Concept of Sin [Archive] - Understanding Islam Community

Roswell

28th March 2005, 13:41

Peace All,

Something coneptual that I think of what is sin? There are different doctrines among the people. One, which is based on nature, prominent of this concept say that the causes that lead to commit sin are in the nature of human being therefore we are enticed to commit sin. Another concept that is based on nurture. People who support this state that, naturally, human beings are sinless like a blank paper however surroundings and social system show the way to a man or woman towards sin. That precisely means that external society is responsible for a sin to be committed. The third concept of sin is related to the church. According to this one, the very first human Adam (pbuh) committed sin in paradise when he ate the forbidden fruit. This is called the original sin in Christianity. Thus, due to Adam (pbuh), the whole mankind is held to be sinful. Then God’s lamb Jesus (pbuh) came and died on the cross for our sins and who ever believes in this fairy tale should be saved from God Almighty's torture of Hell. Any unbiased reader would definitely pick the odd man out within these three i.e. concept of original sin which is quite illogical.
However, there is quite different concept of sin in Islam. According to Islam, Human beings are born to be tested out here.

We hath created life and death that He may try you, which of you is best in conduct, He is the Mighty, forgiving.

(Surah Al-Mulk, 02)

Due to this nature of test, mankind is given freehand, to act/say anything. He is free to live whichever way he wants to, and whichever way he doesn’t. This freedom is called managerial freedom. Qur’an describes it as,

Lo! We offered the trust unto the heavens and the earth and the hills, but they shrank from bearing it, and wee afraid of it. And man assumed it. Lo! He hath proved a tyrant and a fool

(Surah Al-ahzab, 72)

Beside this freedom, Qur’an declares that it has mentioned which method is to be adopted.

And inspired it (with conscience of) what is wrong for it and (what is) right for it.

(Surah Ash-Shams, 08)

According to Qur’an, human beings have right to whichever way they may use their freedom in this very world but they don’t have any right to save themselves from the effects of it's usage. For instance, a man is free to hold red hot rod in his hand or not but he can never prevent himself from it’s reaction while holding this rod. This clears the concept of sin in Islam. Sin is the wrong usage of one's freedom, which has the border from where other’s nose begins and to enter forbidden area according to words of a Hadtih.
So the question rises, how can we identify form of sins during this life? There are two ways, one is internal i.e. conscience, and the other is external that is Qur’an. Qur’an explicitly declares those things are forbidden to mankind. The internal identification could have been through ones conscience.

And inspired it (with conscience of) what is wrong for it and (what is) right for it.

(Surah Ash-Shams, 08)

Qur’an tells that by nature everyone is on correct path over which he is originally created.

So set thy purpose (O Muhammad) for religion as a man by nature upright, the nature (framed) by Allah, in which He hath created man.

(Surah Al-Room, 30)

These all above clearly entails that it’s not the fate of mankind to commit sin (i.e. nature) but it’s rather the matter of choice. Similarly, social problems can lead a man towards evil. Now if a man, influenced by these social causes, commits sin, he will flunk. However, if that man ask forgiveness and do refrain himself to indulge such acts, could be forgiven by God (which negates the concept of original sin).

Regards,

hawk

28th March 2005, 15:02

I think we need to understand first,

Why did God create man, according to islam?

Also your understanding of original sin is not correct.
Original Sin simply means that Man now has the ability to sin.

Had Adam not sinned, then we would still be in Garden of Eden.
The Garden where we existed perfectly, sinlessly.
A garden where all your needs are taken care of, basically utopia.

But because we are on earth, (limited resources, unlimited needs)
there is a propensity to sin.

Now, Answer the first question, and I think we will make very good progress.

Why did God create Man?

Morpheus

28th March 2005, 17:45

A the roswell said abt the concept of sin, i do agree with u, but in islam we have clear cutt knowledge of the things that are counted in the sin & those that are not sin , for e.g. say for in Canada dope (charas ) is legal to smoke, therefore in their law it would not be counted a sin , but in islam each & everything that makes man unconsious is taken as a sin aur u can say haram,

The_Other_Admin

28th March 2005, 17:50

Also your understanding of original sin is not correct.
Original Sin simply means that Man now has the ability to sin.

Had Adam not sinned, then we would still be in Garden of Eden.
The Garden where we existed perfectly, sinlessly.
A garden where all your needs are taken care of, basically utopia.

Let's say if Adam had not sinned then what? Another human would have sinned or not? What had been the situation then?
After the resurrection people living in the paradise can or cannot sin too? What will happen then? They will be thrown into hell or they will be sent down to earth like Adam?

Btw, concept of original sin is not in Judaism.

hawk

28th March 2005, 20:05

Does anyone want to answer my question about

Why did God create man?

hawk

28th March 2005, 20:06

Btw, concept of original sin is not in Judaism.

its not in islam either....

and your point is???

Yahya Sulaiman

28th March 2005, 23:44

Does anyone want to answer my question about

Why did God create man?

Certainly. Here:

I have not created jinn and mankind except to serve me.

hawk

29th March 2005, 02:47

But why men especially? what made man different from Jin?
Or malaika? Why did Allah make the Angels Prostrate before Man?

The Angels served Allah well enough, why then would He have created Men and Jinn?

The Jinn too, at least one of them (Iblis) served God. So why create men?

Basically what was special about Man? that God should
1) Create a creature of this nature
2) Make Any other creation prostrate before it (this is particularly note worthy since this is creation prostrating before creation, which is really unique)

Ofcourse this would lead us to conclude that the relationship pf God with Man was special, more special than the Jinn or Malaika with God.

After all man wasnt asked to prostrate before the Angels. or any other creation.

But what defines the uniquesness of this relationship?

Yahya Sulaiman

29th March 2005, 03:12

I'm not God, so I don't know. We can never tell for certain even why other mortals do the things they do. We don't always even know why we do the things we do. So wouldn't you think it rather pointless to be going "why this why that" about something as far beyond us as God? He does what He does regardless of why He does it, and the practical thing in life is almost always to focus on the way things are rather than some philosophical waxing or musing about the purpose of them being that way.

Ansar Al-Haq

29th March 2005, 03:38

But why men especially?
God's khalifa on earth. To love Allah swt.

what made man different from Jin?
The fact that they're a different creation.

Or malaika? Why did Allah make the Angels Prostrate before Man?
before Adam. It was an act of worship to God and an act of respect towards God's new creation.

The Angels served Allah well enough, why then would He have created Men and Jinn?
An artist drew one really good picture, why did he bother drawing another?

Other questions have the same answer.

But what defines the uniquesness of this relationship?
A creature with the ability to love God out of free will. A different type of creature than Jinn because human beings have to discover the truth. They are restricted to one realm, while Jinn are not.

:w:

hawk

29th March 2005, 03:49

before Adam. It was an act of worship to God and an act of respect towards God's new creation.

A creature with the ability to love God out of free will. A different type of creature than Jinn because human beings have to discover the truth. They are restricted to one realm, while Jinn are not.

:w:

Yes but why prostrate before Man?

Should God have not asked man to prostrate to the angels?

If it is in the Koran this must have some importance.
I think it is an important indicator of Gods intention when creating Man.

Ansar Al-Haq

29th March 2005, 04:30

Did you know that Prophet Yusuf's family prostrated to him as well. What do you think of that?

Roswell

29th March 2005, 05:24

Greetings Hawk,

Why did God create man, according to islam?

Although, many already have told you but if you've read my post then you must have noticed the following verse,

We hath created life and death that He may try you, which of you is best in conduct, He is the Mighty, forgiving.

(Surah Al-Mulk, 02)

The Angels served Allah well enough, why then would He have created Men and Jinn?

The Jinn too, at least one of them (Iblis) served God. So why create men?

Angels had similar objection when Adam(pbuh) was created,

And when thy Lord said to the angels, `I am appointing a viceroy in the earth', they said, `wilt Thou appoint therein one who will cause disorder there and shed blood, while we celebrate Thy praise and sanctify Thee?' He said, `I know what you know not?'

(Surah Al-Baqarah, 30)

And see the reply of God !

Why did Allah make the Angels Prostrate before Man?

Basically what was special about Man? that God should
1) Create a creature of this nature
2) Make Any other creation prostrate before it (this is particularly note worthy since this is creation prostrating before creation, which is really unique)

Before we continue, let's read the and understand the following incident that took place,

And when thy Lord said to the angels, `I am appointing a viceroy in the earth', they said, `wilt Thou appoint therein one who will cause disorder there and shed blood, while we celebrate Thy praise and sanctify Thee?' He said, `I know what you know not?'

And He taught Adam all the names, then presented them to the angels and said, `tell Me the names of these, if you are truthful.'

They said, `glory be to Thee, we have no knowledge except what Thou hast taught us; Thou art the Knowing, the Wise.'

He said, `O Adam, tell them their names.' Then, when he had told them their names, He said, `did I not say to you, I know the unseen of the heavens and the earth, and I know what you reveal and what you were hiding.'

And when We said to the angels, `prostrate yourselves to Adam', they prostrated themselves, except Iblis; he refused and showed arrogance and was among the unbelievers.

(Surah Al-Baqarah, 30-34)

A closer look at the stretegy of God 'I am appointing a viceroy in the earth' and the reply of Angels would entail that this was a pre well planed creation of men no matter wether Angels and Jinns were not asked to prostrate this man because Angel's objection was taken place before they prostrated so it means the incident of prostrating Adam(pbuh) was relative . Another closer look at the above second last verse 33, declares that God has created this man with some special qualities that those Jinns and Angels dont have so therefore they were asked to prostrate this men to show their respect to God's wisdom confessing the truth that He may create something better than them even though this man will cause disorder........ Certainly , they did not know the purpose of the creation of human beings.

Ofcourse this would lead us to conclude that the relationship pf God with Man was special, more special than the Jinn or Malaika with God.

Should God have not asked man to prostrate to the angels?

If it is in the Koran this must have some importance.
I think it is an important indicator of Gods intention when creating Man.

So what point are you trying to make ? Yes of course, this creation was speicial and have some special meaning. Are you saying that mankind is superior to every other creation ? I'm afraid to say that we are no way in position to decide on whome we are superior to. This is not our place to decide whatsoever nor does it any matter becuase we have only our purpose in our own hand and we are only resposible for our own acts. Basically, the world into which man is born is fraught with significance. There is nothing which is of a meaningless or random nature. It is quite unthinkable that man, with his meaningful life, born into a meaningful universe, should find no purpose in creation. Where there is meaningfulness, there will, of necessity, be purposefulness. This aspect of the universe is a clear verification of the Prophet’s answer. So, man has to be brought into this world no matter the prostration incident would take place or not. It was the plan of God despite of wether he had asked for the prostration or not. It was rather relative I suppose.

Also your understanding of original sin is not correct.
Original Sin simply means that Man now has the ability to sin.

You are simply stating the one part of this doctrine. Also, those were not my words either.

"The concept of original sin did not come from the writings of the apostles, nor from the Old Testament prophets, nor from the words of Christ Himself. We see little development of the teaching of original sin before the end of the fourth century a.d. The concept of original sin was popularized by Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, a.d. 354-431. This concept held that we not only inherit the weakness and nature of fallen Adam, and the natural tendency and inevitable inclination to follow his pathway of sin, but that we are also personally condemned and are personally guilty for Adam's sin--in addition to our own sins. "

The Concept of Original Sin: Why It Is So Deadly

by Colin Standish

"Louis Berkof identifies Augustine as the originator of the concept of original sin: "The early Church Fathers contained nothing very definite about original sin. . . . It is especially in Augustine that the doctrine of original sin comes to fuller development. According to him, the nature of man, both physical and moral, is totally corrupted by Adam's sin, so that he cannot do otherwise than sin. This inherited corruption of original sin is a moral punishment for the sin of Adam."

