Thinking of Becoming Christian (No Troll)

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[irritation]
Hey, Mods, why aren’t the quote tags working?!
[/irritation]

Might want to check that figure with either Pew research or the CIA World Factbook. They both say 1.2 billion for Catholics, 1.6 billion for Muslims. Of course, considering the strident antiabortion and anti-birth control stances of both these faiths, we can assume these figures will be climbing before too long.

…any more, you mean. Yes, I think the indiginous tribes of the world breathed a collective sigh of relief when the Church abandoned that policy. Of course, plenty of Jews and Muslims…and Protestant Christians too, for that matter, have been faced with the choice of convert or die over the last thousand years. You bring the subject up to imply that the large number of Muslims is accounted for by forced conversion, and to an extent this is true. Islam spread throughout North Africa and Eastern Europe on the back of vigorous military conquest and colonization, just as Catholicism spread throughout Central and South America, Asia and Africa the same way. Just as the Israelites converted or killed everyone they could in the Promised Land of Canaan.

[quote]
Now, I imagine that some Catholics don’t really really believe this (Pat? Your opinion?)

Some but very few. The Real Presence is the foundation of the faith. I believe in it strongly. There is no denying for me. The profundity of the Eucharist is to much to deny.

[quote]

Fine. We’ll leave it at that. I don’t personally believe that a wheat cracker can change its molecular structure into that of the body of an incarnate god, but then I probably believe a bunch of stuff that you think is pretty wacky, too.

Not sure what semantic distinction you are going for here. Obviously if Moses wrote the Torah (which I don’t think he, personally, did by the way, considering that the writing style varies considerably from book to book, but anyway), he either received it from God, or he made it up, or else he compiled it from oral histories, legends and myths of the tribes. Do you believe that the Torah was a divinely revealed document? It wasn’t clear from what you wrote.

I course you’re right, which is why I attempt to stay even-handed, even if it meant being called out by PRCalDude in the past because I wouldn’t parrot the Western Christian cliche of:

“[quote]I know right now, islam has a certain dangerous element to it that is a threat to peace everywhere in the world.[/quote]”

I can see where people might get this idea. After all, wasn’t it Muhammad who said,

“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.”

Oh wait. Not Muhammad. My bad.

Seriously though, to your credit, you did follow this up with:

The people is (sic) always the problem. Usually because they have misunderstood their faith.

Bingo. You have just hit upon one of the most powerful phrases in the human lexicon. If everyone were to make this their mantra, religious strife would end. Of course, PWI would probably shrivel up and disappear, too.

Oh? Lets examine some of its basic premises and practices.

Do you believe that God is one, unique, and without partner?
Do you believe he forgives the sins of a penitent confessor?
Do you believe that God is the creator of the Universe?
Do you believe in the Day of Judgement, and in punishment or reward in the Afterlife?
Do you believe in angels, demons, Satan and the Holy Ghost?
Do you believe in the Immaculate Conception and Ascention into heaven of Jesus?
Do you believe that every child conceived has the sacred right to life?
Do you ever kneel, or even prostrate yourself, in prayer?
Ever used beads to count your supplications to the almighty?
Ever done a limited fast for a month to purify your spirit?

If you answered “no” to a majority of those, then Islam is not for you. Then again, neither is Roman Catholicism.

And yet not so different from Ancient Greek or Persian stories of a son of Zeus, raised by a mortal family, possessing miraculous powers, defeating evil, and being betrayed, sacrificing himself and ascending into heaven. Could be the story of Hercules, or Superman, for that matter.

The difference is that Jesus is not thought of by most Christians as simply one of God’s superchildren, but rather as an incarnation of God, as Gautama Siddharta (Buddha) was considered by the Hindus to be an avatar of Vishnu. And even that isn’t exactly it, because the idea is that Jesus is simultaneously one with the Almighty, and separate. The more I contemplate it, the more I come to think that you can have monotheism, or you can have a Trinity. Awfully difficult to have both simultaneously.

I know that you aren’t implying that the more outlandish the claim, the more likely it is to be true.

Oh, I don’t know. Just because someone will die or risk death to believe something doesn’t necessarily mean that the something they believe is true. Whole lotta dead Nazis and Communists are testament to this fact.

With the possible exception of the Chicxulub comet.

“For how much longer” being the open question.

