format_quote Originally Posted by
alexie
I thought Muslims, I am a non-muslim, believed the Bible was corrupted so how can you quote the Bible and say it speaks of Mohommad? If so, then how do you know which parts are true and which are false.
I thought the Holy Ghost was part of the trinity so of course it was before, during and after Jesus. When Jesus says he will leave I read it as when he went back to heavebn and then at pentacost the Holy Spirit came upon the disciples. You have put a completly different twist to it all. How is this working?
The reason why there are more christians leaving for Islam than ever before are for the reasons of the MANY inconsistancies,contradictions,additons and deletions of the Bible! We do believe in the old testament yes of course because Jesus (peace be upon him) is a prophet of Allah and he was also seen as a prophet during his time and this is confirmed by a christian historian himself who travelled the world and when he read the oldest copy of the bible available he stated that it was a WHOLE world away from the original in that there is NO mention of Jesus being the son of God just as his blessed prophet who was given the message from God to spread the message of God to the jews! Islamic scholars and linguists do refer to the bible for the reasons of refuting Chrsitianity! They CAN easily distinguish between the alterations deletions and additions in the bible itself!
Jesus NEVER claimed anywhere in the bible that he is god and to worship him for he says the father is higher than me so he is clearly differentiating himself from the meaning him and God are seperate NOT 1! God is the one to be worshipped NOT man!
This is proof that Jesus is NOT the son of God and in MANY people eventually started to corrupt the bible because it was easy to do so because it was NOT protected as it should have been from the evil hands of the Jews. There is no mention of the trinity ANYWHERE until centuries after Jesus!
Robert Ingersoll makes the following comments in Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 4, p. 266-67:
Christ, according to the faith, is the second person in the Trinity, the Father being the first and the Holy Ghost third.
Each of these persons is God. Christ is his own father and his own son. The Holy Ghost is neither father nor son, but both.
The son was begotten by the father, but existed before he was begotten--just the same before as after. Christ is just as old as his father, and the father is just as young as his son.
The Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and Son, but was equal to the Father and Son before he proceeded, that is to say, before he existed, but he is of the same age as the other two.
So it is declared that the Father is God, and the Son and the Holy Ghost God, and these three Gods make one God. According to the celestial multiplication table, once one is three, and three time one is one, and according to heavenly subtraction if we take two from three, three are left. The addition is equally peculiar: if we add two to one we have but one. Each one equal to himself and to the other two. Nothing ever was, nothing ever can be more perfectly idiotic and absurd than the dogma of the Trinity.
Christians are faced with a dilemma. The Bible says in the Old Testament, "I, even I, am the Lord; and besides me there is no savior"
(Isa. 43:11). "Salvation belongeth unto the Lord . . ."
(Psalms 3:8. "For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour . . ."
(Isaiah 43:3). According to the Old Testament, only God can be the Savior. In order for Jesus Christ to be the Savior, he must also be God.
Trinity advocates use:
"I and the Father are one"
(John 10:30);
". . .he that hath seen me hath seen the Father"
(John 17:22);
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God"
(John 1"1);
". . . that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me and I in Him"
". . .he that hath seen me hath seen the Father. . ."
(John 14:9)
". . .Holy Father keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are."
John 17:11
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily."
Colossians 3:8,9.
The Bible has many more verses denying the Trinity than it has confirming it:
"Why callest me good? There is none good but one, that is God"
(Matthew 19:17)
". . .for my Father is greater than I. . ."
(John 14:28)
"My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me."
(John 7:16)
"O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt."
(Matthew 26:39)
" My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
(Matthew 27:46)
"But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."
(Mark 13:32)
"Who has gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God"
(Peter 3:22)
There are, of course, more scriptures. The passages quoted are a representative of the opposing concepts.