Systematic Theology, 244-245.

The doctrine of original sin was introduced into Christian theology right at the beginning, by Paul, who taught that all men had sinned in Adam. Augustine was the first to fully develop the doctrine and argue that it was transmitted from parents to children through the act of sexual intercourse because of the sin of lust which always accompanies sex. Because of Augustine, the doctrine of original sin was adopted by the Catholic church.

Looking forward.

Regards,

hawk

29th March 2005, 15:19

So what point are you trying to make ? Yes of course, this creation was speicial and have some special meaning. Are you saying that mankind is superior to every other creation ? I'm afraid to say that we are no way in position to decide on whome we are superior to. This is not our place to decide whatsoever nor does it any matter becuase we have only our purpose in our own hand and we are only resposible for our own acts. Basically, the world into which man is born is fraught with significance. There is nothing which is of a meaningless or random nature. It is quite unthinkable that man, with his meaningful life, born into a meaningful universe, should find no purpose in creation. Where there is meaningfulness, there will, of necessity, be purposefulness. This aspect of the universe is a clear verification of the Prophet’s answer. So, man has to be brought into this world no matter the prostration incident would take place or not. It was the plan of God despite of wether he had asked for the prostration or not. It was rather relative I suppose.

Ofcourse man is special, more special than any other creation
Because God tells us in the Bible that "Man is created in the image and likeness of God"
Now none but God is worthy of worship, yet God makes the Angels and the Jinns prostrate to Man (in the Koran).
This is a strong indication of the explicit mention in the Bible that "Man is created in His image and likeness"

To be created in the image and likeness is to be created perfect.
If we are created perfect and still sin, well what has gone wrong?

This is where Satan comes in, he is the father of lies.
He tempts mans soul, he breaks that relationship with God.
A relationship that was 100% trust, he shatters it, to hurt God, by ourselves we are no use to Satan, we are only a use to him to insult and blaspheme God.

Thus satan shows us his way, and in seeing it(our eyes were opened) we knew evil.

This is original sin, the breaking of the bond, the knowing of evil.

If adam and eve had not fallen we would still be in the garden, we would still be existing perfectly.

It was because of the fall that this happens.

Even though the Koran is inspired, it only contains incomplete truth.
You are told in the Koran, look we were made to prostrate to you.

But why is this image and likeness of God so important.

because our purpose is that of service, we are created to serve God.
And because we are created to serve God, and man is in the image and likeness of God, our service of man is the service of God.

Christ says you shall see me in the poor, in the orphans, as you do to your fellow men, so you do to me.

It all fits perfectly, once you realise the truth "This is what I am" you realise ,your talents are varied, go seek God in the world, for he is omnipresent, he is everywhere, in everyone.

But if you do wrong to your fellow men, you only wrong God. As David says "Against you only, My God have i sinned".

This is the fear of Christians, surely to sin against man is bad, but if you realsie that the sin is against God alone, how much worse is it???

hawk

30th March 2005, 00:15

Now for the inheritance of Original Sin.

If we are able to stand outside of time, we would see "sin", like a disease spreading through humanity from the time Adam sinned.

Now it is important to note that even though Augustine is a great saint of the Church, he does not speak for the Church, anymore than any single man speaks for the Church, only the Majesterium speaks for the Church.

Nowhere in the Catechism of the Church will you find the teaching that Original Sin, was passed down through sexual intercourse.

I believe that Augustine prior to his encoutner with Christ, was dealing with Sex as a problem, and it dominated his thoughts.

However the Church never subscribed to that idea.
We understand the spirituality of sexual union, we also understand that it creates a bond, between Man and Woman, a spiritual bond, that no other person can share with either of those two individuals.

This is something that is so fundamental to our natures, that to deny it, means you are not in touch with yourself.

Even the Koran exorts a man to have one wife, it says you can never be fair to more than one.

Thus God himself has spoken , yet Muslims have lost their way, they choose to ignore that sentence, but dont realise the final evolution of such a teaching is 1 man for 1 woman, no more no less.

Still Original Sin, in much the same way of disease, spreads through time through man, all other sins too spread through time.

A drunk father ....has a dysfunctional son.
An abusive mother, has abusive children.

The sins effects perpetuates, yet the Bible says, none shall bear the sins of his Father, so what does that mean?

It means that God shall not hold the son responsible for the fathers sins.

Yet the worldly effects of that sin are certainly passed on, is it not?

Roswell

30th March 2005, 04:01

Peace Hawk,

To be created in the image and likeness is to be created perfect.
If we are created perfect and still sin, well what has gone wrong?
It's not necessary. If you take an steal or Iron to shape it down to make them for different purposes, then you must add some impurities which is sure that it can not be as perfect as it was originally inherited from. The reply of the Angels entails that there is some impurity in terms of evil in mankind that will cause disorder on earth notice that, discussion between the Angels and God took place before God ordered them to prostrate. The mixture of good and evil in mankind became evident when God, in His omnipotence, brought all the progeny of Adam before their first father. When Adam had explained to them the nature of the human race, they realized that, besides the wicked and the corrupt, there would also be among their number great, righteous and pious souls. God had a particular reason for investing man with power and free will and the concept of sin is based on this free will as I've mentioned in my first post.

If adam and eve had not fallen we would still be in the garden, we would still be existing perfectly.

It was because of the fall that this happens.
As I've told earlier, prostration was only the demonstration. We were not made to live in the garden in first place. Let me paste some excerpt to define this more comprehensively keeping in mind the above nature of creator.
When God stood Adam up before the angels, as well as Satan and tested them by commanding them to prostrate themselves before Adam. He was giving the first man on earth a practical demonstration of the two paths that would be open to his progeny. Either they would follow the example of the angels and bow to God’s commandments, even if this meant bowing before an inferior creature; or else they would be proud like Satan, and refuse to bow before others. This is the test that man faces throughout his entire life. Here on earth man is constantly faced with two alternative courses of action. He can either follow the angelic course and carry out God’s commandments by bowing before truth and justice in all that he does; or he can act as Satan did and, letting himself be controlled by arrogance and contempt, refuse to concede the right of others.
This was the lesson of the forbidden tree: how man goes astray by letting himself be deceived by Satan, and exceeding the bounds that God has laid down for him. As soon as he eats of the “forbidden fruit,” he is deprived of God’s grace or, in other words, Paradise. But this loss is not an irretrievable one. Man still has the opportunity to turn in repentance to his Lord, rectify his actions and seek forgiveness for his sins. When he turns to the Lord in repentance, God relents towards him, and cleanses him of his sins as if he had never committed them.
The raising of the call to truth among men is a test of this nature. The preacher of truth is an “Adam”; it is for people to bow before him. If, carried away by pride and prejudice, they refuse to acknowledge his position, they are following in Satan’s footsteps.

Now for the inheritance of Original Sin.

If we are able to stand outside of time, we would see "sin", like a disease spreading through humanity from the time Adam sinned.
It is the nature of every human being. It does'nt connect to the act of Adam at all. It is the free will of an individual to decide wether to commit sin or not. Accepting your statement beholden Adam(pbuh) for all mankind however natural justice demands that everyone be answerable for his own wrongs and not for others' misdeeds. There is a maxim of the legal parlance, 'An act does not make a man guilty unless there be guilty intention.'
Even though the Bible contains the verses which refute this concept,

The soul who sins is the one who will die. . . But suppose this son has a son who sees all the sins his father commits, and though he sees them, he does not do such things. . . He will not die for his father's sin; he will surely live. But his father will die for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people.
Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
(Ezekiel 18:4-20)

Even though you are acknowledging this fact as,

yet the Bible says, none shall bear the sins of his Father, so what does that mean?

It means that God shall not hold the son responsible for the fathers sins.
Yup because man is born free of sin and every one will be responsible for his own sins.

When that time comes, people will no longer say, 'The parents ate the sour grapes, But the children got the sour taste.' Instead whoever eats sour grapes will have his own teeth set on edge; and everyone will die because of his own sin. (...) I will forgive their sins and I will no longer remember their wrongs. I, the Lord, have spoken.
Good News Bible, Jermiah. XXXI: 29,30,34, p. 765.

Although, you being biased, contradicting yourself

the sins effects perpetuates, yet the Bible says, none shall bear the sins of his Father, so what does that mean?

It means that God shall not hold the son responsible for the fathers sins.

Yet the worldly effects of that sin are certainly passed on, is it not?

Signs out,

hawk

30th March 2005, 05:29

The mixture of good and evil in mankind became evident when God, in His omnipotence, brought all the progeny of Adam before their first father. When Adam had explained to them the nature of the human race, they realized that, besides the wicked and the corrupt, there would also be among their number great, righteous and pious souls. God had a particular reason for investing man with power and free will and the concept of sin is based on this free will as I've mentioned in my first post.

And where in the Koran is this story of Adam explaining the nature of man?

As I've told earlier, prostration was only the demonstration. We were not made to live in the garden in first place.

Indeed then can you care to explain what the fruit of the tree had to do with it?
Or for that matter why in the Koran it says their nakedness was made aware to them?
What was the point of all that?

To be honest, the whole demonstration idea, even though i have heard it before, makes absolutely no sense.

Where as our understanding, is supported by the Koran completely in fact the prostrating makes apparent our natures, the whole demonstration idea, and we were never supposed to live in the Garden is really Islamic thought gone awry.

Roswell read my explanation carefully. Once you consider the service of man.
And man in the image and likeness, its impossible to deny the truth.
It is an unassailable truth.

Look even the Koran strongly supports our teachings

Islamic interpretation is corrupted.

I havent contradicted myself anywhere, i have pointed out how the worldly effect of sin is passed on.

But God holds only the perpetrator responsible. For only the soul that sins dies.

However, the propensity to sin is passed on, if you are abused , you are more likely to abuse your kids (even statisticians) agree with this.

And explained to you, that original sin, is not associated with the guilt of the sin, but the propensity to sin. It was through this sin that "sin" entered the world, all of adams progeny now share the effect of that sin.
Just like all my progeny shall share the effects of my sin.
The simplest and most truthful way to look at it is in the abused parents, abused children syndrome.

Anyway I really would like you to show me how the Koran supports your theology, in particular
1) God was testing man , and he was destined for the world anyway
2) why was God waiting for satan to cause man to slip
3) What sort of demonstration was God trying to make when he asked the Angels to prostrate.

If you cannot support your theology with scripture, then i think you should reconsider your position.

I think the original sin, idea is admirably supported in the Bible.
The Koranic scripture too leads us down this logical path. (surprisingly)

hawk

30th March 2005, 05:32

One more question

OT though

Do the Angels also know the future? I thought only God knows the future in islamic teaching?

hawk

30th March 2005, 05:38

It's not necessary. If you take an steal or Iron to shape it down to make them for different purposes, then you must add some impurities which is sure that it can not be as perfect as it was originally inherited from.

Roswell i am a mechanical engineer, what are you talking about???

hawk

30th March 2005, 05:46

"The understanding is conveyed concisely in St Athanasius' treatise On the Incarnation (318 AD). When man (in the persons of Adam and Eve from whom we all derive our human nature) first sinned, he became separated from God. This separation from God is what Catholics understand to be original sin and it has two consequences: First, separated from the source of all good, man becomes morally corrupt, with an innate tendency to sin and corruption and death come into the world. Second, man though created good, is now without the connection to goodness to God, it is only through Jesus that the connection will be restored.

