songkaila

Does the Muslim understanding of this principle have anything at all in common with the following verses from the Bible?

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. (to be continued)

Specifically, what would be an Islamic view of the following words, which the Bible says were taught by Jesus:

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:38-39)

Under the law 'Eye for eye...', if someone does something to a person, then that someone should have what they did done to them.

Under the above teaching, if someone has something bad done to them, they not only don't do it to the person in return, they take on the 'penalty' that would otherwise have been applied to that other person.

Do Muslims believe this is an appropriate attitude?

What, if anything, would those verses have to say about God's attitude towards us?

A. Jesus, Mary and Joseph? or

B. Allah, Mary and Jesus? or

C. Allah, Jesus, and Allah's Holy Spirit?

Please say why you chose the answer you chose, if you can from the Bible, that would be great.

Here's the deal. Recently someone asked about the 'first time', I wrote an answer which basically argues that the physiological features are part of a much larger picture, a relationship paradigm, if you will - and that it is this larger picture which determines what your experience will be. And of course I presented an alternative... For more details, see that question:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=An.fF...

What I want to know is, why would anyone choose a different view, if they can have something beautiful and respectful? Is it that they:

want to be viewed as men's property?

want to evade responsibility for their lives?

think getting pleasure from a man's abuse of their body is good?

don't like thinking new thoughts - "Better a devil I do know, than one I don't know?"

had a bad experience and don't want to think their suffering was needless?

Or some other reason?

The way I see it, there are two basic options:

1. Before a person has sex, they think carefully about putting each other first (before even Mom and Dad), they take full responsibility for their decisions and actions, and they make a permanent, public commitment - and spare themselves the temptation to let a third party into the picture or break up some time down the road. And if their partner does yield to those temptations, at least they have a clear conscience.

OR

2. Neither they nor their partner thinks about the above issues beforehand, the third party appears or there's a breakup, and then they realize, too late, that such things are not supposed to happen if one has had sex - otherwise, why would they be upset? And I think just about everyone is upset when stuff like that happens...

So, to me, option 1 looks like the better deal. On the other hand, I guess a lot of people choose option 2. Why???