Posts Tagged ‘sin’

Jesus and Mary being Jews never celebrated Easter

March 18, 2010

https://paarsurrey.wordpress.com/2010/02/07/jesus-was-not-dead-on-the-cross-in-the-first-place/#comment-952

hvtbintl69 Says:

I agree we have common points yet it is my desire as a Christian that you understand the differences because Eternity is a long time. The reason why Christians celebrate Easter is because Jesus bought eternity for us – he was the perfect sacrifice for sin. Jesus died on the cross – it was not someone that “seemed” like him, it was him and he rose.
Thanks.

paarsurrey Says:

Hi friend “hvtbintl69”

I don’t agree here:

1. I don’t think Jesus, who was a Jesus and his mother Mary also; they ever celebrated Easter- of the Catholics Protestants.

2. Jesus never bought any eternity for anybody; he himself died a natural and peaceful death in India.

3. Jesus never sacrificed himself for anybody’s sins.

4. Jesus never died on the Cross; he was alive when delivered from the Cross but in a near-dead position; that is why his friends took him hurriedly to a spacious tomb for treatment; so that he does not get suffocated.

5. Jesus never died on the Cross; so there is no question for his beings risen from the dead.
I think you understand.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

Advertisements

‎“Is Jesus GOD the GOD in the OLD Testament the GOD of MOSES and the TEN ‎COMMANDMENTS is this JESUS?”

August 15, 2009

http://yedda.com/questions/Jesus_GOD_christianity_9513678717881/

Question at Yedda:Is Jesus GOD the GOD in the OLD Testament ‎the GOD of MOSES and the TEN COMMANDMENTS is this JESUS?‎

Paarsurrey Answers:‎

Hi friends

Jesus that cunning Paul and the sinful scribes presented in the New Testament is not the ‎YHWH presented in Old Testament, the God of Moses; God who revealed Ten ‎Commandedments on Moses. Jesus never believed in the god of cunning Paul and the sinful ‎scribes. Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi and he believed in YHWH, the God – the Creator of ‎Universe.‎

I think it will be appropriate here to quote from Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908, the ‎Promised Messiah, and the Second Coming, who has illustrated the real and pure Jeus for ‎the mankind:

Apart from this, it was necessary that he (Jesus) should escape death on the cross, for it ‎was stated in the Holy Book that whoever was hanged on the wood was accursed. It is a ‎cruel and an unjust blasphemy to attribute a curse to an eminent person like Jesus, the ‎Messiah, for, according to the agreed view of all who know the language, la’nat, or curse, ‎has reference to the state of one’s heart.‎

A man would be said to be accursed when his heart, having been estranged from God, ‎becomes really dark; when, deprived of divine mercy and of divine love, devoid ‎absolutely of His Knowledge, blinded like the devil, he becomes filled with the poison of ‎unbelief; when there remains not a ray of divine love and knowledge in him; when the ‎bond of loyalty is broken, and between him and God there arises hatred and contempt and ‎spite and hostility, so much so that God and he become mutual enemies; and when God ‎becomes weary of him and he becomes weary of God; in short, when he becomes an heir ‎to all the attributes of the Devil — and that is why the Devil himself is called accursed.3 ‎

It is clear that the significance of the word Mal’un, viz. accursed, is so foul that it can ‎never apply to any righteous person who entertains love of God in his heart. Alas! ‎Christians did not ponder over the significance of a curse when they invented this belief; ‎else, it were impossible for them to have used such a bad word for a righteous man like ‎Jesus. Can we say that Jesus’ heart was ever really estranged from God; that he had ‎denied God, that he hated Him and had become His enemy?

Can we ever think that Jesus had ever felt in his heart that he was estranged from God, ‎that he was an enemy of God, and that he was immersed in the darkness of unbelief and ‎denial? If, then, Jesus had never been in such a state of mind, that his heart was always ‎full of love and the light of Divine Knowledge, is it for you, wise people, to ponder ‎whether we can ever say that, not one, but thousands of curses from God had descended ‎upon the heart of Jesus with all their evil significance? Never. Then, how can we say that ‎he was, God forbid, accursed?