In other words, original sin in our understanding is not a "stain" but an absence. And there is no need to figure out how Christ failed to inherit it along with His human nature from His mother, because the Incarnation itself is the end of the separation. In Himself, from the moment of Incarnation, Christ was both God and Man and therefore His Human Nature never experienced the separation from God which all other humans suffer since the sin in the Garden and which is original sin. Christ does not give us life and righteousness as things apart from Himself; Christ Himself is our life and righteousness."

Things for you to ponder
:) :) :) :)

Roswell

30th March 2005, 14:59

Peace Hawk,

And where in the Koran is this story of Adam explaining the nature of man?

When your Lord said to the angels: ‘I am placing a caliph on earth,’ they replied: ‘Will You put there one that will do evil and shed blood, when we have for so long sung Your praises and sanctified Your name?’ He said: ‘I know what you do not know.’ He taught Adam all the names and then set them before the angels, saying: ‘Tell me the names of these, if what you say be true.’ ‘Glory be unto You,’ they replied, ‘we have no knowledge except that which You have given us. You alone are wise and all-knowing.’ Then said He to Adam: ‘Tell them their names.’ And when Adam had named them, He said: ‘Did I not tell you that I know the secrets of heaven and earth, and all that you hide and all that you reveal?
(Surah Al-Baqarah, 30-33)

Indeed then can you care to explain what the fruit of the tree had to do with it?
Or for that matter why in the Koran it says their nakedness was made aware to them?
What was the point of all that?

The Qura'n does not narrate any incident only for the sake of narration or something but also to emphasize the particular point discussed within its context. Keeping the above point in mind, I can humbly describe,

God was testing Adam and Eve by refraining them from tasting the forbidden tree,

To Adam We said: ‘Dwell with your wife in Paradise and eat of its fruits to your hearts’ content wherever you will. But never approach this tree or you shall become transgressors.’
(Surah Al-Baqarah, 35)

God informed them to keep away from Satan as he will try to get you down and he is your enemy,

So he let them fall down by delusion; and when they tasted the tree, their shameful parts became apparent to them, and they took to stitching leaves of the garden on them. And their Lord called to them, `did I not prohibit you from this tree and say to you that the Devil is an open enemy to you?'
(Surah Al-A'raf, 22)

They were told that Satan can come from every direction.

Finally, satan succeeded in his enticements and trapped both Adam as well as Eve.

As the result, the private parts of both Adam as well as Eve became apparent to them and subsequently they tried to cover themselves with leaves

So they ate of it, and their shameful parts were apparent to them, and they took to stitching on them the leaves of the garden. And Adam disobeyed his Lord and was perverse.
(Surah Ta'Ha', 121)

Thusfar, it seems that Adam (pbuh) has been named as the representative of the mankind and this was the practicle demonstration for the whole mankind so keep it in mind we can conclude, as I've posted in my last reply,
"This was the lesson of the forbidden tree: how man goes astray by letting himself be deceived by Satan, and exceeding the bounds that God has laid down for him. As soon as he eats of the “forbidden fruit,” he is deprived of God’s grace or, in other words, Paradise. But this loss is not an irretrievable one. Man still has the opportunity to turn in repentance to his Lord, rectify his actions and seek forgiveness for his sins. When he turns to the Lord in repentance, God relents towards him, and cleanses him of his sins as if he had never committed them."

Where as our understanding, is supported by the Koran completely in fact the prostrating makes apparent our natures

Would you show me how the Qur'an supports your idea ?

the whole demonstration idea, and we were never supposed to live in the Garden is really Islamic thought gone awry.

I never said so. Please don't misquote my words

Roswell read my explanation carefully

I would do the same request. In fact, you are not reading my complete post therefore asking the same thing again and again that I've been writing around. One the of proof is your post saying you are a mechanical engineer. Dont be so hurry replying.

Islamic interpretation is corrupted.

Thanks for telling me, I never knew that.

Anyway I really would like you to show me how the Koran supports your theology, in particular
1) God was testing man , and he was destined for the world anyway

See above for details. Also, God said I am appointing a viceroy in the earth' .
Then the objection of Angels.
The above discussion took place before the prostrating incident. [Surah Al-Baqarah,30]
God's pre-planned stretegy mentioning several places in the Qur'an,
He said, `get you both down from here together, as enemy to one another; and guidance will come to you from Me, then whoso follows My guidance will not go astray, nor will he be in distress.

And whoso turns away from My Admonition, his shall be a straitened life, and We shall raise him blind on the Day of Resurrection.'
(Surah-T'Ha', 123-124)

And so We recompense him who exceeds limits and does not believe in the signs of his Lord; and surely the Punishment of the Hereafter is more terrible and more lasting.
(Surah TaHa, 127)

It appears that the both Angels and Jinns, were present at that moment, know about the plan of God therefore Angel objected so and read out what Satan also asked for,

Said he, `respite me till the Day they shall be raised'.
God said, `thou art among the respited'.
(Surah, Al A'raf,14-15)

2) why was God waiting for satan to cause man to slip

Demonstration how man goes astray by letting himself be deceived by Satan.

What sort of demonstration was God trying to make when he asked the Angels to prostrate.

Already told you.

I think the original sin, idea is admirably supported in the Bible.

You think. However, I've provided that the Bible does'nt. See my last post.

Do the Angels also know the future? I thought only God knows the future in islamic teaching?

The Qur'an does not comprehensively introduce the physical nature of angels or jinns. So I'm not supposed to comment on that. However I may say that they did know somwhow about the creator who was being created, contains 'free will' property just like Satan does,thats why he refused to bow down before Adam. And this free will causes disorder.

In other words, original sin in our understanding is not a "stain" but an absence. And there is no need to figure out how Christ failed to inherit it along with His human nature from His mother, because the Incarnation itself is the end of the separation. In Himself, from the moment of Incarnation, Christ was both God and Man and therefore His Human Nature never experienced the separation from God which all other humans suffer since the sin in the Garden and which is original sin. Christ does not give us life and righteousness as things apart from Himself; Christ Himself is our life and righteousness."

Things for you to ponder

It doesnt entail anything for sure :) so I'm still holding my previous stance over original sin.

Peace out,

hawk

31st March 2005, 05:04

Then said He to Adam: ‘Tell them their names.’ And when Adam had named them, He said: ‘Did I not tell you that I know the secrets of heaven and earth, and all that you hide and all that you reveal?

roswell...roswell, this not what i asked you to provide reference at all to in the Koran.
I asked you to provide reference for the quote that follows.

The mixture of good and evil in mankind became evident when God, in His omnipotence, brought all the progeny of Adam before their first father. When Adam had explained to them the nature of the human race, they realized that, besides the wicked and the corrupt, there would also be among their number great, righteous and pious souls. God had a particular reason for investing man with power and free will and the concept of sin is based on this free will as I've mentioned in my first post.

In fact the verse you pointed out even goes further to prove my point that Islamic scholarship (aka-mohammed) in his haste to be monotheistic, gave very shallow explanations for the alleged revelations.
One must understand, that the alleged prophet did not understand the alleged revelations himself.
There were many later scholars who testify to this.

As such when critically examined islamic theology is :o illogical

It is surprising that Muslims claim to have a logical faith, but when confronted with serious theological questions.
Have to fall back to non-scriptural explanations to expalin their own theology.

None of what I have said is non-scriptural

1) Allah makes angels prostrate to man (source Koran)
2) Allah says Man is made in image and likeness of himself (source Bible)
3) Allah makes man name the Angels (source Koran)
4) Allah makes them live in the garden , where everything is provided for
, there is no sin in the garden.
(source Koran and Bible)
5) Man sins -tempted by the devil, (source Koran and Bible)
6) Man is made aware of evil (eyes were opened to their nakedness- this is most important, because it categorically denies our prior knowledge of evil) evil enters our nature (Source Koran and Bible)
7) God is angry, and sends us into the world (Source Koran and Bible)
8) We are exorted to love God, and to love our neighbours (Source Bible)
(Koran supports the idea indirectly)
9) We are created perfect (established, by Koran and Bible) but we still sin, why?
10) The Original sin, like all sin (the effects are passed on, father to son) Source (Bible) (Can be observed in daily life today too...Abusive Parents have abusive children), Satan is ever active, we have lost our orientation to God's goodness, we were created good, but are now orientated away from it.

11) Yet most important we are told, as you do unto others, so you do unto me (important to realise that the service of man is the service of God)
(Source Bible)
12) There is no hope to be free of sin (we are created to be perfect, yet by the first sin, and the addition of more sins, our world gets more and more corrupt)Once again Satan wishing to hurt God, turns His children away from him.

13) Ofcourse there are good people, but all goodness falls short of the glory of God ( Source Bible)
14) We need the Messiah, God incarnate, we need salvation.(Source Bible)
15) Jesus the Pascal Sacrafice, God Himself, saves us, teaches us how to serve man, for in serving man, we also serve God.(Source Bible)

The beauty, simplicity and completeness of Christianity is so compelling as to be completely irrefutable.
It is so logical, God has revealed to us in stages, culminating in the fulfillment of the Law in Jesus Christ.
He is the living truth, and thats what makes Christianity so compelling, because we know the Truth in Christ, but the truth is infinite in nature.
So we are constantly understanding more and more, but we shall never ever fully grasp the Truth, For to understand the Truth is to understand God.

hawk

31st March 2005, 13:38

So what is the importance of original sin?

Original sin is particularly important, because it was through this sin that we empowered satan to enter the world.

When you understand how sin is passed on generation to generation, (not the guilt but the consequences) , you realise, WHOA, I have to have stopped that "Original Sin" from happening to stop all the nonsense in the world today, completely.
It was the "great animator" of all sins. The original one.

Ofcourse Man does good works, inspired by God.
But we are forever "tainted" by that "original sin".

Which is why we hate the "sin" and not the "sinner".
And God knows this too, and therefore loves all of us alike "sinner" and "righteous".

How beautiful and simple and complete this sequence is, it never fails to amaze me.

The Koran too has enough to support the ideas, however Muslim scholarship, in defining "Tawheed" and "Sin"
has missed the point completely, and ther reason for this is because they wanted so badly to not be Christians.
So they denied the Truth, in the Koran itself, and made up fanciful stories about
"The Garden being a test" (No basis in Koran at all)
"Creator and Creation are separate" (No Basis in Koran at all)
"God wanted to show man what he would be dealing with in the world, so he let satan tempt them" (No Basis in Koran at all)

In fact none of Islamic theology has any scriptural basis.
:stay: :stay: :stay: :stay: :stay: :stay: :stay:

until i see the proof...

xp²

31st March 2005, 14:23

In fact the verse you pointed out even goes further to prove my point that Islamic scholarship (aka-mohammed) in his haste to be monotheistic, gave very shallow explanations for the alleged revelations.
One must understand, that the alleged prophet did not understand the alleged revelations himself.
There were many later scholars who testify to this.

As such when critically examined islamic theology is :o illogical

It is surprising that Muslims claim to have a logical faith, but when confronted with serious theological questions.
Have to fall back to non-scriptural explanations to expalin their own theology.

Peace Hawk,

I usually stay out of the little games you play with the muslims, and how you tease them, but this is getting out of hand now.

If you really believe what you say, then I invite you to show me how Islamic theology is illogical.

Just because one person may give their understanding/interpretation that doesn't sit well with you, does not mean that the actual verses are at fault. The story of Adam in the Quran, is dealing with [spiritual] realities, that cannot be expressed explicitly, and matters dealing with the unseen, and part of God's plan.

