Fire

[Dragons87]

All I can say is "Dream on" and I hope it all works out for you all.

I'm going to break my rule...

Thanks. It's very kind of you. My best wishes to you too.

 

[Catherineanne]

I believe you've made your point.

Now back to the topic.

What's the stance on cremation in regards to fire's desecration/consecration properties?

The relevant point in relation to cremation was never fire, as far as I am aware. It was always more to do with the sanctity of the human body, which, even after death, it was thought ought not to suffer violence. I think the Orthodox church still believes this, and does not really like cremation.

Formerly, all Christian churches were the same. They favoured burial, so that the body was treated with dignity and respect, and in expectation of the resurrection of the dead.

These days we are more comfortable with cremation, and regard it as somehow cleaner or more efficient, I think, but many traditional believers would still favour burial over cremation.

The fire does not desecrate the body, either way. In earthly terms fire destroys, but in theological terms it either purifies or constitutes an offering to God, as I said above.

 

[Catherineanne]

Cath, didi you think this topic up in response to the Koran-burning threat?

Yes. We had church leaders all over the place talking about desecration, when that is simply not appropriate. That threat was morally repugnant, but did not constitute desecration for three very good reasons.

1 A translation of the Koran is not the Koran; the Koran has to be in Arabic, and I suspect that few Arabic Korans, if any, were in danger.

2 Fire cannot desecrate.

3 That which is holy cannot be desecrated.

However, we already had enough threads about the Koran situation, so I thought it would be better to step back from that and discuss fire instead, and what it can and cannot be said to do, from a Christian point of view.

 

[awitch]

1 A translation of the Koran is not the Koran; the Koran has to be in Arabic, and I suspect that few Arabic Korans, if any, were in danger.

I still maintain that even if the books weren't official Korans (just because they were in English), the symbology and the antagonistic intent would make little difference.

2 Fire cannot desecrate.

3 That which is holy cannot be desecrated.

In my religious system, we don't have dedicated houses of worship. I would consider burning down a wooded area used by Pagans to be desecration. I'm not sure if maliciously burning down a church counts as desecration; it can be rebuilt. But replacing the grove would take more than a lifetime to regrow.

 

[Dragons87]

Yes. We had church leaders all over the place talking about desecration, when that is simply not appropriate. That threat was morally repugnant, but did not constitute desecration for three very good reasons.

1 A translation of the Koran is not the Koran; the Koran has to be in Arabic, and I suspect that few Arabic Korans, if any, were in danger.

2 Fire cannot desecrate.

3 That which is holy cannot be desecrated.

However, we already had enough threads about the Koran situation, so I thought it would be better to step back from that and discuss fire instead, and what it can and cannot be said to do, from a Christian point of view.

Cool. It was a very timely thread. I thought the opening post was excellent.

But I must query your statement that holy things cannot be desecrated. I'm sure they can, which is why fire and water are needed to purify / sanctify them. God's presence left the First Temple when it became desecrated by foreign idols - and the plot of land really did require fire to purify.

 

[Catherineanne]

I still maintain that even if the books weren't official Korans (just because they were in English), the symbology and the antagonistic intent would make little difference.

Morally, perhaps. In actuality, no. To a Christian any Bible is a Bible, no matter what languge. To a Moslem the ONLY Koran is the Arabic Koran; anything else is a translation, but does not have the same status. For example, the Koran may not be touched by unbelievers, or by a ritually impure Moslem. It may not be placed on the floor, or taken into a bathroom. It may not be worn on clothing, or trodden on. There are all sorts of traditions about how respect must be shown to the Koran, but all of these traditions apply either to the Arabic Koran, or to Arabic quotations from it.

They do NOT apply to English translations from the Arabic. I do not know how Moslems regard such translations, but perhaps on a level with the Bible; certainly of some holiness and validity, but not equal in status to the Koran. Moslems would be better placed to comment on this one.

Therefore, if someone had taken the trouble to point out that there are precious few, if any, actual Korans being mistreated by ignorant morons worldwide, it might have helped.