It is a pity that once a man has given utterance to something, when he has taken his stand ‎upon a particular belief, he is not inclined to give up that belief, however much the ‎absurdity thereof be exposed. Desire to attain salvation, if grounded upon true ‎foundations, is a praiseworthy thing, but where is the sense in having a desire for ‎salvation which kills truth and which countenances, regarding a holy prophet arid a ‎perfect man, the belief that he had as it were passed through a state in which he had been ‎estranged from God, and in which, instead of unity of heart and unity of inclination, there ‎had been produced a strangeness and aloofness, enmity and hatred; and, instead of light, ‎darkness had surrounded his heart?

Let it also be noticed that this not only detracts from the prophethood and apostleship of ‎Jesus (on whom be the peace of God) but it is also derogatory to his claim to spiritual ‎eminence, holiness, love, and knowledge of God, to which he has repeatedly given ‎expression in the gospels. Just look through the Bible; therein Jesus clearly claims that he ‎is the Light of the world, that he is the Guide, and that he stands in a relation of great love ‎towards God; that he has been honoured by a clean birth, and that he is the loved Son of ‎God.

How then, in spite of these pure and holy relations, can a curse, with all its significance, ‎be attributed to Jesus? No, never. Therefore, there is no doubt that Jesus was not ‎crucified, i.e., he did not die on the Cross, for his personality did not deserve the ‎underlying consequence of death on the Cross. Not having been crucified, he was spared ‎the impure implications of a curse, and no doubt it also proves that he did not go to ‎heaven, for going to heaven formed part of this whole scheme and was a consequence of ‎the idea of his having been crucified. Therefore, when it is proved that he was neither ‎accursed, nor did he go to hell for three days, nor did he suffer death the other part of the ‎scheme, namely, that he went to heaven, is proved to be wrong.

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/jesus-in-india/ch1.html

So Jesus was neither god of Moses or God who revealed Ten Commandements on Moses ‎nor God of the Old Testaments, for sure.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim‎

If the Messiah himself were to return, he would fail to recognize the prevalent Christianity

June 25, 2009

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908, the Promised Messiah, the Second Coming says:

During the final battle
between guidance and misguidance in these latter
days, and finding the Muslims in a state of ignorance
at the turn of the fourteenth century [Hijrah] and the
beginning of the final millennium, God once again
remembered His Word and revived the Muslim faith.

Other religions were never so revived after the advent
of our Holy Prophet. Therefore, they all perished
and were deprived of spirituality, as a result of which
they were infested with a host of malpractices; just as
a piece of cloth which remains unwashed keeps gathering
dust. People who were deprived of spirituality
and were not free from the filth of the desire of their
baser selves interfered with those religions in accordance
with their selfish motives, and distorted them
out of all recognition.

For an example let us take the
case of Christianity whose principles were so pure
and undefiled in the beginning. Although the teaching
preached by the Messiahas was not so perfect as the
teaching of the Holy Quran, because the time for a
perfect teaching had not yet arrived, and human capabilities
were not mature enough at the time, still, in
the context of the prevailing conditions, it was the
most appropriate teaching.

It guided to the same God
as did the Torah. But, after the Messiah, the god of
Christians was transformed into another god who was
nowhere mentioned in the original teachings of the
Torah, nor did the Israelites have any inkling of such
a god. Belief in this new god disturbed the entire dynamics
of the Torah, and its teachings regarding
deliverance from sin and attainment of piety and purity
became corrupted.

Deliverance from sin came to
depend simply upon the belief that the Messiah had
courted death by crucifixion for the salvation of mankind
and that he was ‘God’ himself. Many other
timeless commandments of the Torah were also violated
and the Christian faith underwent such a change
that even if the Messiah himself were to return, he
would fail to recognize it.

