes. The longer answer is a bit more complex. As a Christian, I believe that God is Holy and man is sinful. It would be impossible for a sinful man to understand fully the Holiness of God, and therefore, in spite of our best efforts, we will always fall short of His requirements because we are incapable of comprehending them, and we can not repent of something we do not perceive. I believe one can sin and not be aware of it until some time in the future. So I would say that all people die with a sin debt which has not been paid. I believe the Bible teaches that one's sins are forgiven prior to death if they are to be forgiven at all. The concept of being cleansed of sin following death is foreign to the Bible.

That is so unjust and open to abuse! :X

 

[Pygoscelis]

wherein Agnostics believe God exists but does not participate in the affairs of His creatures

Isn't that Deism?

I've always thought Agnosticism means one who believes it is impossible to know if there is a God or not.

 

[Trumble]

Isn't that Deism?

I've always thought Agnosticism means one who believes it is impossible to know if there is a God or not.

Yup, deism in particular although Muslim Knight's precise description would also apply to pantheism and indeed other forms of theism that don't involve belief in a 'personal' God.

You describe what philosophers call 'strong' agnosticism. The 'weak' form (and the more common in general use?) simply involves not knowing if there is a God or not, without the necessary implication that it isn't actually possible to know.

 

[dougmusr]

That is so unjust and open to abuse! :X

It is my experience that many people postpone a conversion (or reversion if you prefer) decision for some time in order to participate in youthful excesses.

According to a previous post:
1.) One becomes Muslim by proclaiming the Shahadah.
2.) If one converts to Islam, his/her past sins are forgiven.

If a healthy person becomes aware of the need to revert and delays the decision until an unexpected illness or accident makes their demise seem imminent, and then proclaims the Shahadah per step 1 above, does step 2 also occur? If so, would you say that the Shadadah is unjust and open to abuse?

 

[Jayda]

Re: Biblical Errors in GENESIS

Eesa,

Hi Jayda



Well that's just your interpretation, I thought I'd clear that up, actually the text seems clear, as you have quoted, '"for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."'

You chose to put in caps the three days and three nights, which in of itself is a problem, but the first three words are not in caps, why is that? They explicitly tell the listener, FOR JUST AS, just as Jonah was three days and three nights, so here we are told the same way that Jonah was three days and three nights.... and what way was Jonah in there?? This is something which can be debated I guess for either way, I guess us without the 'holy spirit' are left stuck.

hola Eesa (may i call you that?)

i think perhaps i did not explain several things that are confusing you..., first, i am giving Catholic answers that i am drawing from official Church positions on, none of this is my interpretation. i use three sources, the catechism which is an explanation of all our doctrines and dogmas, the Catholic encyclopedia which is a repository for encyclopedic religious answers (it has imprimatur), and the New American Bible which is the only official english translation which is acceptable by the Church for liturgical use... the only official "bible" we believe in is the Nova Vulgata, that is in latin.

the NAB translates certain things into capital letters, i do not know why but i think it has something to do with how it is meant to be read aloud (since it is for liturgical use)...

my explanation of Jonah is not my interpretation... i looked up Jonah in the Catholic encyclopedia which gave an explanation of his OT story and the NT reference to him. the encyclopedia said that the sign was only that Jesus would be in the earth for three days just like Jonah was in a whale for 3 days... it is obviously an allusion to Jonah, not meant to be taken as a literal complete recreation of the Jonah episode (otherwise it would have been a whale and not the heart of the earth, among other things).

to confirm that the passage originally quoted was accurate i went to the biblegateway that has an online NAB that is fully searchable... i requoted the passage to include that translation since i believe in no other official english translations... that translation has that specific part in all capital letters...

With regards to the following question



The answer given was here,

From my understanding what you basically have mentioned is that the question was of a nature which did not need the answer of WHO God is but what the duties are as such, so that to attain eternal life one should follow the Commandment to know what is expected, and you showed a verse from the Old Testament.

