Fasting

[simplicio]

I never really fasted before. It was a spiritual discipline that I simply never actually disciplined myself to do, and I'm ashamed of that. But this weekend I fasted, for what I think was the first time. It was a small and simple affair, and not really a big deal, but I think it was worthwhile.

I now plan to do it on a semi regular basis.

Fasting is generally considered a "Catholic thing", typically connected with the Lenten season. But our Lord does recommend fasting. In the Sermon on the Mount, the greatest sermon ever, He connects them to prayer and almsgiving. And those three things can be found throughout scripture, old and new testaments.

So the three are connected, grouped together, as things we ought to do. We pray both privately and communally, we give both privately and communally (the collection plate is part of a community event). Why iis fasting left out? I admit that I do neglect fasting. Since they are connected, I think that the objections we apply to fasting can also apply to prayer or alms giving; the arguments that we apply against fasting would seem pointless or bizarre applied to prayer, coming from a Christian.

Fasting can be a merely giving up certain pleasure, and living/eating simply.

[Leonhard]

Fasting is generally considered a "Catholic thing", typically connected with the Lenten season.

The Eastern Orthodox fast a lot more often and more rigorously than Catholics do.

[simplicio]

The Eastern Orthodox fast a lot more often and more rigorously than Catholics do.

:) And I must add that I am reminded of fasting in general when Lent rolls around.

Fasting is practically absent from most Protestant's faith.

[NorrinRadd]

You are correct. I apologize. I forgot how to read apparently.

No prob. Between my age, my presbyopia, and the way I have unintentionally rewired my brain by excessive electronic multitasking, concentration and focus can be unnecessarily challenging.

[NorrinRadd]

:) And I must add that I am reminded of fasting in general when Lent rolls around.

Fasting is practically absent from most Protestant's faith.

Lutherans often do the "giving up ____ for Lent" thing, but AFAIK not significant "fasting."

[Paula]

How would many Christians' conception of G-d hold up? Does G-d love, or does he hate a significant portion of the population, if heaven is spiritual perfection then why the streets paved with gold, do Christians allow serial adultrous relationships by downplaying Jesus words on marriage?

The difference in views of the divine are just as large within Christianity as between the two religions, so I wonder if the measures you mention really show a different god or a different conception of the Infinite Spirit?

16 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.(John 3:16-17, NASB)

6 For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8, NASB)

34 But Jesus was saying, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.”...(Luke 23:34, NASB)

God loves all people. So called "saints" and sinners alike. God loves humanity to the point of becoming a man and suffering a humiliating and painful death. Even when people were hating Him and hurting Him, He cried out to the Father to forgive them. It is easy to love a good man or a righteous man. But it shows the heart of God that He loves us despite our sin.

It's not about what we think--its about what He thinks, and even a cursory examination of the Bible reveals God's amazing love. If it is indeed that God hates those who are sinners, everyone would be hated (not just part of the population), because it doesn't matter if you are a serial killer or a charity worker, everyone has sin in their soul that only the blood of Christ can wash out. Christians might get confused sometimes, or focus on issues that aren't central, but our conceptions or misconceptions of God isn't who He is. Make no mistake the God we worship is not like the Islamic god.

[simplicio]

16 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.(John 3:16-17, NASB)

6 For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8, NASB)

34 But Jesus was saying, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.”...(Luke 23:34, NASB)

God loves all people. So called "saints" and sinners alike. God loves humanity to the point of becoming a man and suffering a humiliating and painful death. Even when people were hating Him and hurting Him, He cried out to the Father to forgive them. It is easy to love a good man or a righteous man. But it shows the heart of God that He loves us despite our sin.

It's not about what we think--its about what He thinks, and even a cursory examination of the Bible reveals God's amazing love. If it is indeed that God hates those who are sinners, everyone would be hated (not just part of the population), because it doesn't matter if you are a serial killer or a charity worker, everyone has sin in their soul that only the blood of Christ can wash out. Christians might get confused sometimes, or focus on issues that aren't central, but our conceptions or misconceptions of God isn't who He is. Make no mistake the God we worship is not like the Islamic god.

I agree that there is a gulf between the two conceptions of the Divine Nature between the two religions. The bible verses you posted do not show how the variation in conceptions of the divine plays out within our faith. Perhaps the most important difference between Islam and Christianity is the divine will, but the conceptions of will within just one denomination, Baptists, is as great as between the two religions. How an autonomous, divine will is conceived is the issue, how persons view it, not the content of an orthodox faith. Otherwise, we will find ourselves sorting evangelicals and baptists out, determining which one worships the true G-d.