It is most astonishing that
the people who had been enjoined to follow the Torah,
so brazenly flouted its commandments. For instance, it
is nowhere written in the Gospels that though the eating
of pork was made unlawful in the Torah, yet I [the
Messiah] make it lawful for you; or that though the
Torah prescribes circumcision, I repeal this commandment.

How could it be lawful to introduce into
religion what had not been uttered by Jesus? Nevertheless,
as it was inevitable that God would establish a
universal religion, namely Islam, it was the deterioration
of Christianity that heralded this faith.

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/LectureSialkot.pdf

It is proved that Jesus was neither accursed, nor did he go to hell for three days, nor did he suffer death on Cross; so Jesus went to heaven in forty days, is proved to be wrong

June 5, 2009

Maaark says:

Thank you for the explanation of Ahmadi.

About mankind’s condition; I believe the Bible addresses three fundamental questions for mankind;
1-What is the nature and character of our Creator?
2- What is the nature of mankind and what is our problem?
3- Therefore what shall we do?

#2 the nature of man;

Do Muslims believe mankind (male and female) has a special relationship to God different from all other animals? Bible calls this made in the image of God. Evolutionists do not recognize this distinction.

What is sin? are all mankind prone to sin? Does sin separate people from God? Is there a special word or concept of sin in the Koran that is different from the Bible?

Does the Koran accept the Genesis account of Adam and Eve and their sin? (long question so sumerize)

Paarsurrey says:

I will give you a reply in brief:

1. Yes, Quran does specify a special relationship between God Allah YHWH and the human beings. The animals have been created for service and benefit of the human beings.

2. Yes, Quran does mention that the human beings could acquire in their limited beings, the attributes of God Allah YHWH; this is the same thing as saying in the image of God but never a god.

3. Quran mentions that human beings are apt to sin; to avoid from sins one needs constant help from God to uproot the sins before they grow up in our selves; and if we commit a sin then submissively ask forgiveness with a resolve not to commit the sin again. Adam did make a mistake but since he asked forgiveness, he was forgiven by God Allah YHWH. Sins are not transferable or are not herditary.

4. Quran does not mention that Adam or Eve were the first human beings born; Adam was the first human being honoured to have Converse of God Allah YHWH. Man evolved physically in billions of years till man reached a stange responsible to receive Converse with God.

The sins are actions done in rebellion of God Allah YHWH; when a human being does acts that are out of the image of God or the attributes of God; that could be described as a sin.

When off the image; man is obviously distanced from God; while his goal is to attain nearness of God; not physically, but attributively, one has to attain nearness of Him.

I think it will be appropriate here to quote from Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908, the Promised Messiah, and the Second Coming, to illustrate it further:

Apart from this, it was necessary that he should escape death on the cross, for it was stated in the Holy Book that whoever was hanged on the wood was accursed. It is a cruel and an unjust blasphemy to attribute a curse to an eminent person like Jesus, the Messiah, for, according to the agreed view of all who know the language, la’nat, or curse, has reference to the state of one’s heart.

A man would be said to be accursed when his heart, having been estranged from God, becomes really dark; when, deprived of divine mercy and of divine love, devoid absolutely of His Knowledge, blinded like the devil, he becomes filled with the poison of unbelief; when there remains not a ray of divine love and knowledge in him; when the bond of loyalty is broken, and between him and God there arises hatred and contempt and spite and hostility, so much so that God and he become mutual enemies; and when God becomes weary of him and he becomes weary of God; in short, when he becomes an heir to all the attributes of the Devil — and that is why the Devil himself is called accursed.3

It is clear that the significance of the word Mal’un, viz. accursed, is so foul that it can never apply to any righteous person who entertains love of God in his heart. Alas! Christians did not ponder over the significance of a curse when they invented this belief; else, it were impossible for them to have used such a bad word for a righteous man like Jesus. Can we say that Jesus’ heart was ever really estranged from God; that he had denied God, that he hated Him and had become His enemy?