Lets take a closer look then, and deal with one issue at a time, and see wether your claims hold up to scrutiny and prevail. It's one thing to offer alternative views, and opinions, but it's another matter to claim something as illogical without a valid reason. If you open the doors for such, then I will be obliged to walk through them. Lets see how long you can last. Cheers!

muhtadiyah

31st March 2005, 16:11

I wasn't going to post on this thread until this statement by hawk made it irresistable:
Original Sin simply means that Man now has the ability to sin.
My dear hawk, your definition is wildly inaccurate, and illogical to boot. If Man didn't have the ability to sin before the 'original sin', how on earth did he commit the 'original sin'? But what saith the Church? (emphasis mine):
Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination toward evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the 'death of the soul.' Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.
How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam 'as one body of one man.' By this 'unity of the human race' all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand.
Part I, Sec. II, Chap. 1, Paragraph 7Now hawk, if original sin is merely an inheritance of psychological or behavioural propensities, 'not guilt but consequences', as you say, why should infants need baptism for the remission of sin?

I also find it highly significant that the Church gives due credit to the author of this teaching, who is Paul; not Jesus nor any prophet or priest of Israel before him. Furthermore, the Church admits that 'original sin' was unheard of and indeed nonsensical before it's necessity as an explanation for Christ's death:
Although to some extent the People of God in the Old Testament had tried to understand the pathos of the human condition in the light of the history of the fall narrated in Genesis, they could not grasp this story's ultimate meaning, which is revealed only in the light of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin.
Part I, Sec. II, Chap. 1, Paragraph 7There you have it.
So what is the importance of original sin?Here's the real importance of the 'original sin' teaching (emphasis mine):
The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the 'reverse side' of the Good News that Jesus is the Saviour of all men, that all need salvation, and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.
Part I, Sec. II, Chap. 1, Paragraph 7Hawk, with all due respect, I would suggest that you learn your own religion before attempting to correct the faith of others. I say this with a smile; I find it delightfully amusing that, as a muslim, I have more opportunity to explain christianity to christians. :D

peace,
muhtadiyah

P.S. You also said:
Original sin is particularly important, because it was through this sin that we empowered satan to enter the world.But wasn't Satan already in the world, and indeed in the garden of Eden, when he tempted Eve according to the biblical account?

Yahya Sulaiman

31st March 2005, 18:23

Come now, hawk! I have a whole slew of articles on my site proving six ways from Sunday how illogical modern, mainstream Christianity is, and every time I've brought them up or have brought up anything from or about them, time and again (search through the site, folks, and see for yourself) you've just dodged me and dodged me and dodged me and dodged me, stopping here and there only to make ludicrous criticisms of the importance I attach to logic. I will not have you do that to my constant refutations of Christianity based on its irrationality and then come here and go on about how irrefutably logical it is and just sit here and stand for it.

hawk

1st April 2005, 01:53

Muhtadiyah let me quote completely from the catechism of the Catholic Church

388 With the progress of Revelation, the reality of sin is also illuminated. Although to some extent the People of God in the Old Testament had tried to understand the pathos of the human condition in the light of the history of the fall narrated in Genesis, they could not grasp this story's ultimate meaning, which is revealed only in the light of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.[261] We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin. The Spirit-Paraclete, sent by the risen Christ, came to "convict the world concerning sin",[262] by revealing him who is its Redeemer.

Two things I must emphasize here:
1)We know Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit (Ruah ha kadosh) (Spirit Paraclete)
So to allege the Church follows Paul, is a misnomer and as a Ex-Christian you should know better than to say something blatantly incorrect.

2) Revelation is made through time, i made it clear in another thread why the Law of Retaliation was changed, as society and man changes. It is the same with all of Gods revelations, right upto today. The Holy Spirit is there to guide us.

Indeed if you read my previous post i have made it abudnantly clear that Original Sin, necessitates the Incarnation, the Pascal Sacrafice.

By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.[294] It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

A State, not an Act

A state of sin, not an act, i think this is what Muslims dont understand, you are not held in guilt for the act. You are just in a state of sin.
Baptism is the reorientation toward God, However, by the choice of our father Adam , we are condemned to the world, to live in sin.

What is a state of sin???
A state of sin is simply a disorientation of your soul whilst before the fall, man was orientated toward God, and convicted of his Goodness.
After the Fall, the Spirit of man is tainted by sin, something that is alien to his nature, like a disease.

It was Satan who caused it, it was us that chose it, and willed it to happen.

I suggest Muhtadiyah that you defend your new found faith's theology, by explaining how the story

The Garden of eden was a test, and man was originally destined for the world, and Man was created, with evil inside him, from scripture.

hawk

1st April 2005, 02:41

Peace Hawk,

I usually stay out of the little games you play with the muslims, and how you tease them, but this is getting out of hand now.

If you really believe what you say, then I invite you to show me how Islamic theology is illogical.

Just because one person may give their understanding/interpretation that doesn't sit well with you, does not mean that the actual verses are at fault. The story of Adam in the Quran, is dealing with [spiritual] realities, that cannot be expressed explicitly, and matters dealing with the unseen, and part of God's plan.

Lets take a closer look then, and deal with one issue at a time, and see wether your claims hold up to scrutiny and prevail. It's one thing to offer alternative views, and opinions, but it's another matter to claim something as illogical without a valid reason. If you open the doors for such, then I will be obliged to walk through them. Lets see how long you can last. Cheers!

Peace Xp -squared.

The games I play with Muslims...

Lets just repost significant portions of roswell's post shall we...

According to this one, the very first human Adam (pbuh) committed sin in paradise when he ate the forbidden fruit. This is called the original sin in Christianity. Thus, due to Adam (pbuh), the whole mankind is held to be sinful. Then God’s lamb Jesus (pbuh) came and died on the cross for our sins and who ever believes in this fairy tale should be saved from God Almighty's torture of Hell. Any unbiased reader would definitely pick the odd man out within these three i.e. concept of original sin which is quite illogical.

Boy how come i didnt hear you scream foul, when this was posted???
Or is it just foul, when its you at the receiving end???

And the last line? is that a threat???

You know what, this is pointless and working me up, and in my opinion, counterproductive to my well being, i have said what i have had to.

I am sorry for offending you good people.

Ansar Al-Haq

1st April 2005, 03:15

I usually stay out of the little games you play with the muslims, and how you tease them, but this is getting out of hand now.

I wasn't going to post on this thread until this statement by hawk

:lol: It is habitual to avoid a nuisance, in which case these threads are not discussions but hawk's rants!

Hawk, if you would accept my advice, all you do in dicussions is make a large list of nonsensical claims without providing proof.

I believe for example you said:

In fact none of Islamic theology has any scriptural basis
Please post your jokes in the appropriate section.

"The Garden being a test" (No basis in Koran at all)
7:19 O Adam! dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden, and enjoy (its good things) as ye wish: but approach not this tree, or ye run into harm and transgression.
67:2. He Who created Death and Life, that He may test which of you is best in deed: and He is the Exalted in Might, Oft-Forgiving
29:3Do men think that they will be left alone on saying, "We believe", and that they will not be tested?

The stated belief is the logical consequence of facts listed in the Qur'an. Do you believe that Adam was alive in paradise? Therefore it was a test.

"Creator and Creation are separate" (No Basis in Koran at all)
6:18. And He is the Irresistible, above His slaves, and He is the All-Wise, Well*Acquainted with all things

20:5. The Most Beneficent (Allâh) Istawâ (rose over) the (Mighty) Throne (in a manner that suits His Majesty).

I could pull out tons of verses. And if you say, "Well it doesn't have to mean that..." then its YOU who is taking the secondary interpretations which have no basis in the Qur'an.

"God wanted to show man what he would be dealing with in the world, so he let satan tempt them" (No Basis in Koran at all)
Again, this is the logical consequence of believing that Adam was initially intended for earth, which would be a test.

Until you start posting facts, hawk, you will be doing nothing more than wasting your time.

Yahya Sulaiman

1st April 2005, 04:47

Roswell

1st April 2005, 04:56

hawk

1st April 2005, 12:27

And by the by, folks, I have today written yet another article proving repeatedly the nonsensical nature of Christian dogma, this one called The (Il)logic of the Crucifixion, and you probably can expect to see it on this board and (primarily God and secondarily xp2 willing) on my site in the next couple of days.

P.S. Did you notice how hawk just dodged me yet again? :LOL:

Dodged you???

You havent posted anything relevant...bring it on buddy

Please deal with the points I have brought up about your theology, from scripture, i see that Ansar has attempted to, and I will deal with his posts inshalah, given time.

The_Other_Admin

1st April 2005, 13:03

its not in islam either....

and your point is???
My point is Christianity is continuum from Judaism, and Adam and Eve were let go from paradise before Judaism came into existence, therefore, 'Original Sin' should have been in Judaism. If this thing happened after Judaism then it would have made sense.

Now it leads to the following 2 possible conclusions:
1. God waited until the crucifixion to tell this to people. Even then he didn't reveal it through Jesus, but choose Paul to present this and contradicted His earlier teachings.
2. There is no 'Original Sin', it was invented by Paul and further developed by theologians later on.

Ansar Al-Haq

1st April 2005, 17:24

Dodged you???

You havent posted anything relevant...bring it on buddy

Please deal with the points I have brought up about your theology, from scripture, i see that Ansar has attempted to, and I will deal with his posts inshalah, given time.

Like the way you tried to deal with a dictionary entry on thalatha? :D

Yahya Sulaiman

1st April 2005, 18:16

What I'm here for is much more personal than the "points about Islamic theology" which Ansar has already refuted to my satisfaction and which I did not mention. I am here in outrage to your double standard. I guess it's no use to try to get you to stop dodging me, as you just did again by claiming, with no stated reasoning behind it whatsoever, that I have not brought up anything relevant. You made an unendingly relevant argument for your religion based on logic after criticizing me time and again for using logic to argue against your religion--never, of course, actually pointing out how in any level of detail that can ever be truly discussed--BECAUSE ALL YOU EVER DO IS DODGE, LIKE YOU JUST DID. I am curious as to which new method of dodging you'll use to (pretend to) respond to this post--please don't keep me waiting. ;)

xp²

1st April 2005, 20:21

Peace Xp -squared.

The games I play with Muslims...

Lets just repost significant portions of roswell's post shall we...

Boy how come i didnt hear you scream foul, when this was posted???
Or is it just foul, when its you at the receiving end???

And the last line? is that a threat???

You know what, this is pointless and working me up, and in my opinion, counterproductive to my well being, i have said what i have had to.

I am sorry for offending you good people.

Peace Hawk,

I do not support some of the statements that Roswell made.. I think it was uncalled for when he said it was a fairytale etc.. however, Roses has apologized for that.

Your reaction is understandable, and justifiable, to some extent. However, you should also be above lowering your standard. If someone says something about your faith, you answer about your faith. If you try to prove that Islam is illogical because someone said Christianity is illogical.. that doesn't really prove that Christianity is logical now. Neither does it go with the spirit of 'turning the other cheek'. Ofcourse, it is for you to decide how you represent your faith.

I am not saying you are blameworthy.. this is a trivial matter, and it's not about pointing fingers. On the contrary, I am looking out for you. Although it might not seem that way. By placing an expectation on you, I am calling you to consider the heart of your faith, not it's intellectual merit.

I too could have responded by saying that Christianity is illogical and makes no sense, or that Trinity is not supported by Scripture, only the Church. However, I have absolutely no interest in that. It doesn't do any good, and it's pointless.

I have given you an invitation to ask any questions you may have about Islam, and that's it. That's my duty, and it's where the line ends. I am not interested in stating how or why I don't like Christianity or think that it is flawed.

So if you have some questions, and you genuinely and sincerely want to know about Islam, you are always welcome to ask me.. wether here, or in a PM. If it is just games, or about proving which religion is superior so we can feel good and stroke our ego's, then I am not interested.. it is a waste of time.

I like you as a person Hawk, I believe you have a good heart... but there is some inner conflict that you must resolve, because it will affect your well being.

