Any Answers from Christians?

@ islamispeace...

Justice = equal scales. You can find evidence of this in probably any ancient religious writing. It's not something I've made up. It's not something that is simply based on my opinion.

What Islam does is provide a justice system made up of unequal scales. The scales for a rich man are different than those for a poor man.

If a rich man lies, his sin weighs down the scale much farther than if a poor man lies, because the atonement necessary to balance the scales is more for the rich man than the poor one.

I cannot believe you are arguing with me about my definition of justice being the wrong one when it is not MY definition of justice at all. It is THE definition of justice.

Why is it that a poor man who is poor because of st**id decisions and laziness is not expected to atone as much for his sins as the rich man who is rich because of INTELLIGENT decisions and being hardworking?

See the problem here? A poor man is not expected to atone as much because it APPEARS that it wouldn't be fair to expect the same payment as from a rich man. However, there is a reason one man is rich and the other is poor, and it doesn't always have to do with dishonesty or good luck.

Regarding women...I haven't gone off on a tangent. Just like with the injustice shown towards a rich man, injustice is shown towards females. I was simply providing yet another example of unequal scales.

Ah, "Islamic Jurisprudence" and "Fiqh." Yes. I am very familiar with these terms. These terms mean that some Muslims who qualify as scholars and religious authority are able to use their logic and common sense to interpret ancient laws and apply them to modern times. I get it.

And yet...when the Jews apply "Jewish Jurisprudence" to the Torah, they are berated by Muslims for not following the Torah properly. Or when the Christians apply "Christian Jurisprudence" to the Bible, they are berated by Muslims for not following the Bible properly. So, will you concede that jurisprudence of other religions is best left to the followers of those religions, which could very well mean that Muhammad had no authority whatsoever to be pointing fingers at the supposed inconsistencies shown by the Jews towards their Law?

Regarding communication with God...He never told me to DO anything. I have no idea how to explain it to you or put it into words.  It's like I have a guiding force within me that gives me strength and wisdom and discernment.  I also don't feel like I need to provide proof of anything since I do not claim to be a prophetess. A prophet or prophetess is required to provide proof...not the average believer simply relishing their relationship with God.

Abraham negotiated with God. Jacob wrestled with the Angel of the LORD. (Not just any angel, but THE Angel.) Moses questioned God's judgment. Jonah deliberately ran away from God's calling. So, it seems to me like people can very well say no to God. That's what Free Will is.

I think God very well could have chosen ANY race to bring the Messiah. God didn't choose the Israelites because they were special. No, they are special BECAUSE God chose them. There is a very big difference between these two statements. Abraham was not chosen because he was righteous and special. No, God chose Abraham and through his relationship of faith and trust with God was made righteous and special. We all have the opportunity to be righteous and special--but that is thanks to God, not to our own merits.

Theoretically, the Noahide Laws were given to Noah and his sons...therefore ALL nations through them would have been taught these laws. But tell me, do you really think it to be impossible for a human to know these laws within their own hearts?

1. No false idols.--This should be common sense. If you decide one day to carve a lizard out of a rock, name him "Dagoon" and decide to worship him, it is OBVIOUS that he's a god of your own creation and therefore likely only represents your own selfish desires. Anyone willing to do a little honest self-analysis can see the truth in this law without it ever having been written down.

2. Do not murder.--This should also be common sense. Would you like it if someone tried to murder you? What if someone murdered one of your loved ones?

3. Do not steal.--Also common sense. If you don't like it when someone raids your home and steals the things you've worked so hard for, then obviously it is not a good thing to do to others.

4. Do not be sexually promiscuous.--Again, more common sense. Promiscuity leads to disease and relationship conflicts. Enough said.

5. Do not blaspheme God.--This should be obvious. If you know something is wrong and comes from within your own selfish nature, then to try to attribute it to God is also wrong. It's like lying.

6. Do not eat the flesh of an animal while it is still alive.--Do I really need to explain this?

7. Requirement to have just laws in keeping with the previously established ones.--This makes sense. If your community does not justly enforce the law that prohibits stealing, for example, then the law is pointless.

So, the Law of Islam regarding adultery is different for a man that it is for a woman, correct? Does adultery in Islam mean cheating on your own spouse or does it mean sleeping with someone who is the spouse of another person?

And murder in Islam is defined as killing someone without a valid reason?

I never said there was anything wrong with multi-colored dogs; however, if I am attempting to produce an all-white dog, I'm not going to start mixing black dogs with my white ones. When did God forsake the rest of humanity? If I recall, He assisted Gentile nations in crushing the Israelites...on many occasions. He gave prosperity to many Gentile nations--remember the Roman Empire? He brings rain and sun upon both the righteous and the wicked. Let's not forget that.