In my religious system, we don't have dedicated houses of worship. I would consider burning down a wooded area used by Pagans to be desecration. I'm not sure if maliciously burning down a church counts as desecration; it can be rebuilt. But replacing the grove would take more than a lifetime to regrow.

A sacred woodland is a dedicated house of worship, for you and me.

As I said above, such behaviour would be morally repugnant, but in relation to the Judeo Christian tradition would not constitute desecration. In the example of the woodland, there is no doubt that the sacred space would be destroyed, for a whole generation, but nonetheless, the trees could be replanted, and the space retrieved.

That which is sacred cannot be profaned. The reason for this is theological. The Christian God is omnipotent. If what I do as an ignorant moron has the capacity to undo something which the Omnipotent himself has done, that makes me more powerful than God. And he who is more powerful than God becomes God.

I think none of us want to live in that particular world.

 

[Catherineanne]

Cool. It was a very timely thread. I thought the opening post was excellent.

But I must query your statement that holy things cannot be desecrated. I'm sure they can, which is why fire and water are needed to purify / sanctify them. God's presence left the First Temple when it became desecrated by foreign idols - and the plot of land really did require fire to purify.

Indeed so.

Again, we come to the difference between Christianity and the other Abrahamic faiths; Judaism and Islam.

In Judaism the Chosen People were called to separate themselves from the people around them, to achieve ritual purification and then to maintain it. This ritual purification was necessary in order to have a continued relationship with God.

Then the Lord comes along and turns this upside down. He has dinner with tax collectors, and allows a fallen woman to touch his feet. When asked, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind? He replies, neither.

Our Lord demonstrates by his actions that his absolute purity is not defiled when it comes into contact with the profane. Rather, the profane is sanctified by the holy. This is why in the Christain faith we do not have to seek ritual purification. In a sense, by being in Christ we are ourselves the ritual purification for the world; we are the light, the salt, the yeast. Wherever we go, we take Christ and his love, mercy and compassion with us, and there is nowhere so profane that Christ cannot enter.

Jews cannot touch dead bodies, or they become ritually impure. Christian priests can.

Islam is a retrograde step back to attempted ritual purification and separation. It does not understand Christ, who he is, or what he does.

Nonetheless, the principle I think is one that Jews and Moslems would do well to at least consider. If God sanctifies the Koran, or the Sefer Torah, or the Bible, then no-one on earth has the power to undo that sanctification. If they believe that I actually have the ability to desecrate any of these things, either intentionally or by accident, that makes sin more powerful than holiness, and me more powerful than their God.

Of course Christians can feel the need for ritual purification as well. If our house is broken into, for example, we might want a priest to come and bless it for us, to take away the feeling of violation. There is nothing wrong with that. But as a general principle, man is not stronger than God, and whatever God chooses to do sacramentally, man cannot then undo.

 

[Dragons87]

Indeed so.

Again, we come to the difference between Christianity and the other Abrahamic faiths; Judaism and Islam.

In Judaism the Chosen People were called to separate themselves from the people around them, to achieve ritual purification and then to maintain it. This ritual purification was necessary in order to have a continued relationship with God.

Then the Lord comes along and turns this upside down. He has dinner with tax collectors, and allows a fallen woman to touch his feet. When asked, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind? He replies, neither.

Our Lord demonstrates by his actions that his absolute purity is not defiled when it comes into contact with the profane. Rather, the profane is sanctified by the holy. This is why in the Christain faith we do not have to seek ritual purification. In a sense, by being in Christ we are ourselves the ritual purification for the world; we are the light, the salt, the yeast. Wherever we go, we take Christ and his love, mercy and compassion with us, and there is nowhere so profane that Christ cannot enter.

Jews cannot touch dead bodies, or they become ritually impure. Christian priests can.

Islam is a retrograde step back to attempted ritual purification and separation. It does not understand Christ, who he is, or what he does.

Nonetheless, the principle I think is one that Jews and Moslems would do well to at least consider. If God sanctifies the Koran, or the Sefer Torah, or the Bible, then no-one on earth has the power to undo that sanctification. If they believe that I actually have the ability to desecrate any of these things, either intentionally or by accident, that makes sin more powerful than holiness, and me more powerful than their God.