Here is the dilemma. Christians know that in order for Jesus to be the savior of mankind, he must also be God. The bible says so. If he is not God, then he cannot be the savior. His death would be meaningless. So Christians have invented the Trinity to explain Christ's divinity. He is man. He is God. He is both. He must be in order to be the savior. Unfortunately, he is ambivalent at best. Sometimes he claims to be one with God. Sometimes he admits God knows things which he doesn't know and does things which he cannot do. Christians go to nearly any length to prove the Trinity including the declaration that its a
"mystery" and we
"just don't have the mind to understand it". Is the bible the perfect, inerrant word of God? The Christian created Trinity doctrine and the contradictions which must accompany the doctrine sound a resounding
"No"! So how did the Trinity doctrine/dogma come into existence?
The origins of the Trinity doctrine are appalling. Like most historic issues pertaining to Christianity, there was much deceit and bloodshed. Many lives were lost before
'Trinitarianism' was finally adopted.
As many Christians know, the word
"trinity" does not appear in the Bible. It doesn't because it is a doctrine which evolved in early Christianity. It was a manipulated, bloody and deadly process before it finally arrived as an
'accepted' doctrine of the church.
CONSTANTINE - THE TRINITY PROCESS BEGINS
Flavius Valerius Constantius (c. 285-337 AD), Constantine the Great, was the son of Emperor Constantius I. When his father died in 306 AD, Constantine became emperor of Britain, Gaul (now France), and Spain. Gradually he gained control of the entire Roman empire.
Theological differences regarding Jesus Christ began to manifest in Constantine's empire when two major opponents surfaced and debated whether Christ was a created being (Arius doctrine) or not created but rather coequal and coeternal to God his father (Athanasius doctrine).
The theological warfare between the Arius and Athanasius doctrinal camps became intense. Constantine realized that the his empire was being threatened by the doctrinal rift. Constantine began to pressure the church to come to terms with its differences before the results became disastrous to his empire. Finally the emperor called a council at Nicea in 325 AD to resolve the dispute.
Only a fraction of existing bishops, 318, attended. This equated to about 18% of all the bishops in the empire. Of the 318, approximately 10 were from the Western part of Constantine's empire, making the voting lopsided at best. The emperor manipulated, coerced and threatened the council to be sure it voted for what he believed rather than an actual consensus of the bishops.
The present day Christian church touts Constantine as the first Christian emperor, however, his
'Christianity' was politically motivated. Whether he personally accepted Christian doctrine is highly doubtful. He had one of his sons murdered in addition to a nephew, his brother in law and possibly one of his wives. He continued to retain his title of high priest in a pagan religion until his death. He was not baptized until he was on his deathbed.
THE FIRST TWO THIRDS OF THE TRINITY - THE NICAEAN CREED
The majority of bishops voted under pressure from Constantine for the Athanasius doctrine. A creed was adopted which favored Athanasius's theology. Arius was condemned and exiled. Several of the Bishops left before the voting to avoid the controversy. Jesus Christ was approved to be "one substance" with God the Father. It is interesting that even now, the Eastern and Western Orthodox churches disagree with each other regarding this doctrine, the Western churches having had no influence in the 'voting'.
Two of the bishops who voted pro-Arius were also exiled and Arius's writings were destroyed. Constantine decreed that anyone caught with Arius documents would be subject to the death penalty.
The Nicaean Creed read as follows:
I believe in one God: the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God: begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made. . .
Even with the adoption of the Nicaean Creed, problems continued and in a few years, the Arian faction began to regain control. They became so powerful that Constantine restored them and denounced the Athanasius group.
Arius's exile was ended along with the bishops who sided with him. It was now Athanasius who would be banished.
When Constantine died (after being baptized by an Arian Bishop), his son reinstated the Arian philosophy and bishops and condemned the Athanasius group.
In the following years the political foes continue to struggle and finally the Arians misused their power and were overthrown. The religious/political controversy caused widespread bloodshed and killing. In 381 AD, Emperor Theodosius (a Trinitarian) convened a council in Constantinople. Only Trinitarian bishops were invited to attend. 150 bishops attended and voted to alter the Nicene creed to include the Holy Spirit as a part of the Godhead. The Trinity doctrine was now official for both the church and the state.