Christianity, and particularly the Roman Catholic Church, is the dominant religion in the world. It is the year 2013 on the Christian Calendar. It’s been a good, long run. What will the world look like, though, I wonder, in another 579 years, when it is 2013 on the Muslim calendar.

Just a guess, but looking at demographic projections alone, I predict that by then, a whole lot more people will be saying la ilaha ila Allah than will be saying in nomine patris, et fili, et spiritus sancti.

Which, in one respect, is kind of a shame.

Latin is such a pretty language.

82

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

How can something be both true and untrue at once? How is it possible to honor both belief–which requires no proof–and science, which tests the unbiased observation of nature only. As you, V, yourself noted years ago, it is the genius who can hold two contradictory notions in his mind at once.

[/quote]

Haha. Of course, I didn’t originate this idea. F. Scott Fitzgerald said that it was a sign of superior intelligence, whereas Orwell, calling it “doublethink”, had a less charitable opinion.

I really enjoyed that post, Doc. Thanks.

83

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[irritation]
Hey, Mods, why aren’t the quote tags working?!
[/irritation]

pat wrote:

The number of Catholics and Muslims are about the same, 1.2 billion.

Might want to check that figure with either Pew research or the CIA World Factbook. They both say 1.2 billion for Catholics, 1.6 billion for Muslims. Of course, considering the strident antiabortion and anti-birth control stances of both these faiths, we can assume these figures will be climbing before too long.

Of course, nowhere in the world are you forced to be Catholic by penalty of death.

…any more, you mean. Yes, I think the indiginous tribes of the world breathed a collective sigh of relief when the Church abandoned that policy. Of course, plenty of Jews and Muslims…and Protestant Christians too, for that matter, have been faced with the choice of convert or die over the last thousand years. You bring the subject up to imply that the large number of Muslims is accounted for by forced conversion, and to an extent this is true. Islam spread throughout North Africa and Eastern Europe on the back of vigorous military conquest and colonization, just as Catholicism spread throughout Central and South America, Asia and Africa the same way. Just as the Israelites converted or killed everyone they could in the Promised Land of Canaan.
[/quote]
I am talking about entire countries where it’s illegal to be anything other than muslim. Certainly, you don’t deny that.
It was never church policy to convert by penalty of death, people did that, but it was not church policy. You will not find that official doctrine because it does not exist. There was political motivation behind that, not theological. As well may be the case with Islam, but there is no central body so there is no way to tell.

If you like your life today, you have the church to thank, because it would not have been this way had it not been for the church. It’s core tenets have never changed, love of God, love of neighbor.

It does not change it’s molecular structure (save for the few instances of Eucharistic miracles where it actually became flesh) anymore than your body changed it’s molecular structure to accept your mind. See Mind/ body problem.
The idea that your body is just a container for it’s larger metaphysical presence is an old one and the debate still rages, but edge goes to the metaphysical. I could not give a sufficient explanation. But if you were a little more in control, you could possess anything and it would be your body.

I could follow a prophet, or I could follow God. When you look at it that way the choice is easy.

The stories of Zeus don’t square with the Christian stories. Zeus also wasn’t the creator of existence, he came into and existence that was already there. Very different than the judeo-christian claims, that also square philosophically.
Also, Jesus actually existed and God actually exists.

Unless it’s true.

You’re smarter than this, don’t make me explain the difference.

[quote]
It also changed the world more profoundly than anything else ever has.

With the possible exception of the Chicxulub comet.

And it still is.

“For how much longer” being the open question.

Christianity, and particularly the Roman Catholic Church, is the dominant religion in the world. It is the year 2013 on the Christian Calendar. It’s been a good, long run. What will the world look like, though, I wonder, in another 579 years, when it is 2013 on the Muslim calendar.

Just a guess, but looking at demographic projections alone, I predict that by then, a whole lot more people will be saying la ilaha ila Allah than will be saying in nomine patris, et fili, et spiritus sancti.

Which, in one respect, is kind of a shame.

Latin is such a pretty language. [/quote]

I seriously doubt it.