Of course Christians can feel the need for ritual purification as well. If our house is broken into, for example, we might want a priest to come and bless it for us, to take away the feeling of violation. There is nothing wrong with that. But as a general principle, man is not stronger than God, and whatever God chooses to do sacramentally, man cannot then undo.

I think I understand where you're coming from, although I still find it difficult to agree. It is true that God is ultimately more powerful than sin, but there is a danger in thinking what you're thinking. It could lead to someone thinking, "Well, if grace is greater than sin, then all I have to do is sin a lot and then come back to grace, since nothing holy can be desecrated." I'm sure that's not what you believe - I'm just demonstrating a potential danger. Paul addressed this in Romans...6, I think.

God is the One who makes things holy - the things are holy only because of God's presence. But God can retract his holiness from things that used to be holy, once they have been defiled. This is clear from Ezekiel 10, when God's glory departs the Temple. And because the Jewish God and the Christian God is the same God, we cannot say that God who did not tolerate defilement suddenly tolerated it later.

Jesus did not tolerate defilement either - he cleansed the Temple with a bullwhip (okay, not so much real fire, but with a fire in his belly). What he did do was "mix with the crowd", but God had already done that with Israel, especially during the 40 years in the desert, when his presence was right among them.

So I believe God's holiness can "tolerate" less-than-holy humans around it, but God will not stand for defilement. He will leave if something is defiled, and it will require some sort of cleansing - either by fire, blood or water, to make that thing, place or person worthy of hosting God's holiness again.

 

[Zstar]

The heretics, from both sides of the Christian divide, were not burned in order to send them to hell. They were burned in order to purify their souls from their heresy.

I've been following this topic for a while with this unsettling feeling but hesitant to post, the OP's attitude of them being right and everyone else being wrong is a real put-off - even from a 'theological' perspective - believe what you want but this is the way it is and it doesn't make any difference to me.

I find this is the same poison that led to 'christians' burning people alive. They were 'theologically' right and would not even consider any other perspective. I'm all for one believing what they want too but when someone tells me what I need to believe, be it as a 'christian' or 'non-christian', it just doesn't set good with me.

The mention of the Koran being different because of language seems like another attempt to 'theologically' justify human behavior and fit God in a neat little theological box of preference without regard to loving one another and doing unto them as we would want them to do unto us.

Maybe we will evolve past all this one day but not without really considering was these things of God or of ourselves trying to relate to God via the inerrant 'word of God' we wrote ourselves.

 

[Catherineanne]

I've been following this topic for a while with this unsettling feeling but hesitant to post, the OP's attitude of them being right and everyone else being wrong is a real put-off - even from a 'theological' perspective - believe what you want but this is the way it is and it doesn't make any difference to me.

I suspect you are carrying rather a lot of baggage around with you.

Show me where I said I am right and everyone else is wrong. I certainly said others can believe what they want to, but that is about personal freedom of religion for everyone, not about me being superior.

I find this is the same poison that led to 'christians' burning people alive. They were 'theologically' right and would not even consider any other perspective. I'm all for one believing what they want too but when someone tells me what I need to believe, be it as a 'christian' or 'non-christian', it just doesn't set good with me.

Twaddle. Where did I tell anyone what to believe?

I am only presenting a point of view. I don't give a tinker's cuss whether you choose to believe it or not.

The mention of the Koran being different because of language seems like another attempt to 'theologically' justify human behavior and fit God in a neat little theological box of preference without regard to loving one another and doing unto them as we would want them to do unto us.

I think you need to ask a Moslem about this, and see whether what I have said is true for Islam or not, rather than assuming I don't know what I am talking about.

You might care to take that chip off your shoulder first, however.

Just a thought.

Moslems will confirm; the true Koran is Arabic. A translation of the Koran is not the Koran. It can be respected, but it is not equal in status to the Arabic Koran.

Maybe we will evolve past all this one day but not without really considering was these things of God or of ourselves trying to relate to God via the inerrant 'word of God' we wrote ourselves.

If you can find any post of mine where I claim that the Bible is inerrant, I will once again get out the tomato sauce and eat my Bible. I have never believed this, for the simple reason that the Bible does not say it. The Inerrant Word of God is Christ himself, not the Bible.