Dissident bishops were expelled from the church, and excommunicated.
THE ATHANASIUS CREED COMPLETES THE TRIUNE GODHEAD
The Athanasius (Trinitarian) Creed was finally established in (probably) the 5th century. It was not written by Athanasius but adopted his name. It stated in part:
"We worship one God in Trinity . . . The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three gods, but one God."
By the 9th century the creed was established in Spain, France and Germany. It had taken centuries from the time of Christ for the trinity doctrine to catch on. Government and church politics were the reasons the trinity came into existence and became church orthodoxy.
As you have seen, the Trinitarian doctrine came from deceit, politics, a pagan emperor and warring factions who brought about death and bloodshed.
THE CHRISTIAN TRINITY - ONE MORE IN THE PARADE OF TRINITIES
Why the original clamor to elevate Jesus and the holy spirit to positions equal to the Christian/Judaeo God? Simply, the pagan world was quite used to having "three gods" or "trinities" as their deities. The trinity satisfied the majority of Christians who had come from pagan backgrounds. Christianity didn't get rid of the pagan trinities, it adopted them as it did so many other pagan traditions.
OTHER TRINITIES
.
Hinduism embraced the triune godhead of Brahma, the god of creation ; Vishnu the god of maintenance and Siva the god of destruction. One of Egypt's many trinities was Horus, Isis and Osiris.
The founders of the early Christian church had no idea that the Trinity concept would evolve, be voted upon by politicians, forced by emperors and eventually become an integral part of Christianity such as we have it today. Is it any wonder that its
"difficult" to explain?
Is there one Christian God or Three In One? The majority of Christian churches hold to the Trinity doctrine but there are still Christian church holdouts who reject the teaching. We now enjoy the freedom to believe either doctrine but at risk of ridicule if we choose non-Trinitarian beliefs.
Just like at Burger King, "you can have it your way".
PAUL
AND THE INVENTION OF CHRISTIANITY
On the road to Damascus, while persecuting the early Christians, after the death of Jesus, a man claimed that he saw a vision, a vision of Jesus. The man was Saul of Tarsus (Latinized as Paul). From there on, the teachings of Christ were transformed and Romanized and modern Christianity was born.
The vision in which Paul claims that Jesus gave him an authority to teach in his name is recorded a number of times in the New Testament. If we were to analyze these variant descriptions, made by the same man, as in a court of law, they would be thrown out as fabricated
"evidence" because of inconsistencies.
For example:
1. Acts (9:3-7)
[3] Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him.
[4] And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"
[5] And he said,
"Who are you, Lord?" And he said,
"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting; [6] but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do."
[7] The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.
In this description, it is stated that only Paul fell to the ground. And, the other men who traveled with him did not see anything but heard a voice.
Compare this to the next description:
2. Acts (22:6-9)
[6] "As I made my journey and drew near to Damascus, about noon a great light from heaven suddenly shone about me.
[7] And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, `Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?'
[8] And I answered,
`Who are you, Lord?' And he said to me,
`I am Jesus of Nazareth whom you are persecuting.'
[9] Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me.
In this description, in complete contradiction to the one above, Paul states that those who traveled with him did not hear the voice but saw the light. The previous description said that they did not see anything but heard a voice!
3. Acts (26:14)
[14] And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language,
`Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It hurts you to kick against the goads.'
In this description, Paul says that they
"all" fell to the ground whereas in the previous description, only Paul had fallen to the ground.
In any court of law, anywhere in the world where justice is upheld, this testimony of Paul would have been
thrown out as fabrication and he would have been prosecuted for perjury.