Can we ever think that Jesus had ever felt in his heart that he was estranged from God, that he was an enemy of God, and that he was immersed in the darkness of unbelief and denial? If, then, Jesus had never been in such a state of mind, that his heart was always full of love and the light of Divine Knowledge, is it for you, wise people, to ponder whether we can ever say that, not one, but thousands of curses from God had descended upon the heart of Jesus with all their evil significance? Never. Then, how can we say that he was, God forbid, accursed?

It is a pity that once a man has given utterance to something, when he has taken his stand upon a particular belief, he is not inclined to give up that belief, however much the absurdity thereof be exposed. Desire to attain salvation, if grounded upon true foundations, is a praiseworthy thing, but where is the sense in having a desire for salvation which kills truth and which countenances, regarding a holy prophet arid a perfect man, the belief that he had as it were passed through a state in which he had been estranged from God, and in which, instead of unity of heart and unity of inclination, there had been produced a strangeness and aloofness, enmity and hatred; and, instead of light, darkness had surrounded his heart?

Let it also be noticed that this not only detracts from the prophethood and apostleship of Jesus (on whom be the peace of God) but it is also derogatory to his claim to spiritual eminence, holiness, love, and knowledge of God, to which he has repeatedly given expression in the gospels. Just look through the Bible; therein Jesus clearly claims that he is the Light of the world, that he is the Guide, and that he stands in a relation of great love towards God; that he has been honoured by a clean birth, and that he is the loved Son of God.

How then, in spite of these pure and holy relations, can a curse, with all its significance, be attributed to Jesus? No, never. Therefore, there is no doubt that Jesus was not crucified, i.e., he did not die on the Cross, for his personality did not deserve the underlying consequence of death on the Cross. Not having been crucified, he was spared the impure implications of a curse, and no doubt it also proves that he did not go to heaven, for going to heaven formed part of this whole scheme and was a consequence of the idea of his having been crucified. Therefore, when it is proved that he was neither accursed, nor did he go to hell for three days, nor did he suffer death the other part of the scheme, namely, that he went to heaven, is proved to be wrong.

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/jesus-in-india/ch1.html
Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

I do love Adam and Eve as I do love Jesus and Mary

March 15, 2009

I Posted the following comment on the blog: EVANGELIST BILLY BOLITHO, on the link:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4663342674507117519&postID=2969850247259466970
“Who is responsible?”

Paarsurrey says:

Hi

Jesus’ death on the Cross has no bearing or relevance with the sins of a person. Adam sinned or made some mistake; he repented, asked forgiveness from Allah, and he resolved not to commit the same mistakes again. Allah forgave him and was please with him again. Adam became as complete and perfect of a man as he was before making the mistake, in my opinion.

That was a great experience of Adam; and sons of Adam followed him in this of his example, in my opinion.

Jesus declared voluntarily that he was Son of Adam, having no father, it is acceptable. This way Jesus humbly declared that his way was the way of Adam. To err is human; so being a humble man Jesus perhaps knew that he was apt to make mistakes. So Jesus resolved to follow Adam’s example to ask forgiveness from Allah, in my opinion.

All perfect men called Messengers do the same things; however, more wise amongst them ask forgiveness from Allah for the mistakes not yet done by them; so that they are forgiven beforehand by Allah. One such perfect man is Muhammad; with this wisdom Muhammad was endowed with the title Khatamun Nabiyyeen or the Seal of the Prophets Messengers, in my opinion.

Now the wise persons should have to follow Muhammad; asking forgiveness from Allah for the sins and mistakes one has not yet committed. This is the impression one should get from this Seal of Prophets to become in the image of Allah; not physically but in attributes within the spheres of humanity, in my opinion.

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Adam and Eve.

