OB, just because you think you are God in the flesh doesn't make it so. I have yet to meet a Christian who would say that his interpretation is different or at least conflicts with God's actual meaning. Rather all of them, without exception had their interpretation either revealed to them or approved by God. It is also somewhat telling that you would first tell us that you took your interpretation from your father before you would mention that it is the God-approved one. Why would that be? In any case, while hearing voices isn't exactly a hallmark of health, many people do and there is no shame in it. It is however massively arrogant to assert that not only can you tell without testing an auditory hallucination from a genuine voice but that the former must also be the voice of the creator and master of the universe himself (or herself, considering where the thread went) despite the fact that we know with measurable precision where inside your skull those things are generated.
I agree that most who profess the Christian faith know little to nothing about it and if I accepted the most basic of theological precepts I'd reckon that almost all of their interpretations are dead wrong about the rest of it. Anyway, I don't know whether you have 'the best one', because all of them seem to think so about their own, too and what they universally point to is either an ancient book collection, some half as ancient scholars or their own private conversations with the most supreme of beings. What I do know is a few basic principles of a good number of traditional Christian doctrines and a few things about their basis in the Bible. Now maybe God has changed his mind, which would contradict at least one passage I know from the book, but then he wouldn't be much of a person if he (or she) were bound by a book, would he? All I can say is that the interpretation you offered above was partially in conflict with said book and that is frankly a matter of literary analysis rather than the things The Great And Powerful whispers into your ears.
On to Adder's post.
Neither a father nor a mother, in an ideal case, anyway, would condition their love by the child's submission and surrender to them. Indeed, ideally the opposite should be the case: They would love the child even if that child came to hate them. That is not what either the Bible or the Qur'an say. The positive general vibe (as you put it) in the Bible is that God really loves his people (and only in the later addendum we call the New Testament does he suddenly love all people, at least in some places) if and only if they love him first and submit to either his rules (Old Testament) or both his rules and his incarnation (New Testament) with the rules (all except one) as a condition being debatable with the New Testament.
The positive general vibe (as you put it) in the Qur'an is that Allah will love you if and only if you love him first and submit to him and his Messenger. If you do not believe however, Allah will punish you in this world and the next in the most gruesome of ways and without mercy. Replace him with a female title and you will have not a gentle mother but a monster next to whom Lady Tremaine makes a model loving parent.