What I find amusing, is that some of your views are very inline with Islamic thought, and at times you even seem to be in disagreement with the Church or Bible. Anyway, I hope you find some peace in your struggle.

Peace.

xp²

1st April 2005, 20:27

I'd like to request some form of self-restraint from the members, and not to argue with Hawk like this, or taunt him. Some civilized discussion is fine, but lets remember to hold some limits, and keep God in mind when we speak.

hawk

1st April 2005, 23:07

My point is Christianity is continuum from Judaism, and Adam and Eve were let go from paradise before Judaism came into existence, therefore, 'Original Sin' should have been in Judaism. If this thing happened after Judaism then it would have made sense.

Now it leads to the following 2 possible conclusions:
1. God waited until the crucifixion to tell this to people. Even then he didn't reveal it through Jesus, but choose Paul to present this and contradicted His earlier teachings.
2. There is no 'Original Sin', it was invented by Paul and further developed by theologians later on.

We know that revelation happens through time, its an ongoing process.
At no point is there a contradiction, i have demonstrated the logical sequence of how original sin (the state of sin) is part of our fallen nature.

Paul was inspried by the Holy Spirit (Ruah ha Kadosh)

By your reasoning, muslims should be observing the Sabbath.
;)

hawk

1st April 2005, 23:08

hawk

1st April 2005, 23:09

Like the way you tried to deal with a dictionary entry on thalatha? :D

Thalatha =Three.

No Christian arab i spoke to said anything to the contrary

Tell me , every time i say the word thalatha, i actually am saying "Trinity'?

hawk

1st April 2005, 23:21

7:19 O Adam! dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden, and enjoy (its good things) as ye wish: but approach not this tree, or ye run into harm and transgression.
67:2. He Who created Death and Life, that He may test which of you is best in deed: and He is the Exalted in Might, Oft-Forgiving
29:3Do men think that they will be left alone on saying, "We believe", and that they will not be tested?

The stated belief is the logical consequence of facts listed in the Qur'an. Do you believe that Adam was alive in paradise? Therefore it was a test.

Indeed and if Adam had passed the so called "Test" , what would have happened, according to islamic theology???
:)

I believe he would have been destined for the world anyway, is the answer you will provide

So, where is the test???
If you pass, well you are sent into the world
If you fail you are sent into the world

And this from a Just God???

Well you could argue that man was never intended to live in the Garden.

But then why was he there in the first place.

And as you answer more and more, you suddenly realise that you are inventing theology, and ideas

;)

6:18. And He is the Irresistible, above His slaves, and He is the All-Wise, Well*Acquainted with all things

20:5. The Most Beneficent (Allâh) Istawâ (rose over) the (Mighty) Throne (in a manner that suits His Majesty).

I could pull out tons of verses. And if you say, "Well it doesn't have to mean that..." then its YOU who is taking the secondary interpretations which have no basis in the Qur'an.

Except that according to Islam God is Omni-Present
;)

Again, this is the logical consequence of believing that Adam was initially intended for earth, which would be a test.

Until you start posting facts, hawk, you will be doing nothing more than wasting your time.

Except that you have not explained what Man was doing in the Garden anyway.
:)

Have you noticed how you cannot really support any of your theology from scripture, but have to make up "logical" ideas.

When God is so far beyond your logic, that the only correct way to go about this is to refer to scripture and make sure that it is supported within scripture.

Yahya Sulaiman

2nd April 2005, 01:42

Buddy I have quoted scripture to make my point, I suggest you do the same.

Ah, so this is how you are dodging me this time. Interesting. I hope you believe me when I say that I am not mocking you but simply saying this in a sort of exasperated way and maybe trying to take comfort in fascination in the face of hopelessness when it comes to trying to reason with you. Anyway, your dodge this time is to make a non-sequitur about citing scripture to make a point when all I was talking about was your inconsistent, hypocritical ground-shifting on the topic of logic. You want a scriptural citation for that? Look at my profile.

Yahya Sulaiman

2nd April 2005, 02:00

There have been some complications which are not worth getting into, but by 1:00 A.M. tonight/tomorrow morning I expect to be where I have gotten my new article on the crucifixion doctrine's permeating irrationality to xp2, so it should be up on my site in the next day or two.

Ansar Al-Haq

2nd April 2005, 04:53

Sorry Hawk, but substituting smileys for arguments just won't cut it.

Indeed and if Adam had passed the so called "Test" , what would have happened, according to islamic theology???
:)
If a student passes the pre-test, do they get to skip the exam?!

The garden prepared Adam for Earth.

Except that according to Islam God is Omni-Present
;)
Look who's speaking without scriptural proof now.

Except that you have not explained what Man was doing in the Garden anyway.
:)
Quite clearly, I just did.

Ansar Al-Haq

2nd April 2005, 05:01

Peace Hawk,
I'm glad you stopped running on the trinity issue.

Thalatha =Three.
Let's see, where did I put that dictionary entry...

Ah, here it is!
http://forums.understanding-islam.org/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=229

Trinity is ONE of the meanings of thalatha, as is three.

No Christian arab i spoke to said anything to the contrary
I would rather take a standard arabic dictionary over the logic of your arab friend.

Tell me , every time i say the word thalatha, i actually am saying "Trinity'?
As I pointed out, Thalatha has the meanings of trinity, and three. So it depends on the context of the sentence.

I hope that is not too difficult to understand.

Al-Boriqi

2nd April 2005, 14:38

i had this topic on a part of an article i DID

The doctrine of original sin is a part of the tenants of faith in Christianity. The meaning is this. In the beginning when Allah (God) created Adam and Eve they were told to not eat of the tree (meaning the forbidden tree). So we all know that they ate of it. Now what the Christians say is phenomenal regarding this issue. They say that since They ate of the tree that means that Everyone in the whole world is upon sin and that they are destined to the hellfire and that the only way to stop this is to accept “the Lord Jesus Christ as your “saviour” This is the doctrine of Original Sin
To find a refutation of this will not be hard at all. One will find it in none else but in the bible itself.
In the book of Ezekiel chapter 18 verse 20 it says “The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father nor the father shall bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself”. This verse means exactly what it says. This is the law of God and in Islam (and there is no distinction between the two). We will not be asked why did your forefathers take of the tree nor will they be asked why did your offspring come out to millions of Buddhist or hindu idol worshipers or millions in these countries of America and Israel killing my slaves in the east. No this is wrong rather everyone will be asked of what they have brought forth.

Guest

2nd April 2005, 14:52

Salaam

and that the only way to stop this is to accept “the Lord Jesus Christ as your “saviour”
Accept that he was a saviour, for his people. Am i saved?

Think about this. Even if you are a terrible sinner, but u accept "the Lord Jesus Christ" as your saviour, then are u saved? What about all the poor little children in southern India who have probably never come across Christianity? What happens to them?

Ansar Al-Haq

2nd April 2005, 21:48

hawk

2nd April 2005, 22:00

Peace Hawk,
I'm glad you stopped running on the trinity issue.

Let's see, where did I put that dictionary entry...

Ah, here it is!
http://forums.understanding-islam.org/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=229

Trinity is ONE of the meanings of thalatha, as is three.

I would rather take a standard arabic dictionary over the logic of your arab friend.

As I pointed out, Thalatha has the meanings of trinity, and three. So it depends on the context of the sentence.

I hope that is not too difficult to understand.

Unfortunately this is hard to do without getting insulting, but i shall aspire:

On the LHS under Arabic-English

Is the word Thalouth - Trinity
under that is "ism"

on the right hand side is the explanation of thalouth

"Ma rookebah men thalatha"

Thalatha only means THREE

Ansar, you decide now, are you lying purposely???

Or you dont speak arabic, and dont know how to use a dictionary.

Listen buddy, i am in an arabic speaking land, surrounded by loads of arabs.

You should have quit while you were ahead.

You have just proved that "Trinity" = Thalouth

and nothing else
:)

PS, please tell me you werent lying to me, and that you were just too incompetent to use a dictionary.

hawk

2nd April 2005, 22:02

Salaam

Accept that he was a saviour, for his people. Am i saved?

Think about this. Even if you are a terrible sinner, but u accept "the Lord Jesus Christ" as your saviour, then are u saved? What about all the poor little children in southern India who have probably never come across Christianity? What happens to them?

uhhh, salvation is only the foundation, you are really being called to be divinised.

That is the wholeness of Christianity, what good is it, to be saved, if it doesnt reflect in your day to day life???

You must become "god-like"

By the way this is mentioned many many times in the psalms and the old testament.

hawk

2nd April 2005, 22:07

hawk

2nd April 2005, 22:10

That's just the tip of the iceberg, Haroon Sahib! Salvation in Christianity is a mess. If Hitler accepted Chirst as his Lord and Saviour (and there is some good evidence that he did), then he gets a freeticket to paradise.

Read the following thread and see how the Christians evaded my argument:
http://www.islamicboard.com/showthread.php?t=1032

:w:

True, I find nothing wrong with the idea, that if you repent God will forgive your sins,

This idea is supported in the Koran too, if you repent for your sins, you shall be forgiven.

You see God doesnt live by no rules...

Because He is the rule maker, He can never break His own rules.

Thus if you repent surely you shall be in heaven with God.

Jesus on the cross turned to the criminal and said "Today your faith in Me, has saved you"

It is apparent that God saves those who repent.

As for condemnation of those outside the faith.

WE JUST DONT KNOW ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS TO PEOPLE WHO DO NOT ACCEPT CHRIST AS THEIR SAVIOUR

But we do not say anyone is damned.

I believe that is a particularly islamic doctrine (once again supported in the Koran)

:)

I believe there is a ahadith that says

"Oh rasuallah, who will be in heaven"

"Everyone"

Sahabas shocked----

"Everyone????"

yes...everyone, murderers??? - yes

rapists??? - yes

adulterers????-- yes

Oh , rasuallah, then who will not be in janaa???

Only those that commit shirk.

Ansar, you want to explain that one to me.

Lets play the devils advocate here:

Without repenting...everyone is going to be in heaven???
Rapists??? murderers?? Osama bin laden????

But wait doesnt the Koran say that God alone knows, even the Prophet said, i dont know what will happen to me

So how does all this add up???

INCONSISTENT>>>INCONSISTENT>>>INCONSISTENT>>>INCONSISTENT

bdb85

3rd April 2005, 04:10

Hawk, we don't believe in Hadith's that contradict the Koran--we have to use both the light of the Koran and logic when determining which hadiths are true and which are not.

The Koran is THE Word of God. Not all of the Hadiths are. The Koran is infallible, the Hadiths are NOT.

newsX

3rd April 2005, 04:34

Jesus on the cross turned to the criminal and said "Today your faith in Me, has saved you"

Since you have decided to give up trying to prove trinity- a concept you confessed is illogical- let's start off on a new footing.

Before we get into the whole mess of original sin, can you please provide the chapter and verse of the above words, exactly as you have printed it out?

newsX

3rd April 2005, 04:39

Hawk,

Let me ask you, do you agree with this definition of original sin:

Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.

In your religious framework, explain how Jesus articulated his impeding death with original sin.

1. Was Jesus aware of original sin?

2. Does the New Testament blame the man (Adam) or the woman (Ha'vaa) for being deceived by the serpant?

============

WE JUST DONT KNOW ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS TO PEOPLE WHO DO NOT ACCEPT CHRIST AS THEIR SAVIOUR

I am amused by this declaration. Let me ask you; without reference to any one faith- does a teaching that seperates humankind into saved and unsaved and then confines the unsaved portion into hell offend your reason and conscience?

love
shiela

Ansar Al-Haq

3rd April 2005, 04:41

I don't have much time right now, but soon insha'Allah I will respond to the joke hawk just posted and I'll give hawk a little something to show his arab friends.