[Scrawly]

I agree that there is a gulf between the two conceptions of the Divine Nature between the two religions. The bible verses you posted do not show how the variation in conceptions of the divine plays out within our faith. Perhaps the most important difference between Islam and Christianity is the divine will, but the conceptions of will within just one denomination, Baptists, is as great as between the two religions. How an autonomous, divine will is conceived is the issue, how persons view it, not the content of an orthodox faith. Otherwise, we will find ourselves sorting evangelicals and baptists out, determining which one worships the true G-d.

I think the most important difference between Islam and Christianity is the divine identity. Christian's believe in the Trinity, and more precisely, the deity of Christ. Muslims vehemently deny this. John 3:16 is the gospel in a nutshell. Muslims vehemently deny this. Acts 4:12 declares that salvation is found in Jesus the Messiah alone. Muslims vehemently deny this. According to Apostolic teaching in the New Testament, there is an inseparable salvific chasm between Christian's and Muslims - and between Christian's and every other religion for that matter.

[Cerebrum123]

I agree that there is a gulf between the two conceptions of the Divine Nature between the two religions. The bible verses you posted do not show how the variation in conceptions of the divine plays out within our faith. Perhaps the most important difference between Islam and Christianity is the divine will, but the conceptions of will within just one denomination, Baptists, is as great as between the two religions. How an autonomous, divine will is conceived is the issue, how persons view it, not the content of an orthodox faith. Otherwise, we will find ourselves sorting evangelicals and baptists out, determining which one worships the true G-d.

You might have missed my post, but it shows that the Islamic "Allah" is described as the greatest of deceivers. I'll just copy past my response here.

I know that, which is why I specified the Allah of Islam.

Oh, btw Allah is a contraction of al-ilah, which means "the God". Before Mohammed conquered Mecca it was already considered a specific deity in the Meccan pantheon along with Allat, Manat, and Al-Uzzah. While you won't see many scholars make the argument, I see a rather strong connection between the pagan moon god that they called "Allah", and the current Islamic "Allah". I know jpholding argues against it in one if his videos on the FUEL series, but he only objects to one small part of a larger cumulative case. If it were that one issue, the crescent moon and stars, then it would indeed be a weak case, but there is much more than that.




It has little to do with Tawhid, and more to do with the explicit characteristics of the Islamic Allah, such as him being the "greatest of deceivers". One of many characteristics that is the polar opposite of the God of Christianity. There comes a point that when people are even using the same name they are still talking about two completely different people. This is one instance.

And verily, those before them did deceive/scheme (makara), but all deception/scheming is Allah's (falillahi al-makru). He knows what every person earns, and the disbelievers will know who gets the good end. S. 13:42

"Although he had such a faith, which was too great to suffice all the inhabitants of the earth, he was afraid that his heart might go astray. So, he used to utter, while weeping: ‘Would that I have been a bitten tree!’ Whenever he was reminded of his position in Allah’s sight, he would say: ‘By Allah! I would not rest assured and feel safe from the deception of Allah (la amanu limakr Allah), even if I had one foot in paradise.’" (Khalid Muhammad Khalid, Successors of the Messenger, translated by Muhammad Mahdi al-Sharif [Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyah, Beirut Lebanon, 2005], Book One: Abu Bakr Has Come, p. 99; bold and italic emphasis ours)(1)

Source.



That's because you are looking at the few tiny things they have in common, and not the major differences that go to their very foundations. The Islamic Allah demands all unbelievers be killed, and that the greatest reward is for those who die while killing his enemies. He is the greatest of all deceivers, and all deception belongs to him. He has no love for anyone that does not already believe in him.



I can't answer for OBP, but I'm not sure I would eat kosher. I'm not sure why you are okay with it honestly. Especially since you defended the idea that circumcision was evil for Christians even if they didn't believe it had any kind of merit to it. Why should accepting Old Covenant practices on one hand be okay, and on the other be wrong?



That is another good reason to reject halal meat, but it's hardly the only one.

[Paula]

I agree that there is a gulf between the two conceptions of the Divine Nature between the two religions. The bible verses you posted do not show how the variation in conceptions of the divine plays out within our faith. Perhaps the most important difference between Islam and Christianity is the divine will, but the conceptions of will within just one denomination, Baptists, is as great as between the two religions. How an autonomous, divine will is conceived is the issue, how persons view it, not the content of an orthodox faith. Otherwise, we will find ourselves sorting evangelicals and baptists out, determining which one worships the true G-d.