84

[quote]pat wrote:

I am talking about entire countries where it’s illegal to be anything other than muslim. Certainly, you don’t deny that.
It was never church policy to convert by penalty of death, people did that, but it was not church policy. You will not find that official doctrine because it does not exist. There was political motivation behind that, not theological. As well may be the case with Islam, but there is no central body so there is no way to tell. [/quote]

But when the Church IS the state, as it was from throughout the Holy Roman Empire, then state policy is by definition church policy. When Theodosius gave the order for everyone in the Empire to be Christian, he made it clear what the consequnces would be for those who refused to convert:

It is Our will that all the peoples who are ruled by the administration of Our Clemency shall practice that religion which the divine Peter the Apostle transmitted to the Romans…The rest, whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retribution of Our own initiative.

Charlemagne was notorious for executing people who didn’t accept Christianity. Justinian wiped out the Ostragoths, the Vandals and the Heruli precisely because they wouldn’t convert.

The Inquisitions and the Crusades were inaugurated by way of Papal Bull, which is about as exemplary of church policy as it gets. When the Apostle of Christ, successor to St. Peter says to torture and kill the infidel, it might as well have come from the mouth of God, if you are living in the 13th, 14th, or 15th centuries.

Did Islam do similar things? Of course it did. Did the Apostle of God (Muhammad) sanction these things? Of course he did. Are infidels tortured and killed in countries operating under Shari’a today? Of course they are. Are the leaders of these countries right in doing so? Of course they are not. As you mention, however, there hasn’t been a central authority over the entire Muslim world since the dissolution of the Osmani Khalifate and exile of Mehmed IV in 1922, so it’s safe to say that these leaders are acting on their own initiative. It’s notable, however, that even in Saudi Arabia, poster child for everything wrong with Islam, it is not “illegal” to be Christian. Otherwise the quarter of a million Roman Catholic Filipina maids in the country, among others, would have been forced to convert before ever setting foot in the Kingdom.

[quote]If you like your life today, you have the church to thank, because it would not have been this way had it not been for the church. It’s core tenets have never changed, love of God, love of neighbor.[quote]

I like my life today primarily because a group of men, who would have been tortured and killed in the 13th century for heresy, made it their business to enact a law that forbade church policy from being state policy. And every religion has as its core tenets love of God and one’s fellow man. But people being what they are, once you put a book saying “love God and thy neighbor” in one of his hands, and a sword in his other, at some point he is going to use that sword on some poor schmuck who disagrees with his book. And it doesn’t matter whether that book is written in Sanskrit, Pali, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Arabic or English.

I said it before on another thread. Christianity was still doing some pretty nasty things, with the sanction of the highest Church authority, back in 1434 (the current year on the Islamic calendar). It does not do these things now, mostly because of secularization: the church is no longer the state, except within the walls of the Vatican. When the Muslim calendar enters the 16th and 17th century, who knows? There may be an Islamic Age of Enlightenment similar to the Christian one. A re-establishment of the Khalifate may usher in a Renaissance of the Islamic Golden Age under Harun al-Rashid. With the advancement of technology, it may happen even sooner. Catholics and Muslims would agree: only God can know the future.

[/quote]
I could follow a prophet, or I could follow God. When you look at it that way the choice is easy.

[quote]

Funny, Jews and Muslims would claim that you DO follow a prophet, whose name was Jesus.

Jews worship God, while following the laws of Moses.
Muslims worship God, while following the laws of Muhammad.

To imply that Moses or Muhammad is revered more than God is ludicrous.

Muhammad is as important to a devout Muslim as the Virgin Mary is to a devout Roman Catholic. No Muslim worships or prays to Muhammad, though. How many Catholics pray to Mary?

[quote]
I seriously doubt it. [/quote]

Like I said, only God knows how it’ll all shake out.

85

After reading all of this, my brain hurts.

I have decided to become a Methodist.

86

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
After reading all of this, my brain hurts.

I have decided to become a Methodist.[/quote]

They will make you eat chicken.

(My grandfather’s big insult about someone was to call them a “chicken-eating Methodist.”

I’ve asked Methodist friends about this, and, apparently, they do, indeed, eat a lot of chicken.

87

Jewbacca, I followed with great interest your “Ask Moshe” thread, and was particularly interested by your responses to questions concerning Olam haBa.

I think I can safely assume that most Christians believe that a devout Jew or Muslim, having never accepted the divinity of “that Nazarene”, as you called him, would probably be turned away from the Pearly Gates of the Heavenly Country Club by St. Peter, but you state that the same discourtesy would not necessarily be afforded to righteous Christians, who would be allowed entry into Olam haBa upon resurrection.