My objection comes here, first that as many Christians have said the reason the Trinity is not spoken of much in the old testament is because God reveals himself at appropiate times and only when Jesus came was the time right for the Trinity to be CLEARLY spoken of, a child is given milk until it is old enough for meat. The whole God did not need to tell people he was three in one because he was not talking about his nature, well actually God wanted to make clear who he was, 'I am the LORD your God' is spoken many times, the Lord is a Jelouse God, His nature was something which would not have been hidden, not by a Jelouse God who wanted people to Know Who He Was.

actually Catholics do believe God discussed His triune nature in the past... a classic example is the Hebrews 1:8 reiteration of the psalms that delineates "the Son" and "the Father" and has the Son saluting the Father as God, and the Father saluting the Son as God. other examples include God speaking of His crucifixion in psalms, referring to how the world will see his pierced body and believe.

Further more, according to the author of John, Jesus says, "3Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." So knowing about God, loving him with all thy soul and thy mind is essential, there is no reason for God to not reveal his nature, and tell people who he is, specially through Jesus, at a time when Jesus, who some think himself is God, had the perfect oportunity to explain it.

we believe Jesus called "the Father" God just like "the Father" called "the Son" God (Hebrews 1:8 for example). God witnesses himself as God many times in the bible... we also believe that Jesus was "sent" by the Father to us for our salvation, just as the Holy Spirit was sent by the Father and the Son. Jesus was attesting to the divinity of God, and to the purpose of his messianic mission.

It is not about a question about different subjects, for even knowing what is required of us entails understanding who is requiring us to do it, eternal life lies in knowing God.

Also, thank you for your time and patience.

Eesa

perhaps you can explain how you have come to this conclusion based on the original passage we were discussing... we have gone somewhat offtopic discussing the Trinity doctrine and delving into Christs Dyophysitic human nature and his threefold office...

the man clearly asks Jesus an oikonomic question, Jesus responded with an oikonomic answer.

Dios te bendiga

 

[Jayda]

hola Al Habeshi,

i think there is too much information that needs to be answered on this thread for us to do so without a lot of confusion... perhaps it would be better for you to create separate threads to discuss the answers i give, that way i can concentrate on trying to answer ironbeards questions... i am sorry to request this but i am a newly wed and new mother and i do not have a substantial amount of time... so more organization for me means i can answer more efficiently when i do have free time...

i have to go,

Dios te bendiga

 

[Umar001]

Re: Biblical Errors in GENESIS

hola Eesa (may i call you that?)

Of course, feel free to call me anything, Eesa, Abdullah, Al Habeshi, Abu Ikhlas, ect, just not Al lol.

i think perhaps i did not explain several things that are confusing you..., first, i am giving Catholic answers that i am drawing from official Church positions on, none of this is my interpretation. i use three sources, the catechism which is an explanation of all our doctrines and dogmas, the Catholic encyclopedia which is a repository for encyclopedic religious answers (it has imprimatur), and the New American Bible which is the only official english translation which is acceptable by the Church for liturgical use... the only official "bible" we believe in is the Nova Vulgata, that is in latin.

the NAB translates certain things into capital letters, i do not know why but i think it has something to do with how it is meant to be read aloud (since it is for liturgical use)...

my explanation of Jonah is not my interpretation... i looked up Jonah in the Catholic encyclopedia which gave an explanation of his OT story and the NT reference to him. the encyclopedia said that the sign was only that Jesus would be in the earth for three days just like Jonah was in a whale for 3 days... it is obviously an allusion to Jonah, not meant to be taken as a literal complete recreation of the Jonah episode (otherwise it would have been a whale and not the heart of the earth, among other things).

to confirm that the passage originally quoted was accurate i went to the biblegateway that has an online NAB that is fully searchable... i requoted the passage to include that translation since i believe in no other official english translations... that translation has that specific part in all capital letters...

Well what it boils down to, and what I was trying to say was that in reality any interpretation given is not going to be totally authorative, maybe for catholics their priests and father's interpretation is authorative but only one thing/person, holds authority in teaching and that is the Holy Spirit.

actually Catholics do believe God discussed His triune nature in the past... a classic example is the Hebrews 1:8 reiteration of the psalms that delineates "the Son" and "the Father" and has the Son saluting the Father as God, and the Father saluting the Son as God. other examples include God speaking of His crucifixion in psalms, referring to how the world will see his pierced body and believe.

