Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Welcome to Christforums the Protestant Community. You'll need to register in order to post your comments on your favorite topics and subjects. You'll also enjoy sharing media across multiple platforms. We hope you enjoy your fellowship here! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Christforums

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy. God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now
Sign in to follow this  
William

Muhammad and Jesus Contrasted

Recommended Posts

Have you noticed that whenever there is a terrorist attack that certain people rush to the defense of Islam saying "Well there are extremists in Christianity too" No doubt there are professing Christians who have committed despicable and inexcusable acts but it really misses the point entirely. There is something intrinsic to teaching in the Quran and early Islamic history that is somehow being missed in these online discussions.

 

Muhammad directly taught, in many circumstances, that we ought to kill or subjugate our enemies (e.g.. Surah 9). Christ by example taught we ought to die for our enemies and liberate them ... It is recorded in history that Mohammed had murdered dozens of his enemies by the time of his death. Jesus, having killed no one, died to reconcile his enemies to himself, calling us to love our enemies and turn the other cheek when we are persecuted by them. Following these teachings, the first 500 years of Islam was a story of bloody conquest. The first few hundred years of the church was one of weakness and severe persecution for the followers of Christ, not conquest. So we can see that the teaching of the two heads of these faiths could not be more sharply contrasted. One leader in many circumstances gives justification to sacrifice others, the other only justification to sacrifice self for others.

 

This is certainly not to deny that there have been professing Christians in history who have murdered others. There have been. But, if they read their bibles, they knew they were acting in disobedience to their Lord. (Christians are capable of sin like anyone else). But those Muslims who kill can appeal to a wide variety of Muhammad's teaching to justify murder. So the media portraying groups like ISIS as not true Muslims is a clear distortion of the truth. Certainly they do not represent all Muslims but they're not teaching anything much different from the founder of their faith.

 

Source: https://www.monergism.com/blog/muhammad-and-jesus-contrasted

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't we forgetting the massacres made by God's chosen people in The Old Testament, which Jesus did not condemn whatsoever, nor did He say He came to abolish?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aren't we forgetting the massacres made by God's chosen people in The Old Testament, which Jesus did not condemn whatsoever, nor did He say He came to abolish?

 

The inhabitants of the land God gave to Israel had sunk so far in sin that God commanded that they all be killed. God chose to use the Israelites to carry out his judgment. They could still avoid this penalty if they repented and turned to serving the true God. The experience of Rahab proves this. The Israelites often failed to carry out God's command and allowed the people to live, and they were frequently led into idolatry by the influence of these people.

 

God has never commanded Christians to destroy their enemies. We are commanded to love them and preach the gospel to them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The inhabitants of the land God gave to Israel had sunk so far in sin that God commanded that they all be killed. God chose to use the Israelites to carry out his judgment. They could still avoid this penalty if they repented and turned to serving the true God. The experience of Rahab proves this. The Israelites often failed to carry out God's command and allowed the people to live, and they were frequently led into idolatry by the influence of these people.

 

God has never commanded Christians to destroy their enemies. We are commanded to love them and preach the gospel to them.

 

Matthew 5:44-45

 

Romans 10:14-15

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The inhabitants of the land God gave to Israel had sunk so far in sin that God commanded that they all be killed.

Well, that's pretty much how Muhammad felt about the people he ordered to be killed. He thought that the inhabitants of the lands around had sunk so far in sin, according to what he believe was the real God (Allah), that he ordered their execution. Unlike the Israelites, Muhammad seems to have been more merciful as he did not order complete genocide. He allowed non-Muslims to live as long as they paid a tax to Muslims and declared themselves as inferiors.

 

I'm not claiming that he was right, but from a moral standpoint, his views are just as justifiable as the Israelites'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that's pretty much how Muhammad felt about the people he ordered to be killed. He thought that the inhabitants of the lands around had sunk so far in sin, according to what he believe was the real God (Allah), that he ordered their execution. Unlike the Israelites, Muhammad seems to have been more merciful as he did not order complete genocide. He allowed non-Muslims to live as long as they paid a tax to Muslims and declared themselves as inferiors.

 

I'm not claiming that he was right, but from a moral standpoint, his views are just as justifiable as the Israelites'.

 

I think you missed the point of the Original Post. Name one person that was killed by Jesus Christ in the NT.

 

What standard for morality are you using? Who exactly is your standard bearer? And I do not think anyone doubts that Muhammad "felt" justified.

 

And what were the sins of the inhabitants in the sight of the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob? And what were the sins of the inhabitants according to Muhammad in the sight of Allah?

 

Unlike the Israelites, Muhammad seems to have been more merciful as he did not order complete genocide. He allowed non-Muslims to live as long as they paid a tax to Muslims and declared themselves as inferiors.

