Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think I understand you fine. While a Christian would term themselves a "lowly worm" unworthy of god's unmerited favor, Muslims would cast themselves as trying to be worthy to be but a slave. And achieving this status is seen as a boon. In both cases you are not worthy; in both cases you have to overcome a structural unworthiness in your very being that you were created with by a being who wants to condemn you for being as he created you.
Potatoe, Potah-toe, it's all the same thing, with some minor differences.
I have to say that as a former Christian I at least had the opportunity to be considered, at least in theory (or as we put it "positionally") as a "joint-heir with Christ" of all the riches of god. I will give Islam props for at least not promising a lot of grandiose swag that it can't deliver.
Slight correction here my friend. In Islam we don't have the concept of original sin, every human is born with a clean-slate and is excused for his or her actions during childhood. However one must *earn* heaven just as one *earns* hell. It's not that were immediately cast off, rather we start at "0".
How you could you possibly make a claim such as this without actually dying and failing to receive what God had promised?
Do you believe the Norse gods are going to deliver on their promises after you die? If not, how can you possibly make such a claim without actually dying and failing to receive what those gods have promised?
How you could you possibly make a claim such as this without actually dying and failing to receive what God had promised?
The promises of god are both temporal and beyond the grave.
The joint heirs things is a sticky wicket. At one extreme the Mormons say it means we will become gods ourselves eventually. At the other the JWs say that it's proof that Jesus wasn't divine. Most evangelicals leave it as kind of a nebulous paean to equal access to all the rights and benefits that Jesus has from the Father -- not simply or even primarily in the life to come, but in the here and now. The Kingdom of God is not (strictly) heaven, after all, it is supposed to a spiritual reality here and now.
Here's a random Christian quote that captures the notion:
Quote:
The meaning of joint heir with Christ is sitting on the same bench with Christ in heavenly place(Ephesians 2:6). Having authority to dominate every affair of life(Genesis 1:28). Living a life of Heaven on Earth(Revelation 21:2-3). Not less than Jesus,we are one with Jesus(Hebrew 2:11)
Some lean more towards an idealized realization of this in the afterlife mostly or exclusively, it's true. But the join-heirs thing was always presented to me as a present reason to be joyful.
I mostly had in mind, though, the many explicit promises to believers in this life, starting with the believer becoming a new creation with "victory over sin", having an intimate relationship (implies two way communication) with god, promises of blessing, protection, "a present help in time of trouble", and on and on. My life however trundled on its way exactly as one would expect if none of these things were true. I got tired of the cognitive dissonance involved.
Slight correction here my friend. In Islam we don't have the concept of original sin, every human is born with a clean-slate and is excused for his or her actions during childhood. However one must *earn* heaven just as one *earns* hell. It's not that were immediately cast off, rather we start at "0".
Here again, at least in theory, that is a notch better than Christianity's original sin but with a free pass until the nebulous "age of accountability". So the net effect in Christianity is you start at zero, come of age, and then you're at "minus infinity", can't earn your way out, and have to hit up Jesus to pay your student loans for you, so to speak.
In both cases though you're not worthy so I'm not sure the presence or absence of the doctrine of original sin makes a real difference. It's still striving to appease the wrath of deities whose wrath comes from you simply being as you were made.
Here again, at least in theory, that is a notch better than Christianity's original sin but with a free pass until the nebulous "age of accountability". So the net effect in Christianity is you start at zero, come of age, and then you're at "minus infinity", can't earn your way out, and have to hit up Jesus to pay your student loans for you, so to speak.
In both cases though you're not worthy so I'm not sure the presence or absence of the doctrine of original sin makes a real difference. It's still striving to appease the wrath of deities whose wrath comes from you simply being as you were made.
I wouldn't say one is not worthy in Islam, rather you must prove your worth. And it's not simply in performing prayers and fasting ramadan, and having belief but is also from abstaining from sin, evil-doing, mischief and performing righteous deeds (and here we are explicit in that one should perform them strictly out of selfishness. In that one *should* perform the good deed to be rewarded by God). There's a stark difference to many branches of Christianity here as simply believing is not what "saves" you in Islam...rather you must submit to the will of God not only in belief but in action.
Thanks for enlightening me about that. It does indeed appear that Islam teaches about its deity's lack of dependence on humans or anything else rather more overtly than do Christians. While technically it's part of Christian theology, I have seldom heard it mentioned outside of theological treatises that most people don't have appreciable contact with. And when god's self-sufficiency is presented, the logical implications of that are usually left begging.
I don't have nearly the knowledge of Islam that I do of Christianity but given that this teaching is more front and center I would assume that Allah would not threaten to smite people for not worshipping him then? Because if he did, that would expose an inconsistency in what is taught about him and how he actually interacts with people.
Actually if you attend a church you see Christians worshiping Jesus not God while justifying that by saying Jesus is God.
If a god were proven to exist, I also wouldn't be worshiping because I doubt it would matter to a deity. If god is a petty tyrant that indeed did need worship then he isn't much of a deity in the first place so another good reason not to worship.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