Thanks

I am an Ahamdi peaceful Muslim

P.S. I have added a page titled “Ask Paarsurrey” on my blog for the questions. Please view it on the side bar of my blog for peaceful questions and discussions. Everybody is welcome; even those who differ with me.
https://paarsurrey.wordpress.com/

despair not of the mercy of Allah, surely Allah forgives all sins

March 14, 2009

Originally Posted by Joseph41– a protestant friend:
Tell us of the kindness and goodness…
of the islamic and Ahmadiyyan cult god…
and how it leads sinners to repentance.
Oh…and can you provide for us a quote…
from the quran…that is equal to the verse…
provided from the New Testament above.

Hi friend Joseph41

As desired by you I give here verse # [39:54] with the text and the usual context of some preceding and some following verses to know what Quran is exactly saying. Quran is very clear on every subject and needs no interpretition if one read it intently;

[39:46] وَإِذَا ذُكِرَ ٱللَّهُ وَحۡدَهُ ٱشۡمَأَزَّتۡ قُلُوبُ ٱلَّذِينَ لَا يُؤۡمِنُونَ بِٱلۡأَخِرَةِ‌ۖ وَإِذَا ذُكِرَ ٱلَّذِينَ مِن دُونِهِۦۤ إِذَا هُمۡ يَسۡتَبۡشِرُونَ
[39:46] And when Allah alone is mentioned the hearts of those who believe not in the Hereafter shrink with aversion; but when those beside Him are mentioned, behold, they begin to rejoice.

[39:47] قُلِ ٱللَّهُمَّ فَاطِرَ ٱلسَّمَـٰوَٲتِ وَٱلۡأَرۡضِ عَـٰلِمَ ٱلۡغَيۡبِ وَٱلشَّہَـٰدَةِ أَنتَ تَحۡكُمُ بَيۡنَ عِبَادِكَ فِى مَا كَانُواْ فِيهِ يَخۡتَلِفُونَ
[39:47] Say, ‘O Allah! Originator of the heavens and the earth; Knower of the unseen and the seen; Thou alone wilt judge between Thy servants concerning that in which they differed.’

[39:48] وَلَوۡ أَنَّ لِلَّذِينَ ظَلَمُواْ مَا فِى ٱلۡأَرۡضِ جَمِيعً۬ا وَمِثۡلَهُ ۥ مَعَهُ ۥ لَٱفۡتَدَوۡاْ بِهِۦ مِن سُوٓءِ ٱلۡعَذَابِ يَوۡمَ ٱلۡقِيَـٰمَةِ‌ۚ وَبَدَا لَهُم مِّنَ ٱللَّهِ مَا لَمۡ يَكُونُواْ يَحۡتَسِبُونَ
[39:48] And even if the wrongdoers possessed all that is in the earth, and the like thereof in addition to it, they would surely seek to ransom themselves with it from the evil punishment on the Day of Resurrection; but there shall appear unto them, from Allah, that which they never thought of.

[39:49] وَبَدَا لَهُمۡ سَيِّـَٔاتُ مَا ڪَسَبُواْ وَحَاقَ بِهِم مَّا كَانُواْ بِهِۦ يَسۡتَہۡزِءُونَ
[39:49] And the evil consequences of what they had earned will become apparent to them and that which they used to mock at will encompass them.

[39:50] فَإِذَا مَسَّ ٱلۡإِنسَـٰنَ ضُرٌّ۬ دَعَانَا ثُمَّ إِذَا خَوَّلۡنَـٰهُ نِعۡمَةً۬ مِّنَّا قَالَ إِنَّمَآ أُوتِيتُهُ ۥ عَلَىٰ عِلۡمِۭ‌ۚ بَلۡ هِىَ فِتۡنَةٌ۬ وَلَـٰكِنَّ أَكۡثَرَهُمۡ لَا [يَعۡلَمُونَ [39:50] And when trouble touches man, he cries unto Us. But when We bestow on him a favour from Us, he says, ‘This has been given to me on account of my own knowledge.’ Nay, it is only a trial; but most of them know not.