Why not prepare the whole world for the Messiah? Actually, the world was pretty prepared for him. It was the Gentiles who gave strength to the early church. Yes, Jews were the first disciples and apostles; however, the greatest number of followers of Jesus came from the Gentiles. If you recall the stories of miracles in the gospels, it was the Gentiles who showed the GREATEST faith in Jesus Christ.

The "Right Hand" of God is a metaphor. Now, don't tell me you have a problem with that. The right hand (or right arm) of God is the term used to describe how God implements justice, judgment, salvation, etc. Seriously, do a search in an online Bible for those terms.

I don't think the rejection of the Book of Jubilees really had anything to do with the Arabs. If the Ethiopian Orthodox Church includes it in their Bible, so what? The Mormons include the Book of Mormon as equal (if not greater) in importance to the Bible. Just because one particular church chooses to accept something as scripture doesn't mean everyone else must do the same.

Look, whether Arabs are genealogically linked to Ishmael or not doesn't really matter (although it would explain a lot in regards to the animosity shown by Arabs towards Jews.) If you are gleaning the book of Jubilees for historical information, that's fine. People do that with the deuterocanical books and New Testament apocryphal writings as well. However, we can only trust them to provide what the opinions of the people were at the time. Does archaeology, anthropology, etc. support such an opinion? That's what I'm trying to get at. Arabs claim to be descendents of Ishmael. Some Jews and Gentiles agree. However, this does not provide a lick of evidence regarding the Ka'aba.

And if we are going to get into a discussion regarding the opinions of scholars, you wrote: another erroneous assumption on your part is that since the book is not considered as "scripture," then it is completely unreliable.

What if I said: Another erroneous assumption on your part is that since that hadith is not considered to be "sahih" by the majority of scholars, then it is completely unreliable...?

I'm not assuming that the book of Jubilees is wrong. I'm just not assuming that it is right. You want it to be right because it coincides with the Arab/Muslim belief that Ishmael is the father of the Arabs. I'm just asking for valid proof...not just some book written nearly 2000 years after the fact.  That would be like me taking the Quran as appropriate historical fact regarding Jesus Christ rather than the writings from the 1st century AD.

The Eucharist...are you talking about the Lord's supper when Jesus says to his disciples: "Eat in remembrance of me?"

To be honest with you, Jesus' body being the bread of life derives from the story of the manna sent from heaven for the Israelites while in the desert. Jesus' blood of the covenant derives from the rituals of atonement sacrifices also found in the Torah.

There is nothing wicked about a man offering himself in atonement for the sins of others. It is actually a very giving, selfless, and loving act.

Now, if people want to go bananas with the Eucharist ritual and truly believe that the bread and wine literally become the flesh and blood of Jesus...well, that is a little weird and not based on scripture. If you want to see the earliest understanding of the Lord's Supper, read 1 Corinthians 11:17-33.

It's similar to water baptism--symbolism of the cleansing and renewal by the Holy Spirit. The Lord's Supper symbolizes the purpose of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

So, now that we understand the Lord's Supper...let's examine the Mithraic stuff.

First of all Mithra doesn't resemble Jesus at all. Have you read the stories about him?

The idea of sacred banquets is as old as history itself. Just because there was a sacred banquet for Mithra doesn't mean that the Lord's Supper described in the New Testament has anything to do with it. For one thing, the beverage Mithra used was not wine but haoma juice. Secondly, the meal was supposed to give supernatural benefits. Thirdly, it was not meant to represent anything like Jesus' supper represents his self-sacrifice for humanity. (Mithra never sacrificed himself, he sacrificed a bull.)

I don't have a "modern" version of the Lord's Supper. I simply refer to the New Testament scriptures. If other people want to accept other writings and other traditions, it is up to them.

Regarding the curtain...God's glory wasn't "held back." The curtain symbolized Man's separation from God.

Yes, isn't it interesting that Muslims did pray towards Jerusalem? I think this could be an entirely new topic which I would find to be very enlightening for both of us.

Look, you are really grasping for straws here to try connecting Mecca with the valley of Baca. Mecca is not enroute to Jerusalem. There never has been a pilgrimage through Arabia to Jerusalem or any of the places where the Tent of Meeting was erected, has there?

You wrote: God doesn't have to anything, if He doesn't want to...

This has nothing to do with what God has to do or doesn't. This has to do with scriptural integrity. If the scriptures say that God dwelled in His house, and His house (according to the scriptures) is the Ka'aba, then the part that says He is in His house must also be true. So, is the passage true or is it false? You're cherry-picking half-sentences here.

When had the Israelites EVER traveled through Mecca (Arabia) enroute to Zion? Please, show me that reference!

Look, the passage says that Allah dwells in His house. You said that He doesn't really dwell in His house. Therefore, you are saying that this scripture is false. Therefore, it must have been fabricated. It's very simple.

(And the belief that all organisms have a single ancestor IS ASININE. Science itself disagrees with it.)