 

Isn't it amazing that the same thing is occurring today? I'm sure the victims of the modern Christian genocide must "feel" that Muhammad is a swell guy, what a stand up guy.

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that's pretty much how Muhammad felt about the people he ordered to be killed. He thought that the inhabitants of the lands around had sunk so far in sin, according to what he believe was the real God (Allah), that he ordered their execution. Unlike the Israelites, Muhammad seems to have been more merciful as he did not order complete genocide. He allowed non-Muslims to live as long as they paid a tax to Muslims and declared themselves as inferiors.

 

I'm not claiming that he was right, but from a moral standpoint, his views are just as justifiable as the Israelites'.

 

Out of curiosity, how can you come to the conclusion that another human is justified in what they do if you do not agree that they were right in doing it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Out of curiosity, how can you come to the conclusion that another human is justified in what they do if you do not agree that they were right in doing it?

 

If I didn't come to that conclusion, I wouldn't be able to be a Christian in the first place because I completely disagree with most of God's commandments from the Old Testament. I just accept them as rules given my someone who is superior in power and whom fighting against would be futile and end in my destruction.

 

But - hypothetically speaking - if I was (a) God, I would never command the annihilation of entire nations because they didn't obey my rules. I'd take a different approach and bedazzle them with miracles and signs every single day until they learned to love me and make it so they couldn't sin.

 

For example:

- if someone tried to commit adultery - boom! give them temporary impotence during that day, so that they can't engage in fornication

- if someone tried to kill or harm another person - boom! give them temporary paralysis during that day, so that they can't go through with their murderous plan

- if someone tried to lie / give false testimony - boom! make them mute and deaf during that day, so that they can't hear or speak lies

- if someone tried to worship other gods - boom! appear to them in a dream and tell them, "you should not worship other gods besides Yahweh"

and so on...

 

Of course, for the people who did obey my rules, there would be awards...

 

Now, wouldn't that create a much better world?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If I didn't come to that conclusion, I wouldn't be able to be a Christian in the first place because I completely disagree with most of God's commandments from the Old Testament. I just accept them as rules given my someone who is superior in power and whom fighting against would be futile and end in my destruction.

 

But - hypothetically speaking - if I was (a) God, I would never command the annihilation of entire nations because they didn't obey my rules. I'd take a different approach and bedazzle them with miracles and signs every single day until they learned to love me and make it so they couldn't sin.

 

For example:

- if someone tried to commit adultery - boom! give them temporary impotence during that day, so that they can't engage in fornication

- if someone tried to kill or harm another person - boom! give them temporary paralysis during that day, so that they can't go through with their murderous plan

- if someone tried to lie / give false testimony - boom! make them mute and deaf during that day, so that they can't hear or speak lies

- if someone tried to worship other gods - boom! appear to them in a dream and tell them, "you should not worship other gods besides Yahweh"

and so on...

 

Of course, for the people who did obey my rules, there would be awards...

 

Now, wouldn't that create a much better world?

 

That answers my question as to who your moral standard bearer is.

 

William

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If I didn't come to that conclusion, I wouldn't be able to be a Christian in the first place because I completely disagree with most of God's commandments from the Old Testament. I just accept them as rules given my someone who is superior in power and whom fighting against would be futile and end in my destruction.

 

But - hypothetically speaking - if I was (a) God, I would never command the annihilation of entire nations because they didn't obey my rules. I'd take a different approach and bedazzle them with miracles and signs every single day until they learned to love me and make it so they couldn't sin.

 

For example:

- if someone tried to commit adultery - boom! give them temporary impotence during that day, so that they can't engage in fornication

- if someone tried to kill or harm another person - boom! give them temporary paralysis during that day, so that they can't go through with their murderous plan

- if someone tried to lie / give false testimony - boom! make them mute and deaf during that day, so that they can't hear or speak lies

- if someone tried to worship other gods - boom! appear to them in a dream and tell them, "you should not worship other gods besides Yahweh"

and so on...

 

Of course, for the people who did obey my rules, there would be awards...

 

Now, wouldn't that create a much better world?

 

Not really, no. And with that little example you have completely missed the point of why Jesus had to come and die for our sins. God originally instituted the covenant of works with Adam. See where that got him (and us by association)? God took that requirement away because He knew we, as fallible humans, would never be able to live up to that kind of standard.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd take a different approach and bedazzle them with miracles and signs every single day until they learned to love me and make it so they couldn't sin.

That sounds a lot like what God will do during the Millenium. Jesus Christ will rule on earth and all sin will be suppressed. Everyone will know without any doubt that there is a God. But look what will happen at the end.