For know I just wanted to say that hawk just fabricated a hadith.

Ansar Al-Haq

3rd April 2005, 04:47

hawk

3rd April 2005, 05:01

Since you have decided to give up trying to prove trinity- a concept you confessed is illogical- let's start off on a new footing.

Before we get into the whole mess of original sin, can you please provide the chapter and verse of the above words, exactly as you have printed it out?

No i cannot.

:)

I believe the words were

42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

hawk

3rd April 2005, 05:05

Hawk,

Let me ask you, do you agree with this definition of original sin:

Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.

In your religious framework, explain how Jesus articulated his impeding death with original sin.

1. Was Jesus aware of original sin?

2. Does the New Testament blame the man (Adam) or the woman (Ha'vaa) for being deceived by the serpant?

love
shiela

Shalom Sheila

Original sin is a constant reality
No one blames anyone for the sin in the new testament.

We would welcome the Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament.

If you can provide one.

hawk

3rd April 2005, 05:08

For know I just wanted to say that hawk just fabricated a hadith.

Which one ? Which one? which one?

Sorry I am not muslim, i might be mistaken, if i have fabricated one, please tell me which one.

I believe i have referenced 2 different ahadith.

newsX

3rd April 2005, 05:09

No i cannot.

:)

I believe the words were

42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

It's good that you confessed. Saves me the trouble of using the word liar again. Hawk, hawk, did Jesus ask his apostles to employ deception in the Great Commission?

"Do not go beyond what is written." [1 Cor 4:6]

You seem to enjoy violating one of the NT's cardinal rules.

hawk

3rd April 2005, 05:12

I have a five page dictionary entry for you hawk. Its all in arabic, so you won't understand it, but you can show it to your friends and they can tell you what it says.

Enjoy the short time you have before I'm able to post it. ;)

To be honest Ansar, this is most tiring, i dont care for your dictionary posts.

If you are content with your understanding go in peace.

I am cetainly not going to plague my arab colleagues with your incessant posts.

I suggest you stick to urdu, i understand some of that language.

Please excuse i need to try my rudimentary urdu on you, i hope you dont mind.

Does this make sense to you?

My wife is lumbi, pathli, gori.

:)

kewl huh??

hawk

3rd April 2005, 05:14

It's good that you confessed. Saves me the trouble of using the word liar again. Hawk, hawk, did Jesus ask his apostles to employ deception in the Great Commission?

"Do not go beyond what is written." [1 Cor 4:6]

You seem to enjoy violating one of the NT's cardinal rules.

Yes my dear, but the sense, of it was the same, n'est ce pas?

remember "convicted" , please dont subject me to that kind of thing again.
i hate seeing you be the fool.

newsX

3rd April 2005, 05:17

Shalom Sheila

Original sin is a constant reality

No, early church fathers saw original sin as necessary to the philosophy of evil. It did NOT come from any jewish scripture.

Brutally put, without original sin (more specifically, inherited sin), there would have been a gaping hole in the christian religion. It was a plug for faulty plumbing, nothing more.

No one blames anyone for the sin in the new testament.

I believe my question was :Does the New Testament blame the man (Adam) or the woman (Ha'vaa) for being deceived by the serpant?

Are you saying that not one verse in the NT puts the blame of being deceived on the woman instead of the man?

======

My other question: Do you agree with this definition of original sin:

Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.

love

newsX

3rd April 2005, 05:25

Yes my dear, but the sense, of it was the same, n'est ce pas?

remember "convicted" , please dont subject me to that kind of thing again.
i hate seeing you be the fool.

hawk, hawk, you and I both know that this isn't the first time you've done this. It's definitely a pattern, and your latest scrape only proves my point. You are exact mirror image of the immutable Hash- twisting the scripture for your own ends and relying on the credulity of people to push your flimsy agruement through.

And about the convicted thingie, I believe I haven't thanked you enough. However, I would have thought the debate's main theme of trinity and jesus' divine status would have captured everyone else's attention more. I might be mistaken. People love trivalities to cover real foolishness, after all.

We shall end this course and focus on original sin, if you don't mind.

Ansar Al-Haq

3rd April 2005, 05:27

Please excuse i need to try my rudimentary urdu on you, i hope you dont mind.
Having gotten use to your rudimentary english, I suppose it won't make a difference.

Which one ? Which one? which one?

This one:

I believe there is a ahadith that says

"Oh rasuallah, who will be in heaven"

"Everyone"

Sahabas shocked----

"Everyone????"

yes...everyone, murderers??? - yes

rapists??? - yes

adulterers????-- yes

Oh , rasuallah, then who will not be in janaa???

Only those that commit shirk.

I'd really like to know where you heard that, or did you just pull it out of like most of what you say about Islam?

newsX

3rd April 2005, 05:29

I'd really like to know where you heard that, or did you just pull it out of like most of what you say about Islam?

ansar, he imagines verses from the bible too. Don't be too hard on him. Lies are an integral part of his evangalism.

hawk

3rd April 2005, 05:37

hawk

3rd April 2005, 05:38

ansar, he imagines verses from the bible too. Don't be too hard on him. Lies are an integral part of his evangalism.

hoo boy,

Moral support to each other?

he he he

Listen, are you going to explain the Jewish perspective on the fall or not sheila??

newsX

3rd April 2005, 05:47

hoo boy,

Moral support to each other?

he he he

Listen, are you going to explain the Jewish perspective on the fall or not sheila??

hawk, aside from the fact that it's painfully obvious what you're doing, i am not jewish. You will do better asking your rabbii friend instead of draggiing a red herring across the road. I simply want to know more about Christianity's original sin.

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." [1 Peter 3:15]

PS: you know, it's comical how I manage to reduce you to childish antics when I come into the picture, as opposed to the quick wit you display when dancing with ansar or the others. Do I initimidate you, hawk. I promise to play nice from now on. I'll hold back on my mischief and just focus on the issue, okay?

Now, back to my questions.

I believe my question was: Does the New Testament blame the man (Adam) or the woman (Ha'vaa) for being deceived by the serpant?

Are you saying that not one verse in the NT puts the blame of being deceived on the woman instead of the man?

======

My other question: Do you agree with this definition of original sin:

Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.

hawk

3rd April 2005, 05:50

PS: you know, it's comical how I manage to reduce you to childish antics when I come into the picture, as opposed to the quick wit you display when dancing with ansar or the others. Do I initimidate you, hawk. I promise to play nice from now on. I'll hold back on my mischief and just focus on the issue, okay?

*dryly* why, a back handed compliment.

thank you, high praise indeed coming from you.

to be honest, i just enjoy talking to you.

But since you arent jewish, i would appreciate it if you wouldnt quote Jewish theology with any authority, in much the same way that i dont quote islamic theology with any authority.

:) :lpretty:

newsX

3rd April 2005, 05:51

*dryly* why, a back handed compliment.

thank you, high praise indeed coming from you.

to be honest, i just enjoy talking to you.

i aim to please darling.

hawk

3rd April 2005, 05:56

A Jewess, a Muslimah, a Christian (playing the devils adovcate)

Ah, the enigma that is sheila.

(does that make 16 syllables?)
(Rather good haiku, i think)

back to work for me though,my dear.

but tomorrow, we shall continue, d'accord?

bdb85

3rd April 2005, 06:04

Hawk, Hawk, Hawk,

Have to resort to using Hadiths that contradict the Koran huh? Well, guess what? Any Hadith that contradicts the Koran is a FALSE one. Thats right. We don't believe it.

The Hadiths were written by MEN! The Koran was revealed by GOD. Got it?

One is fallable, one is not.

What you are doing would be like me posting some rediculous verse from the Old Testament and asking if Christinas believe it! Of course that would be stupid--you believe that anything in the Old Testament that contradicts the New is false.

Ansar Al-Haq

3rd April 2005, 06:11

Right i shall try to find the Ahadith

but here is another one for you to play with

Volume 2, Book 23, Number 329:

Narrated Abu Dhar:

Allah's Apostle said, "Someone came to me from my Lord and gave me the news (or good tidings) that if any of my followers dies worshipping none (in any way) along with Allah, he will enter Paradise." I asked, "Even if he committed illegal sexual intercourse (adultery) and theft?" He replied, "Even if he committed illegal sexual intercourse (adultery) and theft."

Volume 2, Book 23, Number 330:

Narrated 'Abdullah:

Allah's Apostle said, "Anyone who dies worshipping others along with Allah will definitely enter the Fire." I said, "Anyone who dies worshipping none along with Allah will definitely enter Paradise."

Of course. One will suffer in hell until they are purified of their sins. Then they will enter paradise if they were true in their Ibadah.

Contrast that to the free ticked one gets for belief in Christ. They become SAVED. Unrepentant Crusdaders who butchered muslims and Jews in the name of Christ will be relaxing in paradise. This is the evil doctrine of salvation in Christianity.

hawk

3rd April 2005, 06:11

What you are doing would be like me posting some rediculous verse from the Old Testament and asking if Christinas believe it! Of course that would be stupid--you believe that anything in the Old Testament that contradicts the New is false.

Now i know you were never christian to start with.

Where did you ever hear such a thing???

Oh by the way, i believe they are sahih hadith.

you might want to read those.

hawk

3rd April 2005, 06:18

Of course. One will suffer in hell until they are purified of their sins. Then they will enter paradise if they were true in their Ibadah.

Contrast that to the free ticked one gets for belief in Christ. They become SAVED. Unrepentant Crusdaders who butchered muslims and Jews in the name of Christ will be relaxing in paradise. This is the evil doctrine of salvation in Christianity.

Ha, purgatory is the same idea!

without Christ, the soul will surely die.

But with Christ, you are in purgatory, we believe in salvation through faith and works.

Remember that Christ is the Pascal Lamb, He fulfills the Law.

Only muslims, have done away with the law,

Does God change his laws???

bdb85

3rd April 2005, 06:21

Does God change his laws???

A Christian, asking me if God changes his law! :D

This is too funny, Hawk. Do you know what a difference there is between the God in the OT and the God in the NT, according to Christian beliefs?

How come Christians can eat pork and shellfish, why did teir sabbath day change, etc?

This is the pot calling the kettle black.

Ansar Al-Haq

3rd April 2005, 06:22

Shall we get into a discussion on God's laws? Of course, I'd love to!

Here is a partial list of reasons for why the death of Jesus on the cross couldn't possibly have served as a valid sacrifice - any one of these would render a sacrifice as unacceptable for the purpose of expiation of sins.

GIVEN that, at the time of Jesus’ death, the Second Temple was still standing in Jerusalem and the Hebrew Bible was the Scripture in force, here are some of the reasons why the death of Jesus on the cross cannot be a valid sacrificial offering:

FIRST, the Hebrew Bible requires that the sacrificial ritual be administered by a Priest (see Leviticus Chapters 1-7) – according to the accounts in the New Testament, Jesus was crucified by Roman soldiers (Mt 27:35; Mk 15:24; Lk 23:33; Jn 19:18, 23).

SECOND, the Hebrew Bible requires that the blood of the (sin) sacrifice had to be sprinkled by the Priest on the veil of the sanctuary and on the altar in the Temple (e.g., Lev 4:5-6) – there is no evidence in the New Testament that this was done.

THIRD, the Hebrew Bible requires that the (sin) sacrifice be without any physical defects or blemishes (e.g., Lev 4:3) – according to the accounts in the New Testament, Jesus was beaten, whipped, and dragged on the ground before being crucified (Mt 26:67, 27:26, 30-31; Mk 14:65, 15:15-20; Lk 22:63; Jn 18:22, 19:1, 3). Moreover, as a Jew by birth, Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day after being born, a ritual that leaves a scar (“sign of the covenant”). According to the NT, circumcision is tantamount to mutilation (Phil 3:2, Gal 5:12).