[39:51] قَدۡ قَالَهَا ٱلَّذِينَ مِن قَبۡلِهِمۡ فَمَآ أَغۡنَىٰ عَنۡہُم مَّا كَانُواْ يَكۡسِبُونَ
[39:51] Those who were before them said the same thing, yet all that they had earned availed them not;

[39:52] فَأَصَابَہُمۡ سَيِّـَٔاتُ مَا كَسَبُواْ‌ۚ وَٱلَّذِينَ ظَلَمُواْ مِنۡ هَـٰٓؤُلَآءِ سَيُصِيبُہُمۡ سَيِّـَٔاتُ مَا كَسَبُواْ وَمَا هُم بِمُعۡجِزِينَ
[39:52] So the evil consequences of what they had earned overtook them; and those who do wrong from among these disbelievers — the evil consequences of what they earned shall also overtake them. They cannot escape.

[39:53] أَوَلَمۡ يَعۡلَمُوٓاْ أَنَّ ٱللَّهَ يَبۡسُطُ ٱلرِّزۡقَ لِمَن يَشَآءُ وَيَقۡدِرُ‌ۚ إِنَّ فِى ذَٲلِكَ لَأَيَـٰتٍ۬ لِّقَوۡمٍ۬ يُؤۡمِنُونَ
[39:53] Know they not that Allah enlarges the provision for whomsoever He pleases, and straitens it for whomsoever He pleases? Verily, in that are Signs for a people who believe.

[39:54] ۞ قُلۡ يَـٰعِبَادِىَ ٱلَّذِينَ أَسۡرَفُواْ عَلَىٰٓ أَنفُسِهِمۡ لَا تَقۡنَطُواْ مِن رَّحۡمَةِ ٱللَّهِ‌ۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ يَغۡفِرُ ٱلذُّنُوبَ جَمِيعًا‌ۚ إِنَّهُ ۥ هُوَ ٱلۡغَفُورُ ٱلرَّحِيمُ
[39:54] Say, “O My servants who have committed excesses against their own souls! despair not of the mercy of Allah, surely Allah forgives all sins. Verily He is Most Forgiving, Merciful.

[39:55] وَأَنِيبُوٓاْ إِلَىٰ رَبِّكُمۡ وَأَسۡلِمُواْ لَهُ ۥ مِن قَبۡلِ أَن يَأۡتِيَكُمُ ٱلۡعَذَابُ ثُمَّ لَا تُنصَرُونَ
[39:55] “And turn ye to your Lord, and submit yourselves to Him, before there comes unto you the punishment; for then you shall not be helped.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?submitCh=Read+from+verse%3A&ch=39&verse=45

The sinners of America- the Americans and peoples in the West; it is a godd news from Allah in verse [39:54] above. Enjoy mercy of Allah as mentioned there.

I love Jesus and Mary as I love Adam and Eve.

Thanks
__________________
paarsurrey – an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

P.S. I have added a page titled “Ask Paarsurrey” on my blog for the questions. Please view it on the side bar of my blog for peaceful questions and discussions. Everybody is welcome; even those who differ with me.
https://paarsurrey.wordpress.com/

“Original Sin”: not an OTBiblical term believed by Jesus or Mary

December 19, 2008

http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=4564288&postcount=3
original sin

Originally Posted by severntofall:
What’s the whole deal with Adam and Eve? Why did their eating fruit from the tree of life anger God so greatly? How did this sin impact humanity? What would earth be like now if they hadn’t of committed this sin?

Paarsurrey says:

Hi

All sins are sins; there is no original sin. Every sin can be forgiven by God Allah; only the sinner has to sincerely repent of his sin and resolve not to do it again and ask forgiveness from God Allah in total humility. This term “original sin” is not used in OTBible. Jesus and Mary were Jews, they never used this term from their mouth.