Well Hebrews is written after the time of Jesus, that's not past considering that, as for other verses such as those in psalms then those are open to much interpretation and translation, as jews would tell you.

perhaps you can explain how you have come to this conclusion based on the original passage we were discussing... we have gone somewhat offtopic discussing the Trinity doctrine and delving into Christs Dyophysitic human nature and his threefold office...

the man clearly asks Jesus an oikonomic question, Jesus responded with an oikonomic answer.

Dios te bendiga

An extract from a previous post of yours reads:

There is no one place in the Bible that addresses theologia, but instead it is spread out in the Bible (and usually connected to some other oikonomic context) and must be organized to give us any coherent picture about God,

Just as for example, when God gave Commandments in the Old Testament, He also informed us of his nature, he incooperated both sides, the part which deals with his nature and the part that deals with his reletionship with us.

This again, when Jesus is asked about eternal life, then we know that eternal life is to know God, which entails knowing his nature.

As you have said this thread is going to go off topic, I'll leave it here, might have to talk about God's nature in another place.

Thank you for your time

Eesa

 

[Woodrow]

It is my experience that many people postpone a conversion (or reversion if you prefer) decision for some time in order to participate in youthful excesses.

According to a previous post:
1.) One becomes Muslim by proclaiming the Shahadah.
2.) If one converts to Islam, his/her past sins are forgiven.

If a healthy person becomes aware of the need to revert and delays the decision until an unexpected illness or accident makes their demise seem imminent, and then proclaims the Shahadah per step 1 above, does step 2 also occur? If so, would you say that the Shadadah is unjust and open to abuse?

1.) One becomes Muslim by proclaiming the Shahadah.
With the intent of reverting. If a person does not say the Shahadaah the minute they have the intent too, they really do not have the intent. Having the intent means to say the Shahadah then and there, even it it is just by yourself. There is no formal ceremony, No ritual. Although many people will say the Shahadah to themselves and then publicaly proclaim it at the Masjid. The public proclimation is not required although desired. we do not become members of a Masjid.

Quite simply, if a person sees the need to revert. They are going to say the Shahadah then and there. The fact they have recognised the need to say it and they have not, would be inconceivable. Sorry no deliberate last minute loopholes.. The concious effort of verbalising it is simply putting the finishing touches on it.




2.) If one converts to Islam, his/her past sins are forgiven.

True up to the time the person says the shahadah. However, there is no way a person can have the intent to be Muslim and put it off until they know they are facing death. That would mean the person had no intent to live as a Muslim.

 

[Malaikah]

It is my experience that many people postpone a conversion (or reversion if you prefer) decision for some time in order to participate in youthful excesses.

According to a previous post:
1.) One becomes Muslim by proclaiming the Shahadah.
2.) If one converts to Islam, his/her past sins are forgiven.

If a healthy person becomes aware of the need to revert and delays the decision until an unexpected illness or accident makes their demise seem imminent, and then proclaims the Shahadah per step 1 above, does step 2 also occur? If so, would you say that the Shadadah is unjust and open to abuse?

Terrible plan, they have no guarantee that they will live long enough to say the shahadah when they want to. They might die an unexpected death. I honestly can not give you a direct answer to this though it is not as simple as you have made it sound. Woodrow might be on to something though.

Either way, in Christianity a person can become a Christian and continue being sinful because it doesn't matter at all, they will go to paradise anyway, whereas in Islam they will still be punished for the sins they committed as Muslims if they are not forgiven.

 

[dougmusr]

Either way, in Christianity a person can become a Christian and continue being sinful because it doesn't matter at all, they will go to paradise anyway, whereas in Islam they will still be punished for the sins they committed as Muslims if they are not forgiven.

The implication seems to be that Christian conversion is seldom genuine, while Muslim reversion is seldom suspect.

 

[Malaikah]

No, but the point I am making is even the most evil of Christians will not be punished! Whereas the most evil of Muslims will be punished (if they are not forgiven).

 

[Keltoi]

No, but the point I am making is even the most evil of Christians will not be punished! Whereas the most evil of Muslims will be punished (if they are not forgiven).