It would really make a nice change if people did not bring their presuppositions here, dump them on my head, and then condemn me for what I have never said, never implied and never believed.

 

[Catherineanne]

It is true that God is ultimately more powerful than sin, but there is a danger in thinking what you're thinking. It could lead to someone thinking, "Well, if grace is greater than sin, then all I have to do is sin a lot and then come back to grace, since nothing holy can be desecrated." I'm sure that's not what you believe - I'm just demonstrating a potential danger. Paul addressed this in Romans...6, I think.

To me, that is a non sequitur. Believing that God is omnipotent does not change our potential to sin, or our need to repent.

Desecration is a separate issue from sin.

God is the One who makes things holy - the things are holy only because of God's presence. But God can retract his holiness from things that used to be holy, once they have been defiled. This is clear from Ezekiel 10, when God's glory departs the Temple. And because the Jewish God and the Christian God is the same God, we cannot say that God who did not tolerate defilement suddenly tolerated it later.

I think this raises another issue. Why does God withdraw his presence?

One interpretation is that he is disgusted with sin. Another is that he withdraws his holiness in order not to destroy sin. The same reason as Christ tells satan to get behind him; so that Christ does not destroy satan by looking at him.

In other words, when God withdraws it is not an act of rejection, but one of mercy.

Jesus did not tolerate defilement either - he cleansed the Temple with a bullwhip (okay, not so much real fire, but with a fire in his belly).

I think it is clear from the gospels that this was an uncharacteristically provocative act by the Lord, and not consistent with his general attitude to the Temple or to the way it was run. In other words, he was acting from political motivations as much as from theological ones.

So I believe God's holiness can "tolerate" less-than-holy humans around it, but God will not stand for defilement. He will leave if something is defiled, and it will require some sort of cleansing - either by fire, blood or water, to make that thing, place or person worthy of hosting God's holiness again.

See above. When God withdraws his presence it is an act of mercy.

 

[Dragons87]

To me, that is a non sequitur. Believing that God is omnipotent does not change our potential to sin, or our need to repent.

Desecration is a separate issue from sin.

How so?

I think this raises another issue. Why does God withdraw his presence?

One interpretation is that he is disgusted with sin. Another is that he withdraws his holiness in order not to destroy sin.

May I ask you to cite a biblical example where your second theory is unequivocally clear?

I see a few problems with it. First, it is clear from numerous Old Testament books God is disgusted with sin and withdraws his presence because he can't stand it. Take Joshua 7, for example. See what he says to Joshua:

"Israel has sinned; they have violated my covenant, which I commanded them to keep. They have taken some of the devoted things; they have stolen, they have lied, they have put them with their own possessions. That is why the Israelites cannot stand against their enemies; they turn their backs and run because they have been made liable to destruction. I will not be with you anymore unless you destroy whatever among you is devoted to destruction. Go, consecrate the people. Tell them, 'Consecrate yourselves in preparation for tomorrow; for this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: That which is devoted is among you, O Israel. You cannot stand against your enemies until you remove it."

The emphasis is mine. God instructs Joshua to rid Israel of the sin / desecration (forgive me for using the terms interchangeably while I await your distinction) because it offends God. Nothing is said of God's mercy to sin.

I haven't come across anything that suggests that God withdraws his holiness in order not to destroy sin, but if you have, please share.

The same reason as Christ tells satan to get behind him; so that Christ does not destroy satan by looking at him.

In other words, when God withdraws it is not an act of rejection, but one of mercy.

Yes, Christ interacted with Satan and even talked to evil spirits. But his power, while being able to "kill on sight", is also able to "kill on speech" - his Word is his power. That's why Christ spoke quite a lot, rebuking evil spirits, bring people back to life and telling the weather to let up.

You say that Christ would have killed Satan if he looked at it, but it is clear that Christ could also have killed Satan by speaking to it - and he didn't. My point is that your reasoning that Christ did not look at Satan in order to not kill it doesn't seem to stand. Satan wouldn't have had to die even if Christ had looked it in the face, because Christ spoke to him and it still didn't die immediately (I hope I made myself clear).