Paul's Christianity is not what Jesus taught:
The German philosopher, Fredrick Neitzsche recognized Paul's role in constructing the
"new" Christianity, and was convinced of deception:
In Nietzsche's view, the very worst of them was Paul, the actual founder of the Christian church and doctrine. Nietzsche was convinced that Paul was not sincere in his beliefs, that "his requirement was power." Nietzsche cannot bring himself to believe that Paul, "whose home was the principal center of Stoic enlightenment," is sincere when he offers up a hallucination as proof that The Redeemer still lives. Paul invented the doctrines of
'eternal life' and
'the Judgement' as a means to his ends. In Die Morgenrote (translated by R. J. Hollingdale as Daybreak, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1982), Nietzsche had earlier discussed Paul's frustrations at being unable to master, and to comply with, Jewish law, and hence Paul "sought about for a means of destroying" that law. Christianity offered Paul just the weapon he had been seeking.
[A 40-42; Die Morgenrote 68,
http://www.debunker.com/texts/anti_chr.html, retrieved 12/08/'01].
Paul destroyed the Law:
Romans 3:28
[28] For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.
Romans 7:4
[4] Likewise, my brethren, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God.
1 Corinthians 10:25
[25] Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience.
Contrary to what Paul taught, Jesus stated that he came to fulfil the Law and not abolish it. He further states that whoever takes the least bit out of the Law will be "the least" in the Kingdom of Heaven. Since Paul took the "whole" law out, according to Jesus' criteria, Paul is the "least" of the "least"!Consider these words of Jesus:
Matthew 5:17-20:
[17] "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.
[18] For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.
[19] Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
[20] For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. "
The Law laid down strict dietary laws, for example, the Book of Deuteronomy, a part of the Torah, states:
And the swine, because it parts the hoof but does not chew the cud, is unclean for you. Their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch.
(Deuteronomy 14:8)
Furthermore, the concept of salvation that Paul brought into Christianity from Greek myth was also alien to what Jesus taught. According to Paul, believing in the
"lord" Jesus and confessing that he was raised from the dead, saves a person.
He says:
Romans 10:9
[9] "Because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. "
1 Corinthians 15:14:
[14] If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain
This is unequivocally against what Jesus himself taught. Christians need to ask themselves here, "Whom do we believe, Paul or Jesus?"
Jesus says explicitly:
Matthew 7:21-23
[21] "Not every one who says to me,
`Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
[22] On that day many will say to me,
`Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' [23] And then will I declare to them,
`I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.'
Matthew 19:17
[17] And he said to him,
"Why do you ask me about what is good? One (God) there is who is good. If you would enter life,keep the commandments."
James, who knew Jesus much closer than Paul says:
James 2:26
[26] For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.
The Original Sin:
Christianity and Islam differ regarding the concept of the Original Sin. According to Christianity, Adam and Eve, the first humans sinned when they ate the forbidden fruit. They were expelled from heaven and sin entered the world. Every child of Adam, you and I, according to Christianity has inherited this sin (as genetic inheritance). Therefore, every male and female is born stained with sin and is therefore destined to hell, from birth. This belief in Christianity gave rise to the doctrine of Atonement. According to this doctrine, God sacrificed his
"only begotten" son, Jesus to wash away the sins of the world. The only thing people have to do to wash away their hereditary stain is to believe in Jesus as God's son and that he died for them.
Islam does not agree with all this. According to the Koran, every one is responsible for their own doings and nobody can carry the burden of another. God is forgiving and if a person sincerely repents, amends and does what is good and righteous, God forgives. Adam did not ask us before eating the fruit, so how can we be blamed?
In any society, where justice is one of the highest valued morals, killing an innocent man (Jesus) to wash away the sins of the guilty would be condemned as immoral, yet billions of people rejoice over this
"gift" of injustice! Once again, the source of conflict is Paul and not Jesus. Jesus never talked about atonement or a
"free-ride" through the blood of an innocent man.
On the contrary he said, "…If you would enter life, keep the commandments"
(Matthew 19:17).It was Paul who brought the concept of the Original Sin into Christianity.
He says:
Romans 5:12
[12] "Therefore, as sin came into the world through ONE man.."
1 Corinthians 15:21-22
[21] "For as by a man came death (sin), by a man also has come the resurrection of the dead.
[22] For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive."