What makes you believe the "most evil of Christians" will not be punished? That is very much not true.

 

[Jayda]

Re: Biblical Errors in GENESIS

Of course, feel free to call me anything, Eesa, Abdullah, Al Habeshi, Abu Ikhlas, ect, just not Al lol.

lol gracias, your name is almost as long as my maiden name... i shall call you Eesa

Well what it boils down to, and what I was trying to say was that in reality any interpretation given is not going to be totally authorative, maybe for catholics their priests and father's interpretation is authorative but only one thing/person, holds authority in teaching and that is the Holy Spirit.

i think you might not be familiar with the Catholic+Orthodox position on this... we believe that the Holy Spirit is "with us" by guiding the leaders of the Church through something called apostolic succession... that means that any bishop that is recognized as tracing its office back to an apostle "historic episcopate" ... this is because the gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Church and God is with the disciples until the end of time... Catholics also believe that St. Peter (the first Pope) was given the keys to heaven and anything that he says on Earth is held true in heaven.

so we believe that the Holy Spirit is exactly why the Church holds the absolute authority over scriptural interpretation... that is why i went to such great lengths to determine what the Church says on these topics... rather than my own opinion.

Well Hebrews is written after the time of Jesus, that's not past considering that, as for other verses such as those in psalms then those are open to much interpretation and translation, as jews would tell you.

i think maybe you misunderstood why i was talking about Hebrews 1:8... i was saying that the reason the apostles requoted it was to show how the Son was referred to as God in the OT and in the psalms, and how we now understand this now that we have seen Christ... it is identifying Jesus as the person in the psalm called "the Son" who is saluted by "the Father" as "God."

i do not believe any of the bible is open to "much interpretation and translation" that is a sin because of Obsequium religiosum (religious assent) among other things... the only official english translation is the NASB and the only official interpretation is the Churchs... as it is guided by the Holy Spirit...

An extract from a previous post of yours reads:

There is no one place in the Bible that addresses theologia, but instead it is spread out in the Bible (and usually connected to some other oikonomic context) and must be organized to give us any coherent picture about God,

Just as for example, when God gave Commandments in the Old Testament, He also informed us of his nature, he incooperated both sides, the part which deals with his nature and the part that deals with his reletionship with us.

This again, when Jesus is asked about eternal life, then we know that eternal life is to know God, which entails knowing his nature.

excuse me if this is not an answer to your question i am still confused about what you are saying...

the theologia which is revealed to us in the first commandment is only that God is unique (no others) and unified... that knowledge is essential to following the first commandment because you are not allowed to believe that God is part of a pantheon, or that the Father, Son or Holy Spirit are three separate Gods. if you did not know that you could not follow the commandment the way it is meant to be followed... so that is why it is revealed. that is generally how theologia is revealed, for an oikonomic purpose... it is not revealed so that we could just know Gods nature for the sake of knowing Gods nature.

but the man who was asking Jesus what he had to do (oikonomic) to inherit the kingdom, did not need any further clarification on Gods nature as it applied to the first commandment... God had already revealed that he is a singular and unified God so a reiteration of this was unnecessary and inapprioriate, since the man would have understood following that commandment meant accepting God as singular and unified... so no further theologia was required, all that was needed was an oikonomic answer...

a discussion on exactly how God goes about being a singular unified God (triunity) was not essential to this man following the commandments (clearly he already had faith in Christ since he was asking Him how to go to heaven), so a further delving into the nature of God would have been an inappropriate departure from the essence of the mans question, given what we already knew the man believed about God.

As you have said this thread is going to go off topic, I'll leave it here, might have to talk about God's nature in another place.

Thank you for your time

Eesa

de nada

i think that would be a good idea... if somebody started a topic i could discuss the full series of doctrines concerning what we believe about theologia and christology... i do not think many muslims are familiar with the full set of our beliefs...

Dios te bendiga

 

[Jayda]

No, but the point I am making is even the most evil of Christians will not be punished! Whereas the most evil of Muslims will be punished (if they are not forgiven).

hola,

i do not mean to sound coy or sarcastic but i am having a difficult time harmonizing what you are saying here with this thread..."to Paradies, a Serial Killer!"