I apologize for addressing this here instead of on your other thread, where the point was probably already beaten to death, but what constitutes a “righteous” Christian? If idolatry is the most serious crime against God, would the worship of a human as an incarnation of God not be considered idolatry in the purest sense? Same for adulation of icons and holy relics in Orthodox Christianity and Catholicism. Would that not be considered a violation of the commandment against worshipping “graven images”?

I know that Islam is quite clear on this point, condemning all of the above as “shirk” (bowing down in worship to anyone or anything except God), which is the only unforgivable sin, but is there a consensus (or at least majority) opinion on this? Forgive my ignorance, but I am curious.

88

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
After reading all of this, my brain hurts.

I have decided to become a Methodist.[/quote]

They will make you eat chicken.

(My grandfather’s big insult about someone was to call them a “chicken-eating Methodist.”

I’ve asked Methodist friends about this, and, apparently, they do, indeed, eat a lot of chicken.[/quote]

Actually, the nearest temple is really far away. I think I like Judaism the most but the distance is a lot.

89

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Actually, the nearest temple is really far away. I think I like Judaism the most but the distance is a lot.
[/quote]

Was this essentially how your selection process went?

90

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Actually, the nearest temple is really far away. I think I like Judaism the most but the distance is a lot.
[/quote]

Was this essentially how your selection process went?

LOL funny video.

91

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

I apologize for addressing this here instead of on your other thread, where the point was probably already beaten to death, but what constitutes a “righteous” Christian? If idolatry is the most serious crime against God, would the worship of a human as an incarnation of God not be considered idolatry in the purest sense? Same for adulation of icons and holy relics in Orthodox Christianity and Catholicism. Would that not be considered a violation of the commandment against worshipping “graven images”?

[/quote]

No. And, you can find Catholic and Eastern Orthodox responses though a wide variety of apologetic and Q & A sites.

92

Yeah…Greek Orthodox Christians are never mentioned here on this forum…are those people immune from
criticism? There’s a GOC not far from where I live.
I kinda liked the Baptism and Wedding ceremony depicted in that ‘Greek Wedding’ movie,
I hear they are like Catholic ‘lite’ in that they don’t focus on Mary as much and few other things,
But I get a strong feeling they are legit Christians and not like Mormons or anything, and if one doesn’t think
they’re legit, you just may summon Telly Savalas from the Grave to haunt your ass, so be CAREFUL!

93

[quote]Sloth wrote:

No. And, you can find Catholic and Eastern Orthodox responses though a wide variety of apologetic and Q & A sites.
[/quote]

Well, yeah Sloth, I kinda know what the Catholic and Orthodox views are.

What I’m asking is the Jewish view, since the issue is whether good Christians can get into Jewish heaven. On the assumption (made by many Jews, I’ll wager) that its the only Heaven there will be.

94

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
pat wrote:

I am talking about entire countries where it’s illegal to be anything other than muslim. Certainly, you don’t deny that.
It was never church policy to convert by penalty of death, people did that, but it was not church policy. You will not find that official doctrine because it does not exist. There was political motivation behind that, not theological. As well may be the case with Islam, but there is no central body so there is no way to tell.

But when the Church IS the state, as it was from throughout the Holy Roman Empire, then state policy is by definition church policy. When Theodosius gave the order for everyone in the Empire to be Christian, he made it clear what the consequnces would be for those who refused to convert:

It is Our will that all the peoples who are ruled by the administration of Our Clemency shall practice that religion which the divine Peter the Apostle transmitted to the Romans…The rest, whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retribution of Our own initiative.

Charlemagne was notorious for executing people who didn’t accept Christianity. Justinian wiped out the Ostragoths, the Vandals and the Heruli precisely because they wouldn’t convert.
[/quote]
Charlemagne wasn’t the pope. This is selective historical review. We would really have to pick one event or another, and dig in to what actually happened in detail to understand the truth. Glossing it over quickly with a biased selection of events is not going bring us the truth about what happened when.

Again political actions, not church actions.

[quote]

I could follow a prophet, or I could follow God. When you look at it that way the choice is easy.

Funny, Jews and Muslims would claim that you DO follow a prophet, whose name was Jesus.

Jews worship God, while following the laws of Moses.
Muslims worship God, while following the laws of Muhammad.