FOURTH, the Hebrew Bible requires that the Passover (sin) sacrifice, a male-goat, be offered on an individual (per household) basis (Num 28:22), not as a communal offering – according to the New Testament, Jesus’ death (termed a ‘sin sacrifice’) expiated the sins of mankind (Ro 6:10; He 9:12, 10:10, 10:18).

FIFTH, the Hebrew Bible directs that the Paschal Lamb wasn’t to be offered for the removal of sins - it was a commemorative/festive offering (see also under “Fourth” above and “Sixth” below). A more appropriate time for a sin offering would have been on Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement; Num 29:11 [individual sin-offering – male goat]; Lev 16:15 [communal sin-offering – male goat]).

SIXTH, the Hebrew Bible requires that the sacrificed Paschal Lamb had to be roasted and eaten, and it’s blood used to place markings on the side-posts and lintel of the doors (Exod 12:7-8) – there is no record in the New Testament that this was, in fact, done (lest it be suggested that Christianity promotes cannibalism).

SEVENTH, the Hebrew Bible states that the sacrificial sin offering could only atone for unintentional sins, with few notable exceptions as stated in Lev 5:1-6, 20-26 [Lev 6:1-7 in Christian Bibles] (e.g., Num 15:27-31).

EIGHTH, the Hebrew Bible teaches that sacrifices can atone only for sins committed prior to the offering of the sacrifice; no sacrifice could ever atone for sins committed after the sacrifice was offered and, thus, no sacrifice could ever atone for people born after the sacrifice was offered (e.g., Leviticus 1-7). So, even if it were true that Jesus was some kind of super-sacrifice that atoned for all sins of all mankind, then his death could only atone for the sins committed before his death, not for any sins committed after his death by people who were born after he died.

NINTH, the Hebrew Bible strictly forbids (human) vicarious atonement (e.g., Exod 32:31-33; Num 35:33; Deut 24:16; II Kgs 14:6; Jer 31:29 [30 in Christian Bibles]; Ezek 18:4,20; Ps 49:7).

TENTH, the Hebrew Bible strictly prohibits human sacrifices (e.g., Lev 18:21, 24-25; Deut 18:10; Jer 7:31, 19:5; Ezek 23:37,39).

It is simply astonishing that so many people believe what their preachers “feed” them, as well as how the New Testament writings contradict the teachings of the Hebrew Bible.

You tell me, hawk. Does God change His laws?

hawk

3rd April 2005, 06:24

A Christian, asking me if God changes his law! :D

This is too funny, Hawk. Do you know what a difference there is between the God in the OT and the God in the NT, according to Christian beliefs?

How come Christians can eat pork and shellfish, why did teir sabbath day change, etc?

This is the pot calling the kettle black.

The law is fulfilled.
The social law, was for the Jews, I believe they still follow them "Messianic Jews"

The Moral Law is the Truth, for all time, buddy, whcih is why we still follow the 10 commandments.

:)

bye bye for now.

Ansar Al-Haq

3rd April 2005, 06:26

Wait, don't leave! You can't get away that easily! You just ignored my whole post!!

:lol:

Ansar Al-Haq

3rd April 2005, 19:41

.....

bdb85

3rd April 2005, 19:52

The law is fulfilled.

Seems like it was changed a good bit by Christians, actually.

Does God change his mind, Hawk? Does he create laws for certain people, but doesn't bother to have a universal laws of social behavior until Jesus (pbuh) came?

Now, I know you may say "But you don't believe there was any complete law before Mohammed (pbuh)!"

But this is not true--God has sent prophets to every single tribe and nation that ever lived, not just to the Jews.

The_Other_Admin

4th April 2005, 01:25

We know that revelation happens through time, its an ongoing process.
At no point is there a contradiction, i have demonstrated the logical sequence of how original sin (the state of sin) is part of our fallen nature.

Paul was inspried by the Holy Spirit (Ruah ha Kadosh)

By your reasoning, muslims should be observing the Sabbath.
;)
Dear Hawk, story of Adam and Eve is a historical account... historical accounts doesn't change. In the Bible, in this story God said that he will increase the pain of child birth, but where did He said that your children will be tainted by your sin and I'll send one of myself down to earth to rectify this?

Sincere repentance in which the sinner pledges to rectify his sinful ways and lead a righteous life is one means that is open at all times to all of humanity (Jonah 3:5-10, Daniel 4:27). God counsels Cain, "Why are you annoyed, and why has your countenance fallen? If you do good [that is, change your ways], will it not be lifted up [that is, you will be forgiven]. But if you do not do good, sin rests at the door; and it desires you, but you may rule over it" (Genesis 4:6-7). God informs Cain that repentance and subsequent forgiveness are always open to him.(1 (http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq123.html)) So what was the need for Jesus's sacrifice?

Yahya Sulaiman

4th April 2005, 02:55

Dodge, dodge, dodge. Dodges us all. Why does he even bother? :confused:

Ansar Al-Haq

4th April 2005, 02:57

Wait, don't leave! You can't get away that easily! You just ignored my whole post!!

:lol:

Dodge, dodge, dodge. Dodges us all. Why does he even bother?
I suppose when he said he liked cricket, he really meant dodgeball!

he's taking a break though.

Ansar Al-Haq

4th April 2005, 21:38

Some people keep bringing up the law. I have no problem in discussing. Scroll back to this post:
http://forums.understanding-islam.org/community/showpost.php?p=27034&postcount=79

And see if you can answer it.

newsX

5th April 2005, 00:58

But since you arent jewish, i would appreciate it if you wouldnt quote Jewish theology with any authority, in much the same way that i dont quote islamic theology with any authority.

Hawk, hawk, Jesus was a circumcised Jew. His most significant encounters were with Jews and Jewish theology. He was a rabbi par excellence. Without Jewish theology and history, one is limited to only understanding Jesus and his mission through hellenistic and thus pagan lenses.

Enter original sin, trinity, divine avatar...

That said, I can understand why Jewish thoughts intimidate you.

A Jewess, a Muslimah, a Christian (playing the devils adovcate)

Ah, the enigma that is sheila.

(does that make 16 syllables?)
(Rather good haiku, i think)

back to work for me though,my dear.

One thing I've learned here. I represent a person's worst enemy. For you, obviously, it's a knowledgable Jew.

Hawk, I ask you to focus on the issues at hand and not throw any more red herrings across the road. I genuinely want to be convinced of christian doctrines, but so far, I'm sorry to say that you've been doing a dismal job. No offense. Pick it up, soldier. Stop the fakery.

======

Back to the questions you promised you'd answer yesterday:

I believe my question was: Does the New Testament blame the man (Adam) or the woman (Ha'vaa) for being deceived by the serpant?

Are you saying that not one verse in the NT puts the blame of being deceived on the woman instead of the man?

======

My other question: Do you agree with this definition of original sin:

Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.

Ansar Al-Haq

5th April 2005, 01:33

Ansar Al-Haq

20th April 2005, 17:04

Since hawk has starrted debating again, I would like to bring up this thread again.

I await an asnwer to this post:
http://forums.understanding-islam.org/community/showpost.php?p=27034&postcount=79

:w:

Vajradhara

20th April 2005, 21:04

wow..

:clubme2:

hawk

20th April 2005, 23:17

Ansar Al-Haq

20th April 2005, 23:29

Jesus is the fulfillment of the law.

Is this honestly your response?! How can Jesus be the fullfillment of the law, when the sacrifice of Christ breaks every single law in the Bible?

I won't let you weasel out of this one hawk. Give me an answer. Here it is again:

Here is a partial list of reasons for why the death of Jesus on the cross couldn't possibly have served as a valid sacrifice - any one of these would render a sacrifice as unacceptable for the purpose of expiation of sins.

GIVEN that, at the time of Jesus’ death, the Second Temple was still standing in Jerusalem and the Hebrew Bible was the Scripture in force, here are some of the reasons why the death of Jesus on the cross cannot be a valid sacrificial offering:

FIRST, the Hebrew Bible requires that the sacrificial ritual be administered by a Priest (see Leviticus Chapters 1-7) – according to the accounts in the New Testament, Jesus was crucified by Roman soldiers (Mt 27:35; Mk 15:24; Lk 23:33; Jn 19:18, 23).

SECOND, the Hebrew Bible requires that the blood of the (sin) sacrifice had to be sprinkled by the Priest on the veil of the sanctuary and on the altar in the Temple (e.g., Lev 4:5-6) – there is no evidence in the New Testament that this was done.

THIRD, the Hebrew Bible requires that the (sin) sacrifice be without any physical defects or blemishes (e.g., Lev 4:3) – according to the accounts in the New Testament, Jesus was beaten, whipped, and dragged on the ground before being crucified (Mt 26:67, 27:26, 30-31; Mk 14:65, 15:15-20; Lk 22:63; Jn 18:22, 19:1, 3). Moreover, as a Jew by birth, Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day after being born, a ritual that leaves a scar (“sign of the covenant”). According to the NT, circumcision is tantamount to mutilation (Phil 3:2, Gal 5:12).

FOURTH, the Hebrew Bible requires that the Passover (sin) sacrifice, a male-goat, be offered on an individual (per household) basis (Num 28:22), not as a communal offering – according to the New Testament, Jesus’ death (termed a ‘sin sacrifice’) expiated the sins of mankind (Ro 6:10; He 9:12, 10:10, 10:18).

FIFTH, the Hebrew Bible directs that the Paschal Lamb wasn’t to be offered for the removal of sins - it was a commemorative/festive offering (see also under “Fourth” above and “Sixth” below). A more appropriate time for a sin offering would have been on Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement; Num 29:11 [individual sin-offering – male goat]; Lev 16:15 [communal sin-offering – male goat]).

SIXTH, the Hebrew Bible requires that the sacrificed Paschal Lamb had to be roasted and eaten, and it’s blood used to place markings on the side-posts and lintel of the doors (Exod 12:7-8) – there is no record in the New Testament that this was, in fact, done (lest it be suggested that Christianity promotes cannibalism).

SEVENTH, the Hebrew Bible states that the sacrificial sin offering could only atone for unintentional sins, with few notable exceptions as stated in Lev 5:1-6, 20-26 [Lev 6:1-7 in Christian Bibles] (e.g., Num 15:27-31).

EIGHTH, the Hebrew Bible teaches that sacrifices can atone only for sins committed prior to the offering of the sacrifice; no sacrifice could ever atone for sins committed after the sacrifice was offered and, thus, no sacrifice could ever atone for people born after the sacrifice was offered (e.g., Leviticus 1-7). So, even if it were true that Jesus was some kind of super-sacrifice that atoned for all sins of all mankind, then his death could only atone for the sins committed before his death, not for any sins committed after his death by people who were born after he died.

NINTH, the Hebrew Bible strictly forbids (human) vicarious atonement (e.g., Exod 32:31-33; Num 35:33; Deut 24:16; II Kgs 14:6; Jer 31:29 [30 in Christian Bibles]; Ezek 18:4,20; Ps 49:7).

TENTH, the Hebrew Bible strictly prohibits human sacrifices (e.g., Lev 18:21, 24-25; Deut 18:10; Jer 7:31, 19:5; Ezek 23:37,39).

It is simply astonishing that so many people believe what their preachers “feed” them, as well as how the New Testament writings contradict the teachings of the Hebrew Bible.

Its up to you now, hawk. I have shown you that the sacrifice of Christ is invalid according to the Bible. This means that Christianity is invalid according to its own sources.

Time for the jury to bring their verdict. :)

How can you claim Christianity is the truth in the face of this?