I think the most important difference between Islam and Christianity is the divine identity. Christian's believe in the Trinity, and more precisely, the deity of Christ. Muslims vehemently deny this. John 3:16 is the gospel in a nutshell. Muslims vehemently deny this. Acts 4:12 declares that salvation is found in Jesus the Messiah alone. Muslims vehemently deny this. According to Apostolic teaching in the New Testament, there is an inseparable salvific chasm between Christian's and Muslims - and between Christian's and every other religion for that matter.

I gotta second Scrawly here simplicio--I think divine identity is the greatest difference between the two religions (perhaps co-equal or followed closely by divine character, but I've already posted about that). In fact, divine identity is usually what determines whether or not someone is an orthodox believer or a heretic. Not whether or not one baptizes by sprinkling or immersion, whether one is a Calvinist or an Arminian, YEC/OEC/TE, etc. All those things, while certainly important, are not worth breaking fellowship over.

And what exactly do you mean by "divine will". Do you mean a Calvinist or Arminian position-your position on freewill and predestination? You contrast "How an autonomous, divine will is conceived is the issue, how persons view it" with "content of an orthodox faith", and point out to the former as being the real acid test of religious differences. But how one views "divine will" is part of the content of orthodox faith.

I fail to see how, if indeed you are talking about freewill and predestination, that is more of a difference maker than divine identity. Whether or not the Arminian or Calvinist perspective is correct, God is one being existing as three persons, of which, the Son is fully God and fully man. God's identity is central to the Christian faith.

[simplicio]

I gotta second Scrawly here simplicio--I think divine identity is the greatest difference between the two religions (perhaps co-equal or followed closely by divine character, but I've already posted about that). In fact, divine identity is usually what determines whether or not someone is an orthodox believer or a heretic. Not whether or not one baptizes by sprinkling or immersion, whether one is a Calvinist or an Arminian, YEC/OEC/TE, etc. All those things, while certainly important, are not worth breaking fellowship over.

And what exactly do you mean by "divine will". Do you mean a Calvinist or Arminian position-your position on freewill and predestination? You contrast "How an autonomous, divine will is conceived is the issue, how persons view it" with "content of an orthodox faith", and point out to the former as being the real acid test of religious differences. But how one views "divine will" is part of the content of orthodox faith.

I fail to see how, if indeed you are talking about freewill and predestination, that is more of a difference maker than divine identity. Whether or not the Arminian or Calvinist perspective is correct, God is one being existing as three persons, of which, the Son is fully God and fully man. God's identity is central to the Christian faith.

I worded my post poorly, should have proofread it. I am Catholic, but tried to avoid any denominational baggage by using divine will in the most general sense.

I don't think that the Trinity is the key difference, Jews strongly reject the Trinity. But the Trinity is a defined thing, with definite boundaries so we can say this thing falls into Trinitarian ideas, that thing falls outside trinitarian doctrine. Since it is defined we can compare Trinitarian doctrine, the truth, to ideas held by even individual Christians. Yet we do not use the Trinity as a deciding factor for individual Christians, we treat the stance on Trinity differently for different faiths, and different individuals. I used the example of Baptists earlier and not catholics, because it is a large group who no one will say, "well, they're not really Christians", my point is that most Christians are at best nominally Trinitarian and even reject trinitarian dogma. It is poorly taught and applied. And so an ineffective litmus test since the test is applied arbitrarily (differently for Muslim, JW, Jews, or individual Christians).

I was referring to the divine will. Islam views the divine as (almost) arbitrary, a form of divine command morality, Allah can do as he wills because what he does it righteous because he does it, as an owner will do with a minor possession as he wills to do. When I tire of the pizza sitting at the back of the fridge, I will destroy it after it grows unidentifiable life forms. It my right as the owner of said pizza, which approximates the Islamic view of divine will as authoritative even though it may be arbitrary. Christianity roots the divine will into the divine nature as does Islam; it is the divine nature which is different between the two religions. This is almost independent of trinitarian doctrine, some trinitarians have some do accept some bizarre teachings about the divine will and its role in defining what G-d does.

We could look to human anthropology also for a key difference between faiths, why we need the Lord in our lives and what it means for us.

When I read Cerebrim123's summary of errors of Islam, I was reminded of the atheists' charges against Christianity. The atheists' charges are not correct, but they are not groundless either as they use ideas presented in scripture. The Christian counter argument is either giving other scripture, which pits one verse against another (which verse is more accurate? is the rejoinder) or uses the ideas which connects the totality of scripture into doctrine, or what could be described as "what Christianity says about itself". I think we need to look at "what Islam says about itself"; there are enough differences to highlight.

[Paula]

I worded my post poorly, should have proofread it. I am Catholic, but tried to avoid any denominational baggage by using divine will in the most general sense.

