Trusting in Christ as the Christian religion is him as a person's shepherd, and Lord.   The idea is believing IN Jesus, not just believing what Jesus said.  It is relational, not head knowledge.  That is the faith that matters for a Christian.  It is Jesus saving people.  That is the Christian message.  Jesus dying on the cross and resurrecting, to take away the sins of the world.  THAT is the Christian message.  If you ask a Christian if Jesus is their Lord, they say yes.  If you ask a Muslim if the answer does not come back "huh?" then the answer is that it is heresy or blasphemy.

Believing someone doesn't mean you believe IN them.  There is a key difference.

Flat out, Muslim theology might cause one to have reverence for Jesus, but Jesus is not needed any longer, at this time, because of Mohammed.  And maybe Jesus returns one day to be a teacher, but certainly won't be as Lord.

As I posted before, this link goes into differences:

http://www.911bible.com/christianity_vs_islam.php

ooohhh. This is about the difference between muslims and christians. I forgot I can't believe in Jesus without converting to christianity first. I'm sorry, let me hang up  my islamic beliefs and convert. BRB.

Seriously, this is why I almost never get involved in religous topics. I'm esentially being told I can't believe in Jesus because I'm muslim.

I'm out. Have fun in this thread.

The thread is actually about whether or not the worship of God is necessary.  It would be beneficial to explain from a Muslim perspective why it is.    But, to get back to what I have been saying, what does a Muslim consider "Believing in Jesus"?  Outside of reverence for Jesus as a prophet of God, and statements about Jesus, exactly where does Jesus fit into the religious practices of a Muslim, outside of lip service?

And also, more differences.  You have the "Lord's prayer" where Jesus speaks of "Our Father in Heaven".  Where is that in Islam?  Would a Muslim pray to Allah as father?

"As far as I can see, it is perfectly possible to plan to call things off. Just because you later plan to call something off that doesn't mean you never actually called it off. This discussion is absolutely ridiculous and I have no idea why you put so much effort into trying to make it seem like I didn't know that God intended to stop him from killing his son all along. I had a Christian upbringing, remember? This is basic knowledge."

Listen carefully. I'm not saying do you know that God was going to do the switch and that God made it a Test which he planned to not kill the child.

I'm saying Abraham knew it had to be a test because he quote reasoned that that his child would be raised from the dead as he thought God would show him that God wouldn't do anything to just hurt him and he can be trusted. There was no question or debate in this but you keep changing the subject to something else I'm not addressing.

To show what EXACTLY I addressing "I clearly wrote that God eventually stopped Abraham from killing his son [(and used the phrase "called it off" because that's how Abraham saw it]), so why do you keep assuming that I thought he would let him do it? ""

Look inside the [ ] I proved this wrong as he assumed that God would do something from the event being a simple killing his son for just seeing if

he trusted him. Herbews quote has proven that there isn't debate that you screwed up. Abarham didn't see God has calling it off but as that was what he was originally planning. He knew God would do something based on his faith in God. Based on God's properties and previous experiences he made a logical conclusion that God wasn't going to do something (like the event) without reason with lead to a correct conclusion. ALL OF THIS WAS IN THE QUOTE.

"I have to say though that I was not aware that he had to think through his actions before actually trying to commit the murder - That he actually had to look for a contradiction in what God said before following his order. But if he truly thought that God was perfectly just and fair and had good intentions, he should have blindly followed God's order no matter what. And this gets even more confusing when I read things like this, where they state that he actually did follow God's orders unquestioningly. I guess it's just another point to add to the pile of contradictions found in the Bible."

Here comes the simple logic. If someone who is omni (all of his omni properities) it would be pretty stupid to think you know more than them.

That's why it's not questionable that's why Abarham reasoned that what God said wasn't going to be something that goes against the very nature of God.

Abraham knew that God was always behind and supporting and never done anything to contradict his teachings so it was unquestionable to think this time he would do the opposite and guess what happened? He was right like always. Abraham didn't question God because it wasn't logical to conclude that God would be wrong here. 

"I guess it's just another point to add to the pile of contradictions found in the Bible.""

Um what is the contradiction? That Abraham was a human that made the mistake of not always 100 percent trusting God and his wisdom? Please put the thinking cap on and tell me how this contradicts anything and please tell me the verse in which says that if x person makes the mistake of not trusting God a 100 percent than God is in contradiction! Lol. There is no way this a possible be a contradiction as it not based on anything. Abraham finally towards that point finally trusted God 100 percent because everything time he question God it turned out God was right. There is a lesson here. But back to the point please tell me where the contraction lies and please explain how it's not based on simply Abraham personal mistakes. Abraham is not taken over by God  controlling his mind were he suppose to auto trust God because only then it would be contradiction.  Humans are flawed not God this just another example of it. By the way 

there was no law at the time or ever that anything against doubt or trust issues but God always proclaimed if you listen and follow he will keep his promises. So, where are you pulling this from? Give me the verses or something in which this exactly shows contradiction.

"And as for your last paragraph, I really don't see where you are going with it. [1 Some people believe that you don't have to believe in God to end up in heaven while others think that it is necessary. (Given that you are aware of the religion.] [2 Otherwise you would demand that they are aware of God and his message without ever even hearing about it.)] [3 In this thread I am asking what people believe. From that point of view they can't be wrong. If someone tells you that they think red is their favorite color you can't say that they are wrong]."

[1] Romans says God judges you based on your knowledge of God (bible) and knowledge of Gods creation. So, it basically based on what God thinks is enough and isn't. But those that set there lives to hurt people faith in God will have different scale. So, I will say at the moment I don't know who will or not go to hell because I would need to know everyone lives and I'm not God. It's not up to me to say who goes and who doesn't, that's God job not mine.

[2]  Depends on what exactly God's scale is exactly which I don't know fully as I would have to probably study the issue more than I currently have. But what from I learned it's based on reasonable scale in which based on reason. I don't believe everyone goes to heaven because that wouldn't be just but also on the same coin I don't believe all christians go to heaven because it said that not even Christians are safe just for being Christian. So, it's based on multiple factors of which will be seen on all of our judgement days.

[3] Then the topic is pointless but on the topic which you bought up Abraham it isn't based on opinion it can be objectively made based on logical arguments and based on text. You can handle it like court based on the evidence in which shows the context and objectively decide what the person did was actually sick. As I have showed with the quotes and context feel in. But on the point of do you do you have to worship God that can be found in the text which means there is a objective answer. Kinda like how laws and rules work you read them when asking if something is necessary to follow. What people believe becomes irrelvent then.