Yahya Sulaiman

20th April 2005, 23:52

I won't let you weasel out of this one hawk. Give me an answer.

Very unfortunately, we can't stop him from weaseling out of discussions which disprove his beliefs. He does it all the time, and I have repeatedly tried to get him to stop it, but he just keeps on doing it. Don't expect him to do anything but evade you, as he does with me and all of us.

hawk

21st April 2005, 00:12

Looks like I am on the spot, and time for me to decimate another post from Ansars jewish sources.

FIRST, the Hebrew Bible requires that the sacrificial ritual be administered by a Priest (see Leviticus Chapters 1-7) – according to the accounts in the New Testament, Jesus was crucified by Roman soldiers (Mt 27:35; Mk 15:24; Lk 23:33; Jn 19:18, 23).

Jesus was "sacraficed" by God, the priest of all priests when he says.

And the procurator ordered the Jews to go outside of the praetorium; and summoning Jesus, he says to Him: “What shall I do to you?” Jesus says to Pilate: “As it has been given to you.” Pilate says: “How given?” Jesus says: “Moses and the prophets have proclaimed beforehand of my death and resurrection.” And the Jews noticing this, and hearing it, say to Pilate: “What more will you hear of this blasphemy?”

SECOND, the Hebrew Bible requires that the blood of the (sin) sacrifice had to be sprinkled by the Priest on the veil of the sanctuary and on the altar in the Temple (e.g., Lev 4:5-6) – there is no evidence in the New Testament that this was done.

Jesus sacrafice was for all mankind, his blood redeems the sins of all mans sins. Not just the jews in the temple.
The Holy of Holies was shattered and the veil was rended, fulfilling the old covenant and making a new covenant of man with God.

THIRD, the Hebrew Bible requires that the (sin) sacrifice be without any physical defects or blemishes (e.g., Lev 4:3) – according to the accounts in the New Testament, Jesus was beaten, whipped, and dragged on the ground before being crucified (Mt 26:67, 27:26, 30-31; Mk 14:65, 15:15-20; Lk 22:63; Jn 18:22, 19:1, 3). Moreover, as a Jew by birth, Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day after being born, a ritual that leaves a scar (“sign of the covenant”). According to the NT, circumcision is tantamount to mutilation (Phil 3:2, Gal 5:12)

Jesus was blemishless, he was without sin.
God didnt care about the blemishes of the animal, the logic of it was that a valuable animal, not one about to die should be sacraficed, but ofcourse many jews got caught up in the law, without realising the spirit behind it.

As are these jews who made this post..

FOURTH, the Hebrew Bible requires that the Passover (sin) sacrifice, a male-goat, be offered on an individual (per household) basis (Num 28:22), not as a communal offering – according to the New Testament, Jesus’ death (termed a ‘sin sacrifice’) expiated the sins of mankind (Ro 6:10; He 9:12, 10:10, 10:18).

Agreed but Jesus came for the family of humanity, not for just some small group of people.

FIFTH, the Hebrew Bible directs that the Paschal Lamb wasn’t to be offered for the removal of sins - it was a commemorative/festive offering (see also under “Fourth” above and “Sixth” below). A more appropriate time for a sin offering would have been on Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement; Num 29:11 [individual sin-offering – male goat]; Lev 16:15 [communal sin-offering – male goat]).

This one is really good.

Indeed not, it was supposed to signify the day on which "Ruah hakadosh" went over the land of Egypt and killed the first born in every family that had not sprinkled blood on the doorpost.

Now look how it all comes together, Jesus the sacrafice, dies, his blood is sprinkled over all of humanity, and so the wrath of the Lord passes us. We are all saved.

Now the sacrafice wasnt just for any reason, but because it was God making a new covenant with the israelites, God is saying here is the new covenant, now sacrafice the goat so that you are cleansed of your past sins.

Obviously if Jesus was to die on Yom kippur, it would make no sense, as christians we dont have to observe Yom kippur sacrafice, but fast and repent for the sins of the year.

However Yom kippur is an annual event.

The new Covenant was forged by God through Jesus Christ.
Just like a covenant was established through Passover.

Jesus's sacrafice was so much more that payment for sins.
It signifies the new covenant of God with man.

SIXTH, the Hebrew Bible requires that the sacrificed Paschal Lamb had to be roasted and eaten, and it’s blood used to place markings on the side-posts and lintel of the doors (Exod 12:7-8) – there is no record in the New Testament that this was, in fact, done (lest it be suggested that Christianity promotes cannibalism).

Ofcourse we dont roast and eat it.

But yes we eat the body and blood of Christ. It is part of the eucharistic celebration.

:)

A. Lanciano, Italy (Eucharistic Miracle)
Eucharistic Miracles have long been a common occurrence throughout the Church. They have appeared throughout every century as a sure sign of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Bleeding hosts are still common to this day. Even the stigma is present in an American Priest by the name of Father James Bruce who lives in Alexandria Virginia. In 700 AD in Lanciano Italy, at the monastery named after St. Longinus (this saint was the Roman soldier who pierced the side of Christ) a priest was saying Holy Mass who doubted the validity of Transubstantiation he thought that the bread and wine never turned into blood and wine. After the words of consecration the host turned into a piece of flesh and the wine turned into and separated into five little blood droplets or nuggets. When they were weighed they were all the same weight. Any one weighed as much as the other four combined. In 1970 the scientific community did testing to verify the miracle using modern techniques. Italian doctors Linoli and Bertelli from the University of Sienna found the blood to be type AB and to come from the heart tissue. The protein levels were found to be that of fresh blood. To this day these blood pellets are kept in an airtight reliquary in Lanciano Italy as proof of the mystery of Transubstantiation.

This miracle is proof of Transubstantiation. Because the Essence is no longer bread and wine but truly the Body and Blood of Christ this is why Catholics due things like Eucharistic Adoration, genuflecting, Eucharistic Processions etc.

SEVENTH, the Hebrew Bible states that the sacrificial sin offering could only atone for unintentional sins, with few notable exceptions as stated in Lev 5:1-6, 20-26 [Lev 6:1-7 in Christian Bibles] (e.g., Num 15:27-31).

Jesus came for all sins.

EIGHTH, the Hebrew Bible teaches that sacrifices can atone only for sins committed prior to the offering of the sacrifice; no sacrifice could ever atone for sins committed after the sacrifice was offered and, thus, no sacrifice could ever atone for people born after the sacrifice was offered (e.g., Leviticus 1-7). So, even if it were true that Jesus was some kind of super-sacrifice that atoned for all sins of all mankind, then his death could only atone for the sins committed before his death, not for any sins committed after his death by people who were born after he died.

Once again Jewish theology knows the sacrafice wasnt instead of repentance.
Repentance is still required, the sacrafice is only to pay the price of the sin, ie. death.

NINTH, the Hebrew Bible strictly forbids (human) vicarious atonement (e.g., Exod 32:31-33; Num 35:33; Deut 24:16; II Kgs 14:6; Jer 31:29 [30 in Christian Bibles]; Ezek 18:4,20; Ps 49:7).

Jesus is God.

TENTH, the Hebrew Bible strictly prohibits human sacrifices (e.g., Lev 18:21, 24-25; Deut 18:10; Jer 7:31, 19:5; Ezek 23:37,39).

Jesus is God.

Ansar Al-Haq

21st April 2005, 00:51

Looks like I am on the spot, and time for me to decimate another post from Ansars jewish sources.
lol, not quite, but let's examine what you've written.

Jesus was "sacraficed" by God, the priest of all priests when he says.

And the procurator ordered the Jews to go outside of the praetorium; and summoning Jesus, he says to Him: “What shall I do to you?” Jesus says to Pilate: “As it has been given to you.” Pilate says: “How given?” Jesus says: “Moses and the prophets have proclaimed beforehand of my death and resurrection.” And the Jews noticing this, and hearing it, say to Pilate: “What more will you hear of this blasphemy?”
How does this prove that he was sacrificed by God??? According to your logic, we don't need a priest for any animal sacrifice, because all sacrifices are done by God!

Yet the Old testament clearly indicates that all sacrifices must be performed by a priest from amongst the humans, otherwise we wouldn't need a priest at all.

Jesus sacrafice was for all mankind, his blood redeems the sins of all mans sins. Not just the jews in the temple.
The Holy of Holies was shattered and the veil was rended, fulfilling the old covenant and making a new covenant of man with God.
What on earth?!?

This is supposed to be a response to this:

SECOND, the Hebrew Bible requires that the blood of the (sin) sacrifice had to be sprinkled by the Priest on the veil of the sanctuary and on the altar in the Temple (e.g., Lev 4:5-6) – there is no evidence in the New Testament that this was done.

Is this what you call decimating? None of your three sentences responded to this point at all! What difference does it make if his sacrifice is for all people? That doesn't not supercede this law.

God didnt care about the blemishes of the animal
Yes, he did. Maybe you missed the part where the article said:

Lev 4:3

Agreed but Jesus came for the family of humanity, not for just some small group of people.
All you've done is restated what the article has just disproven! The statement you made shows exactly why the sacrifice is invalid, because it has to be offered by individuals to be accepted.

The new Covenant was forged by God through Jesus Christ.
Just like a covenant was established through Passover.

Jesus's sacrafice was so much more that payment for sins.
It signifies the new covenant of God with man.
What difference does that make? All sacrifices for sins should be offered at the appropriate time.

Ofcourse we dont roast and eat it.

But yes we eat the body and blood of Christ. It is part of the eucharistic celebration.

:)
Another irrelevant move. You have to EAT it. EAT your GOD, according to your own religion.

Jesus came for all sins.
Hawk, all you're doing is restating what has just been disproven.

You're statement is proven false because it contradicts the Old Testament:

SEVENTH, the Hebrew Bible states that the sacrificial sin offering could only atone for unintentional sins, with few notable exceptions as stated in Lev 5:1-6, 20-26 [Lev 6:1-7 in Christian Bibles] (e.g., Num 15:27-31).

Once again Jewish theology knows the sacrafice wasnt instead of repentance.
Repentance is still required, the sacrafice is only to pay the price of the sin, ie. death.
As the Old Testament states, NO sins can be removed from the sacrifice of previous generations.

Jesus is God.
But according to Christianity, Jesus is FULLY GOD and FULLY MAN. THerefore this still applies.

Jesus is God.
See above.

Hawk, you haven't decimated anything here. You've simply restated what was disproven in the article.
Don't waste my time with such nonsense. If you can really defend your religion then do so.

If not then start searching.

:w:

hawk

21st April 2005, 01:09

lol, not quite, but let's examine what you've written.

How does this prove that he was sacrificed by God??? According to your logic, we don't need a priest for any animal sacrifice, because all sacrifices are done by God!

Ah, but the Priest was the representative of God on earth buddy, ask any jew.

Yes, he did. Maybe you missed the part where the article said:

Ansar, Ansar

Here is lev 4:3
If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin offering.

first these are levitical laws, its not judaic law.

Secondly without blemish is to negate the ability to bring an animal that is close to death or seriously wounded and sacrafice that animal.

However spiritually Jesus was just that...a blemishless sacrafice.

What difference does that make? All sacrifices for sins should be offered at the appropriate time.

There is no new covenant at yom kippur.

The new covenant was established with the Jews at passover.
As the covenant was established for all men through Christ.

Another irrelevant move. You have to EAT it. EAT your GOD, according to your own religion.

Yes.

Hawk, you haven't decimated anything here. You've simply restated what was disproven in the article.
Don't waste my time with such nonsense. If you can really defend your religion then do so.

If not then start searching.

:w:

:) I did search Ansar, and I found the Truth, maybe you should start looking, say what?