I don't think that the Trinity is the key difference, Jews strongly reject the Trinity. But the Trinity is a defined thing, with definite boundaries so we can say this thing falls into Trinitarian ideas, that thing falls outside trinitarian doctrine. Since it is defined we can compare Trinitarian doctrine, the truth, to ideas held by even individual Christians. Yet we do not use the Trinity as a deciding factor for individual Christians, we treat the stance on Trinity differently for different faiths, and different individuals. I used the example of Baptists earlier and not catholics, because it is a large group who no one will say, "well, they're not really Christians", my point is that most Christians are at best nominally Trinitarian and even reject trinitarian dogma. It is poorly taught and applied. And so an ineffective litmus test since the test is applied arbitrarily (differently for Muslim, JW, Jews, or individual Christians).

I have to disagree. Regardless of whether or not people can explicitly state their Trinitarian beliefs in a coherent fashion, the way they approach God only makes sense from a Trinitarian standpoint. For example, Christians worship Jesus Christ and speak of being Spirit filled and pray to the Father while also affirming belief in monotheism. But even so, Christianity is a religion that is defined by its orthodoxy enshrined by its holy scriptures and its founding members. Not by lay Christians.

Not to mention, while Trinitarianism is one of the biggest parts of divine identity, it isn't the totality of it. There is also who Jesus Christ is, and that is certainly one of the biggest aspects of divine identity which separates Christianity from every other religion.

You do have a point about Jews not believing in the Trinity, but since Jews and Christians share some of the same Holy Scriptures, it isn't the case that God in the OT and God in the NT are two different deities. Besides, Trinitarianism can be established in the OT.

I was referring to the divine will. Islam views the divine as (almost) arbitrary, a form of divine command morality, Allah can do as he wills because what he does it righteous because he does it, as an owner will do with a minor possession as he wills to do. When I tire of the pizza sitting at the back of the fridge, I will destroy it after it grows unidentifiable life forms. It my right as the owner of said pizza, which approximates the Islamic view of divine will as authoritative even though it may be arbitrary. Christianity roots the divine will into the divine nature as does Islam; it is the divine nature which is different between the two religions. This is almost independent of trinitarian doctrine, some trinitarians have some do accept some bizarre teachings about the divine will and its role in defining what G-d does.

We could look to human anthropology also for a key difference between faiths, why we need the Lord in our lives and what it means for us.

I have to admit I find this a bit confusing. Unless I misunderstood you, you dismiss the Trinity (a central part of divine identity), indicate divine will is the most important for distinguishing religions, but then repackage divine will as being part of/rooted in divine nature (or identity).

I do agree that Islam defines divine will as being basically arbitrary which, as you pointed out, is rooted in divine nature (or identity). Their view of their god determines how they believe their god uses/expresses power. In contrast to the capricious god of Islam, the Christian God welds His power as an expression of His holy, good, and loving nature. Regardless of what I or anyone else does, we can all trust that our faith in God won't be in vain because He is trustworthy. God isn't going to toy with us or lie to us. God loves us.

And beyond God's moral nature impacting how He uses His power, God's identity is also involved. After all, it was the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, who became a man. God took on the body of a human being, a comparatively powerless creature, and suffered death, in order to save us. So the Trinity (foundational to understanding the incarnation) and the rest of God's identity, as well as God's moral nature, are elements that distinguish God from other religions.

When I read Cerebrim123's summary of errors of Islam, I was reminded of the atheists' charges against Christianity. The atheists' charges are not correct, but they are not groundless either as they use ideas presented in scripture. The Christian counter argument is either giving other scripture, which pits one verse against another (which verse is more accurate? is the rejoinder) or uses the ideas which connects the totality of scripture into doctrine, or what could be described as "what Christianity says about itself". I think we need to look at "what Islam says about itself"; there are enough differences to highlight.

Christians don't always reference Scripture directly when debunking atheist arguments. At least some of the time it is the context that is referenced, the translation, or the culture itself. But this is the case with all writing and speaking. It's just that when you get native speakers of English from the same cultural talking to each other the meaning is clear. But sometimes you can even have native speakers of English from different subcultures of the exact same city and have them talking to each other and not understand each other. So it shouldn't be a surprise that the Bible, written in ancient languages in a completely foreign culture two thousand years ago isn't going to be as easy to understand as say the morning paper.

Actually, there are a number of charges that can be made against Islam that are based on what Muslim sources says about itself. But you didn't actually debunk any of the points that Cerebrum123 made. Just because one situation (atheists erroneously trying to debunk Christianity) exists doesn't mean it applies to another situation (Christians debunking Islam).