 

And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea. And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and consumed them, and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. (Revelation 20:7-10)

 

Those born during the Millenium will have proof of the truth of God and yet when they have the chance they will rebel against him and follow Satan. Don't you think it is possible that God knows more than you do about the best way to run the world?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And with that little example you have completely missed the point of why Jesus had to come and die for our sins.

 

Enlighten me then.

 

God originally instituted the covenant of works with Adam.

 

What covenant of works?

 

because He knew we, as fallible humans, would never be able to live up to that kind of standard.

 

He made us that way in the first place. Why make something that you know can't live up to your standards? He didn't need us. God doesn't need anything or anyone as He is self-sufficient. Which only leaves one other option: He wanted us. Therefore, God wanted to create us this way. He wanted to create us as fallible and therefore He is responsible for our suffering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He made us that way in the first place. Why make something that you know can't live up to your standards? He didn't need us. God doesn't need anything or anyone as He is self-sufficient. Which only leaves one other option: He wanted us. Therefore, God wanted to create us this way. He wanted to create us as fallible and therefore He is responsible for our suffering.

Or alternatively God wanted humans to do something nothing else in creation could: to obey him out of free will. Creating something with free will carries the risk that they will disobey, which in practice Adam and Eve did. I take it you believe original sin plays no role in suffering, or believe that God was responsible for it?

 

Your idea of God intervening immediately in everything has a problem, and I'll quote modern science because it might mean more to you. The children of helicopter parents who smother them like that often have a psychological problem called infantilisation. The only way this gets resolved is to walk away from them. Why would God want people to walk away from him? It would also result in learned helplessness, where the victim doesn't try to do anything because they have learned it makes no difference. People raised like that may never be able to mature enough reach the age of choice or be able to make a conscious decision to follow God regardless of their age.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Enlighten me then.

 

 

 

What covenant of works?

 

 

 

He made us that way in the first place. Why make something that you know can't live up to your standards? He didn't need us. God doesn't need anything or anyone as He is self-sufficient. Which only leaves one other option: He wanted us. Therefore, God wanted to create us this way. He wanted to create us as fallible and therefore He is responsible for our suffering.

 

Something tells me you have never read the bible, or possibly have even listened to a scripturally based sermon.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What covenant of works?

Genesis 2:15-17 Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

 

The Contract with Adam:

DO: tend and keep the garden of Eden

DON'T: of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat

 

As long as Adam fulfilled these required works, he was fully righteous before God and would live in the garden.

Adam failed to keep the covenant of works ... enter the curse:

 

Genesis 3:17-19 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:

​​“Cursed is the ground for your sake;

​​In toil you shall eat of it

​​All the days of your life.

​​Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,

​​And you shall eat the herb of the field.

​​In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread

​​Till you return to the ground,

​​For out of it you were taken;

​​For dust you are,

​​And to dust you shall return.”

 

That was the covenant of works. The beginning and end of the chance for mankind to earn a place with God by our own efforts. Any questions?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aren't we forgetting the massacres made by God's chosen people in The Old Testament, which Jesus did not condemn whatsoever, nor did He say He came to abolish?

There are really two types of 'massacres' in the Old Testament. There are the killings directly ordered by God (and in many cases led by God himself). Jericho comes to mind. God probably killed most of those people himself when the wall fell. Israel just cleaned up the stragglers ... except Rahab and her family. Think of that. God slaughters an entire city, and still protects from all harm every member of a household that should have died, but they trusted in God. That sort of implies that no one died who should not have died (according to the judgement of God), doesn't it.

 

Then there was Gideon and his 300 men. If I remember the details of that battle, they blew trumpets and most of the enemy killed each other. That also sounds like God had a thumb on the scale. I am not sure if Egypt even counts. God sent the angel of death and then God drown the Egyptian Army. Can Israel even take credit for ANY of that death?

 

So the issue is surprise that God Incarnate didn't stop to apologize for all of the evil and rebellious people that He had personally killed and ordered Israelites to clean up the stragglers on. I don't know, this does not really surprise me. God never seemed big on changing his opinions on things. If he thought that they needed killing enough to kill them himself, he probably has no regrets. That whole omniscience thing.

 

Now Israel did kill when God did not order it. Usually it didn't go so well for them. The battle where the Ark was captured comes to mind. In those cases God had already told them what they did was wrong through his prophets. Jesus did not need to read old condemnations after God had already announced that he was rejecting Israel as unfaithful and delivering the curses promised at the beginning of the Covenant with Moses.

 

God never ordered any general killing in his name. There was no command for Jesus to abolish. God is the creator of all life and the ultimate judge. It is his right to sentence and punish, as well as forgive, at the time and place of God's choosing.