Given that, I don't think your example supports your theory that God's presence departs because of he is merciful to sin. But I await another textual example to support your theory.

I think it is clear from the gospels that this was an uncharacteristically provocative act by the Lord, and not consistent with his general attitude to the Temple or to the way it was run. In other words, he was acting from political motivations as much as from theological ones.

In that case the Gospels record quite a few "uncharacteristic" acts of Jesus, which show his passion to glorify his God and leave holy things holy. Think about how he rebuked the religious leaders with rather strong language, and angering them with veiled threats of destruction and divine abandonment through his analogies and parables. Christ was passionate for God's holiness, directly offending the people he saw desecrate it, rather than withdrawing himself in order to spare sin / desecration.

 

[Zstar]

[/SIZE][/FONT]

I suspect you are carrying rather a lot of baggage around with you.

Show me where I said I am right and everyone else is wrong. I certainly said others can believe what they want to, but that is about personal freedom of religion for everyone, not about me being superior.

[/SIZE]

Twaddle. Where did I tell anyone what to believe?

I am only presenting a point of view. I don't give a tinker's cuss whether you choose to believe it or not.

[/SIZE]

I think you need to ask a Moslem about this, and see whether what I have said is true for Islam or not, rather than assuming I don't know what I am talking about.

You might care to take that chip off your shoulder first, however.

Just a thought.

Moslems will confirm; the true Koran is Arabic. A translation of the Koran is not the Koran. It can be respected, but it is not equal in status to the Arabic Koran.



If you can find any post of mine where I claim that the Bible is inerrant, I will once again get out the tomato sauce and eat my Bible. I have never believed this, for the simple reason that the Bible does not say it. The Inerrant Word of God is Christ himself, not the Bible.

It would really make a nice change if people did not bring their presuppositions here, dump them on my head, and then condemn me for what I have never said, never implied and never believed.

You come across like you have all the right ideas relating to fire and others although they can believe what they want are wrong - guess I'm reading too much between the lines. My post was not just directed toward you and I'm not condemning you. I do have alot of issues that I'm trying to work through (baggage you could call it) and I apologize for the venting - I think I need a break.

 

[Catherineanne]

You come across like you have all the right ideas relating to fire and others although they can believe what they want are wrong - guess I'm reading too much between the lines. My post was not just directed toward you and I'm not condemning you. I do have alot of issues that I'm trying to work through (baggage you could call it) and I apologize for the venting - I think I need a break.

It's all fine. You don't need to worry about any of it; least of all the venting. What are friends for, except to vent to?

I have broad shoulders, Zs.

(And as it happens I am right , but the others who can believe what they like are also right. The only wrong action is to believe something contrary to one's conscience or personal integrity; which is not wrong because it is a sin, but only because it abdicates personal sovereignty to someone else's opinion.)

 

[Catherineanne]

How so?

May I ask you to cite a biblical example where your second theory is unequivocally clear?

Exodus 33:20. God tells Moses 'No man can look on me and live'. That whole passage is worth looking at, in relation to this issue.

(And as a nod to the Pagans among us, the other God who man cannot look upon directly is, and before whom man in the Middle East has to shield himself, is, of course, the sun.)

Then wherever it is where Moses comes down from the mountain and has to veil his own face, because after encountering God it is too radiant for others to look on.

There are a lots of them.

Sinful man cannot look upon God without being destroyed. Satan cannot look upon Christ.

The difference - and it is the difference between the first covenant and the second - is that Christ can look upon sinful man, without destroying him. For the first time God is able to look sin full in the face, and therefore bring to sin his forgiveness; free, open and without being veiled.

I see a few problems with it. First, it is clear from numerous Old Testament books God is disgusted with sin and withdraws his presence because he can't stand it.The emphasis is mine. God instructs Joshua to rid Israel of the sin / desecration (forgive me for using the terms interchangeably while I await your distinction) because it offends God. Nothing is said of God's mercy to sin.