Only Paul invented this term to base his theological philosophy to confuse the Catholics in my opinion.

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Buddha and Krishna.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

severntofall says:

Very true; it was actually centuries after Jesus’ death before this concept was ever discussed.

every child born of a man or a woman is sinless

December 13, 2008

http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=4538255&postcount=198
Some Respectfull Questions for Muslims

Originally Posted by planten:
Please explain why a new born baby is sinful and all mankind is sinful. Only Jesus is not sinful. Is That because he (Jesus) was born without the agency of any man?
So what comes out as a straight result that the new born babies and all mankind is sinful just because they are the result of a lady mating with a man.

Try to tie the Jesus birth with all that and you will, I hope, come to the same conclusion that the sinful nature is somehow tied up with the sexual mating and conception. Please look into it and find out what it is all about. I am sure that I had the impression that amongst christians, all types of mating, married or unmarried” was considered a sin.

Hi

I think that planten’s wiew point is logical.

His argument is that why to consider a new born baby as sinful, if the baby is born legitimately from a married husband and wife. My catholic friends , in my opinion, have just to cite the phenomenon when a baby- all babies in the world including, is born sinless.

If one cannot cite such a possibility; then logically sex of a man with a woman whether married or not is (or should be) sinful as our Catholics friends hold wrongly in their minds.

This is only a logical thing; its cure lies in thinking that every child born of a man or a woman is sinless. This establishes love and respect of every child born anywhere in the world; and I think Jesus and Mary would like it more.

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Buddha and Krishna.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

Religions are supposed to do what their God tells them to do no matter how harsh it may seem

December 12, 2008

http://forums.catholic.com/showpost….0&postcount=13Flogging adulterers and adulteresses one hundred times

eldestofvic says:

Originally Posted by ralphinal:

Very relevant. Being in delicto flagrante when caught is totally different. In the most places today that do not allow ANY punishment for Adultry, catching your wife in bed with another man can be grounds for all kinds of actions

eldestofvic says:

What kind of legal actions would you be refering to? What I was drawing attention to was not the definiton of how a sin was deemed to have taken place but only the response to that sin once determined

Originally Posted by ralphinal
Then what?

eldestofvic says:

Then what, what? All I did was point out that you had overlooked that the remedy is the same for the woman as the man.

Originally Posted by ralphinal
Shouldn’t religion try to ease the harshness? Or should it contribute?

eldestofvic says:

No that’s more the job of hospitals and mattress makers. Religions are suppose to do what their Gd tells them to do no matter how harsh it may seem.

Originally Posted by ralphinal
Jesus said to forgive those who wrong you. Having the ever-loving stuff beaten out of someone IS NOT FORGIVENESS.

eldestofvic says:

And when your religion does not recognize that Jesus has the authority to say this, he is only one man talking, and a blasphemer. If Gd has told you to “beat the ever-loving stuff” out of sinners, you do so, because Gd is Gd and His ways are not your ways.

Originally Posted by ralphinal
Islam has been around for 1500 years. Are they any closer to being more kind?

eldestofvic says:

And after 1000 years did Christians display any level more of kindness from Jerusulam to Srebinica?
Islam has its more liberal elements and more fundamental regimes just like every other religion. And again, when did “kind” become a benchmark for obedience?

Originally Posted by ralphinal
Really? The fact that they call Paul a lier, Jesus a lier, Mary a lier, all the Apostles liers, then claim to love them (except Paul), then tell us that we should be Muslim like Jesus really bugs me.

Perhaps I am too close to the situation. I see calling Jesus and those closest to him a lying peice of trash to be insulting to me and to them.

eldestofvic says:

Listen, I’m not saying that Islam is right. If I felt that way then obviously I should become a Muslim. I think what I’m responding to mostly in these threads is the level of rhetoric that seems more in keeping with the kind of stuff/attitudes etc. that I’ve had to face defending Catholic teachings to Protestants.