To imply that Moses or Muhammad is revered more than God is ludicrous.

Muhammad is as important to a devout Muslim as the Virgin Mary is to a devout Roman Catholic. No Muslim worships or prays to Muhammad, though. How many Catholics pray to Mary?

I seriously doubt it.

Like I said, only God knows how it’ll all shake out. [/quote]

Correct. It don’t care what they think of Jesus, that’s not important. You over complicate these matters greatly. You bring to many things to the discussion that all cannot be addressed appropriately. I mean we have Zeus, mohamud, islam, charlemagne, verious cherry picked events from way, way back glossed over so quickly that nothing could really be known about the time and context of these events and why they took place and what their real purpose is. There is no way to have a reasonable discussion when you throw a hodge-podge of shit into it that in the end doesn’t matter. We know this much, there have been lots of evil people in the world in the past and there are lots of evil people now. None of it matters.
Only one thing matters, the truth.
The truth that God exists, the Jesus was his son Crucified. There is a wisdom of Christianity that exists nowhere else. Indeed the things proclaimed in the word are happening, now.
This is not to say everybody else is wrong, and that is not to say the truth is arbitrary. But if you have found the truth, what does it matter if also someone discovers a truth elsewhere? Truth is truth, it is one. When you find the truth, you stick with it. Many will reject it, we know that and expect that. Further I know better than to condemn others for their beliefs, perhaps they are in communication in someway I don’t know. I am not here to judge them. I will call wrongs against me wrongs.
It doesn’t matter who did what in history, I believe in Christ Crucified he is my Lord, and I am his really lousy servant. I could only be moved by this truth by the spirit of God, for if I didn’t have that, I would reject it like you do.
People are inclined by their natural selves to reject such spiritual matters, but it’s because they reject God. Everybody wants a sign to believe, you won’t get it, you will never, ever get it. You can demand you need one, you won’t get it, period. The word and faith in Christ are sufficient for that, one needs only to open their heart. It’s a personal, not a public journey. No amount of history, wizardry, or mental gymnastics can over power the truth of Christ. Those who rejected in the past have their own judgement to face. As for me, I choose Christ. He is everything to me, I am nothing without him. I can see the finger of God everywhere I look. It’s a perspective closed to non-believers. They will never get it. They want what they cannot have. They want to be justified in themselves, but you can only be justified in that which is greater and that is the Lord.
I can go through cosmology and explain philosophically the existence of God, but that in itself is not enough.
I don’t know if these other religions are true of not, that’s for God to decide not me. Perhaps they are, perhaps they are not, perhaps they get it half way. God will judge them on their heart as he will judge me. But he also gave me Christ. And in Christ, all truth is revealed, and there is nothing anybody can do about it. You can believe it or you can shut God out. That is my full Christian stance. Christ crucified. This is as religious as you will ever see me get, I don’t know why I felt compelled to write that as I usually keep it to myself, but some for some reason, I felt the need to say it.
You can mock me, call me brainwashed, or whatever slander you wish to lay upon me, it won’t destroy the truth.

95

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

No. And, you can find Catholic and Eastern Orthodox responses though a wide variety of apologetic and Q & A sites.
[/quote]

Well, yeah Sloth, I kinda know what the Catholic and Orthodox views are.

What I’m asking is the Jewish view, since the issue is whether good Christians can get into Jewish heaven. On the assumption (made by many Jews, I’ll wager) that its the only Heaven there will be. [/quote]

Would you accept a “my bad?”

96

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

No. And, you can find Catholic and Eastern Orthodox responses though a wide variety of apologetic and Q & A sites.
[/quote]

Well, yeah Sloth, I kinda know what the Catholic and Orthodox views are.

What I’m asking is the Jewish view, since the issue is whether good Christians can get into Jewish heaven. On the assumption (made by many Jews, I’ll wager) that its the only Heaven there will be. [/quote]

“All the righteous have a portion in the world to come.”

Abarbanel insisted that this (the resurrection of the dead) also applies to non-Jews–or at least those who follow the Noahide laws. The “proof” he cites is the same as Maimonides “proof” of the reality of The “Messiah:”
Zephaniah 3:9: “For I shall then make the nations pure of speech, so that they will all call upon the Name of God and serve Him with one purpose.”

(The lesson is probably derived, yes, once again, from Mishneh Torah, Mlachim, Chapter 8.)