The Bible is the story of God's gradual revelation of himself to mankind. Not gradual because God played some kind of game, but gradual because man took a long time to get the message. Ultimately that revelation is made perfect in Christ. Therefore, if we read Christ through the lens of the imperfect OT revelation, that reading has the potential to result in a distortion. For a Christian (although clearly not other faiths, and particularly not Jews) the it is the other way round. The OT is read through the lens of the new; Christ is the pattern, Christ the benchmark and the cornerstone (see Isaiah).

Christ is asked what to do with the woman caught in adultery. First he says, let he who is without sin cast the first stone, and her accusers melt away one by one. Then he asks where are the witnesses who accuse her. When she says they are gone, he does not say, fortunately I am still here, and I am very hot on vengeance and retribution, and pick up a dirty great stone. He says, 'Then neither do I accuse you; go and sin no more.'

This is not the OT version of God, whose motto is 'Vengeance is Mine!!!' This is God in Christ, whose motto is in fact found in Exodus, in the encounter with Moses (yes, the real God does appear perfectly from time to time), who says, 'I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.'

Other than these genuine manifestations of God we have a huge amount of projection in the OT. Men slaughtering their neighbours and then putting the moral burden on God, because they cannot bear to carry it themselves. Just as Bush claimed that God wanted him to invade Iraq.

People do not change.

I haven't come across anything that suggests that God withdraws his holiness in order not to destroy sin, but if you have, please share.

I suggest you read again passages you think condemn sin, and consider the alternative reading. It is only a matter of interpretation; change the vengeful, bloodthirsty God for Christ himself, and you will have it, as clear as day.

If Christ could not have said it, then it is human projection. As John so rightly tells us, the Word was in the beginning with God, and without him was not anything made that was made.

In that case the Gospels record quite a few "uncharacteristic" acts of Jesus, which show his passion to glorify his God and leave holy things holy. Think about how he rebuked the religious leaders with rather strong language, and angering them with veiled threats of destruction and divine abandonment through his analogies and parables. Christ was passionate for God's holiness, directly offending the people he saw desecrate it, rather than withdrawing himself in order to spare sin / desecration.

There is nothing sinful in being passionate about the spiritual wellbeing of one's friends. Christ defends this spiritual integrity, but he does not bang on about ritual cleansing. What matters to him is the heart, not the external display. First clean the inside of the vessel, he says, and then it will be clean. To him, ritual purity begins and ends with purity of heart. Although technically this is not what Leviticus says in its laws, morally this is the intent of those laws.

A devout Jew does not follow laws because he has a legalistic God, as so many Christians disparagingly say. He follows the laws of his faith because he loves God, and wants to honour his commandments. And because those laws are about love, they are written on his heart, not in a list of rules. This is what Christ tries to tell us; not that the law has been overwritten or set aside, but that it has to be written in the heart.

Meanwhile, passion, and even strong language, is one thing, turning over tables in a temple courtyard, which were there legally, is quite another. It is the outburst of passionate behaviour that is uncharacteristic of the Lord, and that constituted a direct provocation to the Temple priests, which is why I described it as political.

We have all been in Cathedrals with bookshops, I assume? They exist legally, to raise funds for the Cathedral and provide a service to visitors.

What would happen if we too decided to take a stick and drive out those little old ladies selling books and cards in the Cathedral? The one thing that is absolutely certain is that the Cathedral authorities would not ignore such a provocative act.

 

[Kufffar]

Stepping away from specifics, I think it is worth giving a Christian perspective on fire, and what it does. Perhaps even more importantly, what it does not do.

Fire does not desecrate.

In the Old Testament, fire is associated with God himself. God speaks to Moses through the miraculous burning bush, which flames but does not burn. God leads his Chosen People through the desert in a cloud by day, a pillar of fire by night. When sacrifices are made to the Lord, they are made through fire. Abraham is told to kill his only son, Isaac, and then burn his body, as a sacrifice to God. That which we burn, ascends to heaven as an offering.

Therefore, we can see that for the ancients, fire does not desecrate; it sanctifies. The same principle holds true today.

The heretics, from both sides of the Christian divide, were not burned in order to send them to hell. They were burned in order to purify their souls from their heresy. The fire was regarded as purgative, in other words; it purifies. The sin of heresy was regarded as being so evil, that only fire would suffice to eradicate it from the soul.