 

This really cannot be compared with Islam teaching the verse of the Sword that orders all faithful Muslims to enslave or kill all non-Muslim. It would be similar if Muslims were praying in their mosques for Allah to send lightning bolts to strike down all Christians and Jews. Then if Allah did send lightning bolts to kill a hundred people at a parade in Paris or London, then the blame/fault/credit/decision would rest with Allah. God never called Israel to murder all women and children at random as the opportunity presented itself. Jesus never called Christians to murder all women and children at random as the opportunity presented itself. Allah (through Mohammad) has called all Muslims to murder all women and children at random as the opportunity presented itself ... those that obey are called "radical" and those that disobey are called "peaceful".

 

There really is a fundamental difference between those who OBEY the Qu'ran and murder, and those who DISOBEY the Bible (OT & NT) and murder.

There really is a fundamental difference between God ordering a specific group of people killed and sending a miracle to perform most of the killing, and men searching for an opportunity to commit the genocide of all other religions.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aren't we forgetting the massacres made by God's chosen people in The Old Testament, which Jesus did not condemn whatsoever, nor did He say He came to abolish?

 

Yep, that's the Old Testament, all right. I used to read the book when I was 12 years old. I just decided, why not? It did contain a lot of violence, adultery, nudity, you name it. :( I'm not letting my kids read it like I did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not letting my kids read it like I did.

Do you mean you are not letting them read it at all or that you are teaching them to read it correctly? If you mean the first, you are depriving them of the blessings they will receive from a knowledge of God's word. Paul wrote to Timothy, "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." When Paul spoke of the sacred writings, he meant the Old Testament because the New had not yet been written. Even the Old Testament alone was enough to show Timothy how to be saved.

 

Some part of the Old Testament (like some parts of the New) are hard to understand and you should spend time explaining it to your children so they will understand it, but you should not prevent them from reading it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you mean you are not letting them read it at all or that you are teaching them to read it correctly? If you mean the first, you are depriving them of the blessings they will receive from a knowledge of God's word. Paul wrote to Timothy, "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." When Paul spoke of the sacred writings, he meant the Old Testament because the New had not yet been written. Even the Old Testament alone was enough to show Timothy how to be saved.

 

Some part of the Old Testament (like some parts of the New) are hard to understand and you should spend time explaining it to your children so they will understand it, but you should not prevent them from reading it.

 

I meant, reading like I did. I read it without adult guidance and it brought questions and doubts on my mind. Good thing I was a little older at the time and I was aware of how not to take the bible, literally. But then again, people have different ways to understand things. At an early age, influence has a huge impact on a child. Maybe they can read them when they're older. Anyway, how can you justify violence to a child?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I meant, reading like I did. I read it without adult guidance and it brought questions and doubts on my mind. Good thing I was a little older at the time and I was aware of how not to take the bible, literally. But then again, people have different ways to understand things. At an early age, influence has a huge impact on a child. Maybe they can read them when they're older. Anyway, how can you justify violence to a child?

 

You have to distill it down to what was actually going on. God was punishing them for their sin.

 

Now, we do not necessarily start our sunday school lessons with the heavier stuff, we usually start with creation, move into the flood, and on into some of the lighter stories. But, really the overall pattern of the old testament is the chosen people of God constantly getting it wrong and God having to use different ways to discipline them for their transgressions. It ultimately leads into the need for Christ.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christianity is older than Islam. Christianity as we know today evolved two thousand years ago and Islam evolved in the 7th century. Islam has burrowed many things from Old Testament. Islam is a rigid religion, nothing has changed since it evolved. The Muslims are practicing the same things that was said 1300 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Christianity is older than Islam. Christianity as we know today evolved two thousand years ago and Islam evolved in the 7th century. Islam has burrowed many things from Old Testament. Islam is a rigid religion, nothing has changed since it evolved. The Muslims are practicing the same things that was said 1300 years ago.
To be fair that depends on the sect. Several of them have grown and developed over time, Sunni, Salafi, Ahmadi, Ismailism, Wahhabi, Salafi etc. all have different beliefs and they are split further than Catholics, Protestants and Mormons. The terrorism is almost entirely concentrated in one or two of these sects (Telegraph).

 

One of my main media annoyances is that it reports "Muslims bombers, Muslim peacemarchers" as if it is one group instead of the actual situation e.g. the press reported on a Muslim peacemarch after the recent bombing, claiming it showed all Muslims were peaceful, but missed out the fact that the sect that did the march were disowned by the Muslim Council of Britain as being not true Muslims. Targetting the sect behind the terrorism would be more effective than going after all Muslims, but the media are reluctant to seperate them out as the sect also controls a lot of oil and is strong in Saudi.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×