______________________________________________________________

separately as it concerns Catholicism we are judged by our obedience to God... we believe that Salvation comes from both faith and allegiance (including following his commands and the recieving of sacrements)... i think protestants believe something different...

if a person dies without belief in christ, without recieving the sacrements or without striving to do what he commands they die in separation from God and will be judged accordingly...

Dios te bendiga

 

[glo]

Either way, in Christianity a person can become a Christian and continue being sinful because it doesn't matter at all, they will go to paradise anyway, whereas in Islam they will still be punished for the sins they committed as Muslims if they are not forgiven.

Greetings, Malaikah

We have had these kind of discussions so many times in this forum, that I sometimes wonder whether there is any point in myself or any other non-Muslim trying to explain our faith.
Sometimes I get the sneaky feeling that some people really don't want to hear about other faiths. If wonder if there is a smilie sticking it's fingers in it's ears going 'La la la, I can't hear you' ...)

Anyway, rant over!
I am left to express my surprise that after having spent much time in the Comparative religions section you still make the statement that 'in Christianity a person can become a Christian and continue being sinful because it doesn't matter at all' :rollseyes

Read this thread to remind yourself what Christians think about the concept of doing good deeds:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/32408-faith-vs-works.html

Yes, Christians believe that we gain salvation by faith alone, and that no good deed in the world will evermake us good enough to enter into God's presence.
That's because God is perfect, and we are not!

The concept of faith through salvation does not mean:

• that once 'saved' Christias can do what they like
• that God does not still judge us according to our earthly conduct

God knows best, and he will judge us all justly!

I hope this helps you understand at least some of the Christian teaching.

Peace

 

[sudais1]

what stature does the Book of Barnaby have in Christianity ??

 

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

is that same as barnabus? if it is then...isnt it supposed to be the blind disciple of Jesus(pbuh)?

 

[Jayda]

what stature does the Book of Barnaby have in Christianity ??

hola sudais1,

canon concerning the books of the bible has been closed three times... the canon for all books of the bible was closed at the council of trent in the 16th century, the canon for the books of the new testament were closed at the end of the 4th century (council of rome) and the canon for the gospels, the "holy quaternion" was closed by the early to mid 2nd century... before that the oral tradition held the canon as the holy quaternion. the gospel attributed to barnabas you hear about today is a 16th century forgery, it did not exist at the time any of the canons were closed and so it was never considered for canon... aside from this anachronism various other features of the book are heretical and would fail to pass council or church inquiry anyway...

i do not know about other denominations of Christianity but as far as catholicism is concerned it is not even apocryphal... it is nothing.

Dios te bendiga

 

[Malaikah]

Hey don't all jump at me at once.:rollseyes

I ASKED dougmusr whether all Christians will go to Heaven no matter what and he said yes, it is not my fault if he mislead me!

I am left to express my surprise that after having spent much time in the Comparative religions section you still make the statement that 'in Christianity a person can become a Christian and continue being sinful because it doesn't matter at all'

Glo, I only said that AFTER I confirmed with dougmusr whether that was the case, and he said yes it was. Obviously there must have been some kind of misunderstanding.

So, does this mean that a person who was Christian but was very evil (a murder, thief, liar, rapist etc) and did not repent sincerely before he died, will NOT go straight to paradise? What happens to him then? Will he have to serve time in hell first? (As he would if he were a muslim?)

i do not mean to sound coy or sarcastic but i am having a difficult time harmonizing what you are saying here with this thread..."to Paradies, a Serial Killer!"

Hi Jayda.

I do not see why you do not think they harmonize, they are in fact in perfect harmony. No matter how much a person sins, as long as they turn to God in sincere repentance, they can be forgiven.

This does NOT mean a person can sin now, and say "I will repent later" because they have not meet the conditions of repentance:

There are five essential conditions for repentance: sincerity, regret for what one has done, giving it up immediately, determination not to repeat it in the future, and repenting during the time when repentance will be accepted, i.e., before one dies or before the sun rises in the west.​

http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=1807&ln=eng

I hope that makes sense.