And then we come on to holy or sanctified objects in our faith. Examples are holy water, religious texts, spoiled consecrated wafers etc. There are distinct conventions about how these items may be disposed of, and how they may not be disposed of. For example, holy water may be poured into the ground, but may not be poured into a drain or sewer.

Many Christians may not even realise this, but after a baptism, when the water from the font is disposed of, it does not go into a drain; it goes from the font into a soakaway; ie into the earth. Similarly, the ashes used for Ash Wednesday may not be put into a bin, but they may be placed into the ground; buried.

And then we come to an old, battered, no longer useful Bible. Again, the appropriate way to dispose of such an old Bible is not to put it into a bin, or into a landfill with other rubbish. The appropriate, respectful way to dispose of such a book would be either to bury it directly in the ground, or if that feels wrong, to burn it, and then to bury the ashes in the ground.

And one final point. The ancient Israelites thought that the sacred could be contaminated by the impure, and so sought to retain ritual purity for their lives. Christianity teaches the exact opposite; when the sacred comes into contact with the profane, the profane is sanctified. In our faith, Christ clearly demonstrates that anything which is truly sacred cannot be defiled. If it could, that would make sin more powerful than God, which is nonsense.

Islam appears to return to the Israelite attitude to holiness; it is a retrograde step from what Christ himself teaches us, in other words. In Islam, as in Judaism, sin has the power to undo what God himself does. In our faith, nothing has this much power. You can take a Holy Bible, and do what you like with it; it remains Holy. That which God has done, man cannot undo.

In neither Judaism nor Christianity can fire desecrate. Fire purifies, and constitutes an offering to God. This may not be what is intended, but nonetheless, theologically speaking, this is what is achieved.

What statement are you trying to make with this?

 

[Kufffar]

Does this hadith mean all women are purified by hell-fire?

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: The Prophet said: "I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers were women who were ungrateful." It was asked, "Do they disbelieve in Allah?" (or are they ungrateful to Allah?) He replied, "They are ungrateful to their husbands and are ungrateful for the favors and the good (charitable deeds) done to them. If you have always been good (benevolent) to one of them and then she sees something in you (not of her liking), she will say, 'I have never received any good from you." Bukhari, Book 2, Hadith 28

Does this sura suggest all muslims? What does the Fire do to them?

sura 22:19-20 These two antagonists dispute with each other about their "allah": But those who deny, - for them will be cut out a garment of Fire: over their heads will be poured out boiling water. With it will be scalded what is within their bodies, as well as (their) skins.

 

[razeontherock]

Quoting just for those unbelievers that like to say there's some million varieties of Christianity:

The difference - and it is the difference between the first covenant and the second - is that Christ can look upon sinful man, without destroying him. For the first time God is able to look sin full in the face, and therefore bring to sin his forgiveness; free, open and without being veiled.

The Bible is the story of God's gradual revelation of himself to mankind. Not gradual because God played some kind of game, but gradual because man took a long time to get the message. Ultimately that revelation is made perfect in Christ. Therefore, if we read Christ through the lens of the imperfect OT revelation, that reading has the potential to result in a distortion.

There is only 1 Christianity, and this is it, beautifully on display here. There's a tremendous fullness in the simplicity here, and any / all of the stuff you see Christians discuss and try to sort out for themselves is immaterial compared to this little snip.

Seeing this much is the result of G-d's Presence and His "fire." As one poster asked, how would you know if He withdrew His Presence?

You wouldn't have this Understanding.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Quoting just for those unbelievers that like to say there's some million varieties of Christianity:

There is only 1 Christianity, and this is it, beautifully on display here. There's a tremendous fullness in the simplicity here, and any / all of the stuff you see Christians discuss and try to sort out for themselves is immaterial compared to this little snip.

Seeing this much is the result of G-d's Presence and His "fire." As one poster asked, how would you know if He withdrew His Presence?

You wouldn't have this Understanding.

Don't think so little of us. I understand what you're saying. I just think you're wrong.

 

[dlamberth]

Don't think so little of us. I understand what you're saying. I just think you're wrong.

It's not what I think of when being aware of the presence of God or of His Fire either.

.