98

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

No. And, you can find Catholic and Eastern Orthodox responses though a wide variety of apologetic and Q & A sites.
[/quote]

Well, yeah Sloth, I kinda know what the Catholic and Orthodox views are.

What I’m asking is the Jewish view, since the issue is whether good Christians can get into Jewish heaven. On the assumption (made by many Jews, I’ll wager) that its the only Heaven there will be. [/quote]

Forget statues or icons of saints or whatnot. That’s easy enough as we (Catholics) don’t worship them, period. We’re upfront that they do not warrant the worship that is reserved for God alone. In the end, they’re really no different from a photograph, if not less accurate. Sure, the prayer aspect can be argued as, well, pointless by non-Catholics. Still, it’s not worship. Again, there is no confusion, the saints are the created, not the Creator.

The crucifix would be the trickiest, I’d think. We believe Christ is God. Then we put his image on the cross. We explain this by our belief that Christ became man. A physical form that could then be represented through the arts.

Now, obviously Jews wouldn’t agree that God became this man, Jesus. So, do they view the crucifix as idolatry because God didn’t become man, therefore, there isn’t a material body that is permissible to represent? Or, are Catholics still in the clear since the crucifix itself isn’t worshiped? Or, are we in the clear out of a sort of ignorance? Even though God hasn’t become man, the Catholic’s intent is to represent a material body.

Honestly, the biggest hurdle would seem to be the Eucharist of the Catholics and the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox.

99

[quote]pat wrote:

This is as religious as you will ever see me get, I don’t know why I felt compelled to write that as I usually keep it to myself, but some for some reason, I felt the need to say it. [/quote]

Well, who knows. Maybe God used me to extract a public declaration of faith from you. Never can tell how these things work.

[quote]
You can mock me, call me brainwashed, or whatever slander you wish to lay upon me, it won’t destroy the truth.[/quote]

Not mocking you, and wouldn’t say you’re brainwashed.

And if I did, it would be libel, not slander. :stuck_out_tongue:

Pat, I’ve known you for a few years now and I think you’re a decent guy. Your beliefs are your business, obviously. I may not share all of these beliefs, and I may sound critical of some of them, but I don’t criticize you for having them.

Fact is, I enjoy talking politics and religion, because it’s something almost everybody has an opinion about, and I usually learn something new with each exchange. Like I learned something about transubstantiation when talking with you about it. There is a risk, obviously, in talking about religion, abortion, or politics, in that very few people can discuss it dispassionately. Even if one’s cherished beliefs aren’t overtly insulted, just calling them into question is enough to send them over the edge.

If I bring an inordinate amount of history into the discussion, it’s because history is something that interests me, particularly when things that happened in the past parallel things that are happening in the present. From this, one can make predictions about things that may happen in the future, because if there is one constant in the universe, it’s that human beings do not learn from their mistakes.

Since you bared your spiritual heart to me, I suppose it’s only decent to reciprocate, at least a little. I don’t reject God. God and I get along just fine. We didn’t for a while there, but that was my problem, not His.

Sorry if I pushed one of your hot buttons. This discussion is over.

Peace.

100

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Jewbacca, I followed with great interest your “Ask Moshe” thread, and was particularly interested by your responses to questions concerning Olam haBa.

I think I can safely assume that most Christians believe that a devout Jew or Muslim, having never accepted the divinity of “that Nazarene”, as you called him, would probably be turned away from the Pearly Gates of the Heavenly Country Club by St. Peter, but you state that the same discourtesy would not necessarily be afforded to righteous Christians, who would be allowed entry into Olam haBa upon resurrection.

I apologize for addressing this here instead of on your other thread, where the point was probably already beaten to death, but what constitutes a “righteous” Christian? If idolatry is the most serious crime against God, would the worship of a human as an incarnation of God not be considered idolatry in the purest sense? Same for adulation of icons and holy relics in Orthodox Christianity and Catholicism. Would that not be considered a violation of the commandment against worshipping “graven images”?

I know that Islam is quite clear on this point, condemning all of the above as “shirk” (bowing down in worship to anyone or anything except God), which is the only unforgivable sin, but is there a consensus (or at least majority) opinion on this? Forgive my ignorance, but I am curious. [/quote]

I don’t have time today to answer, but I will move the question to the Ask Moshe thread and answer there.