I believe in the doctrines of Christianity that are supported by the scriptures of Christianity. If a church puts forth doctrines or dogma that contradicts the scriptures they preach from, then I have a problem with it. However, I am not attempting to start my own church or gain converts to my own personal interpretations of things. I'm sure there are many things in Islam that you interpret differently than thousands of other Muslims. That's okay. I don't judge Islam based on your personal beliefs or the beliefs of some mullahs in the Taliban.

I believe in the Bible as the scriptural authority for Christianity, Judaism, and the history of Jesus Christ. I believe it was written by men who honestly had faith in God and relied on God for wisdom and guidance. I believe the Holy Spirit inspired the prophets. I believe the Holy Spirit was within Jesus Christ. I am a Christian, therefore I believe I may answer questions regarding Christianity. Not all Christians believe that the Bible is the verbatim words of God like Muslims believe about the Quran. In fact, many Christians don't.

If I read something in a book that says stealing is evil, does it mean that that book is now scripture just because it agrees with the Ten Commandments? It's called discernment, and I trust in God to give me that. If I read a book that attempts to justify stealing and excuse it, then I know that the book is teaching something evil.

Why should any of us believe the words of men? People do it all the time. You believe in the Quran which was compiled by Uthman and an appointed group of scribes. You believe in the Quran which was memorized by men and recited to scribes. You believe in the Quran which was recited by one MAN to his many companions. Every day you believe in the words of men. The difference is when a man claims to be preaching the words of God. You either choose to believe him or you don't. But even if you do believe him, you are still having to believe his word that he is telling the truth about the source of his revelations.

We are held accountable for breaking the law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for sin because within each of us is a conscience that convicts us of wrong-doing. Even if the law doesn't state that stealing is wrong, if we go steal our neighbor's possessions, in our hearts we know it is wrong because we wouldn't like it if someone did it to us. If it is wrong for me, then it should be wrong for my neighbor. If it is wrong for my neighbor to murder me, then it should be wrong for me to murder my neighbor. (Equal scales, remember?)

My beliefs are not attractive to atheists. I believe only a relationship with God can give you eternal life. If you do not have a relationship with Him, He is not going to force one with you. He will not whisk you to heaven and eternal life against your will. If you do not want eternal life and heaven, then He's not going to give it to you. Atheists don't want it. They reject it wholeheartedly.

How does one "prove" divine guidance? Am I supposed to get a tape recorder and record the experiences that occur within my spirit? Am I supposed to video tape it or something? I give God the credit for everything. I didn't have any whims or desires. I simply sought God and sought salvation. I wanted to know what I must do to get it. He showed me that He had already done everything and I simply needed to have faith in Him.

How do I know that it wasn't Satan? Does Satan bring inner peace, comfort, and rest? Does Satan proclaim Jesus as Lord and Savior of mankind? Does Satan give God all the credit for salvation? Does Satan encourage complete trust and faith in God? Come on, man.

Do I believe Satan exists? Yes, but not in the way that Muslims interpret Satan. I don't believe "satan" is a single person (ie djinn).

Prophecy about Byzantines/Persians:

So, now the word "defeated" doesn't mean defeated, but instead means lost the upper hand but hasn't lost the war yet?

So, when the Byzantines won a single battle (but not the war), then at that point they had defeated the Persians? I've never seen a more ridiculous case of double-speak in my life. So, when did the Allies defeat Japan? Was it when they were able to win a battle on one of the Philippine islands? Or was it when the Japanese unconditionally surrendered after the dropping of the second atomic bomb?

So, because Muhammad didn't die before Mecca was conquered, then the "prophecy" was really a prophecy? The whole thing hung upon the mortality of Muhammad? The Islamic definition of "prophecy" is VERY different from the Judeo-Christian one. At this point, (just as when we were discussing the word "perfect") I think we just need to agree to disagree.

If Muhammad truly split the moon, do we have any evidence of such a thing except for the narratives of a few Muslims? Do we have any scientific or non-Muslim historical evidence?

Regarding Original Sin: Okay, St. Augustine is not from the "earliest times." He's from the 6th century, a mere one hundred years before Muhammad. Martin Luther may have had the right intentions when he broke away from the Roman Catholic Church and promoted individual reading of the Bible; however, he also had some wacky beliefs regarding the Jews that did not have a good scriptural basis. John Calvin...do you understand HIS theology? He believes that everything is pre-ordained and there really is no such thing as free will.

If something comes from Roman Catholic dogma, then I always question it first. The history of the Church is too ugly to deny, and their reputation for spreading lies and distorting scriptures for selfish gain cannot be ignored. If they want me to believe that I am stained from birth so that I must self-flagellate, pay penance, etc. for forgiveness for this uncontrollable stain...then I don't want a part of it. For one thing, it is not scriptural. For another, it promotes an unhealthy self-loathing and unnatural sense of guilt.