Paarsurrey says:

I agree with eldestofvic that Religions are supposed to do what their God tells them to do no matter how harsh it may seem.

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Buddha and Krishna

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

The Concept of Sin and Atonement not based on anything Jesus said, did or taught

August 21, 2008

The Muslim thinking on atonement is broad based and is not literally linked to the story of Adam and Eve as narrated by the Jewish/Christian scriptures:-
• All human beings are born innocent. After birth or more pertinently after the age when a person is mature enough to distinguish right from the evil, every person is responsible for his actions sinful or otherwise. If he repents before God for his sins and resolves before Him that he would not do it again; God in his mercy and in his sole discretion could pardon him. If God pardons then the person is like the one who has done no sin.

• All prophets -the perfect men; are innocent and not sinful and that is why they are chosen by God as His messengers to humanity (from Adam to Abraham to Moses to Jesus, from Krishna to Buddha to Muhammad) all prophets of God are respectful persons and innocent and not sinful.
My present submissions are not intended against the factual person Jesus s/o Mary -the perfect human being; but it is intended against the mythical Orthodox Christian faith who deify Jesus and present him as Son of God or God. This is solely done to bring such person to realize the points where they made the mistakes so that they could update their faith based on facts, scientific knowledge, reason and rationality.

I agree on many points with the views of certain moderate Christians who believe that God does not play favorites. He loves all His children equally. No just parent would hold their children accountable for what the children did not know .But unlike the orthodox Christians, the moderate Christians do not believe that people who are not Christians are condemned automatically.Their thinking is very close to the human psyche that has not changed much from the time of Adam to date.

To elaborate the point I present what Mirza Tahir Ahmad has stated on the issue:-

Muslims believe that all divine books are based on eternal truth and none can make any claims contrary to that. When we come across inconsistencies and contradictions in any so called divinely revealed book, our attitude is not that of total denial and rejection but that of cautious and sympathetic examination. Most of the statements of the Old Testament and the New Testament, which we find at variance with the truth of nature, we either try to reconcile by reading some underlying cryptic or metaphoric message, or reject part of the text as the work of human hands rather than that of God.

While Christianity itself was true, it could not have contained any distortions, unacceptable facts or beliefs giving a lie to nature. That is why we started not with the textual examination but with the fundamentals themselves, which through centuries of consensus have become indisputable components of Christian philosophy. Rudimentary among them are the Christian understanding of Sin and Atonement. I would much rather believe that someone, somewhere during the history of Christianity, misunderstood things and tried to interpret them in the light of his knowledge and misled the following generations because of that.

The reader must be reminded here that this concept of inherited sin is only a Pauline misinterpretation. It cannot be rightfully attributed to the teachings of the Old Testament. There is an over-whelming evidence t to the c contrary in many books of the Old Testament.

In the fifth century, Augustine the Bishop of Hippo; was involved in a confrontation with the Pelagian movement, concerning the controversy of the nature of the fall of Adam and Eve. He proclaimed the Pelagian movement as being heretical because it taught that Adam’s sin affected only himself and not the human race as a whole; that every individual is born free of sin and is capable in his own power of living a sinless life and that there had even been persons who had succeeded in doing so.
Those in the right were labeled as heretics. Day was denounced as night and night as day. Heresy is truth and truth heresy.

From the above, it becomes comfortingly clear that the concepts of Inherited Sin and of Crucifixion are based only on the conjecture and wishful thinking of Christian theologians at a later date. It is quite likely that it was born out of some pre-Christian myths of a similar nature, which, when applied to the circumstances of Jesus Christ, tempted them to read close similarities between the two and create a similar myth. However, whatever the mystery or paradox, as we see it, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Christian philosophy of Sin and Atonement was based on anything which Jesus might have said or done or taught. He could never have preached anything so contrary to, and so diametrically opposed to human intellect.

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/christianity_facts_to_fiction/index.html
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/index.html
http://www.alislam.org/