As we saw above, Jesus contradicts Paul. Not only that, the Old Testament contradicts Paul as well:
Ezekiel 18:20-22
[20] The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
[21] "But if a wicked man turns away from all his sins which he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die.
[22] None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness which he has done he shall live.
2 Chronicles 25:4
[4] But he did not put their children to death, according to what is written in the law, in the book of Moses, where the LORD commanded,
"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, or the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall die for his own sin."
Major Yeats Brown, in his book, Life of a Bengal Lancer, summarized the concept of atonement in Christianity. He states:
"No heathen tribe has conceived so grotesque an idea, involving as it does the assumption, that man was born with a hereditary stain upon him: and that this stain (for which he was not personally responsible) was to be atoned for; and the creator of all things had to sacrifice his only begotten son, to neutralize this mysterious curse."
Paul actually transformed the strict monotheism that Jesus proclaimed into a religion that is closer to Greek mythology, than it is towards either Judaism or Islam. Things like the
"only begotten son", atonement for the sins of humanity etc. were all alien to the strict monotheism of Abraham, Jesus, Muhammad and all the prophets of Israel.
John H. Randall, emeritus professor of philosophy at Columbia University, wrote:
"Christianity, at the hands of Paul, became a mystical system of redemption, much like the cult of Isis, and the other sacramental or mystery religions of the day"
(Hellenistic Ways of Deliverance and the Making of the Christian Synthesis, 1970, p. 154,
http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/...Bibleyama.html, retrieved 12/0-8/'01).
Greek cults were prevalent in the Mediterranean long before Jesus was born. They were brought into Christianity by Paul to make doctrine
"inclusive" thereby destroying the strict monotheism that Jesus proclaimed. Some of the ones, with their parallels in Christianity, are:
1.
Attis of Phrygia (later called Galatia in Asia Minor):
He was regarded as the
"only begotten" son and savior. He was bled to death on March 24th on the foot of a pine tree. He also rose from the dead and his death and resurrection was celebrated by his followers.
"A Christian writer of the fourth century AD, recounted ongoing disputes between Pagans and Christians over the remarkable similarities of the death and resurrection of their two Gods. The Pagans argued that their God was older and therefore original. The Christians admitted Christ came later, but claimed Attis was a work of the devil whose similarity to Christ, and the fact he predated Christ, were intended to confuse and mislead men. This was apparently the stock answer -- the Christian apologist Tertullian makes the same argument."
(
http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwhacker...sts_Attis.html, retrieved 12/08/'01)
2.
Adonis of Syria:
He was born of a virgin mother. He also suffered death for the redemption of mankind, arising from the dead in spring.
3.
Bacchus of Greece or Dionesius
He was termed the
"only begotten" son of Jupiter. He was born of a virgin named Detemer on December 25th. To his followers, he was
"redeemer". He called himself
"Alpha and Omega" i.e. similar to the words used for Jesus by the author of the Book of Revelation.
4.
Orisis of the Egyptians
He was born of a virgin mother on December 29th. He was betrayed by one Typhen (remember Judas) and was slain. He was buried (just like Jesus), remained in hell for two to three days (just like Jesus), and then rose from the dead (just like Jesus).
5.
Mithra, the Persian Sun-God
He was also born of a virgin on the 25th of December. Christmas and Easter were the most important festivals of the Mithras. They also had other surprising similarities with Paul's Christianity like the Eucharist supper etc.
Dr. Arnold Meyer, professor of Theology at the Zurich University, after describing the basic Christian beliefs of today, i.e. the divinity of Christ, atonement etc. states:
If this is Christianity, then such Christianity was founded by St. Paul and not by our lord
(Jesus or Paul, page 122)
Source:
Asadi, Muhammed. Islam or Christianity. 1989. Karachi, Pakistan
]
The Blood Atonement.
The Christian dogma of the Atonement is that Jesus paid the penalty for the original and other sins of men by his death on the cross of Calvary, and that salvation cannot be obtained without
belief in the saving power of his blood. This is what we read in the
First Epistle of St. Peter:
"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot."
And this is what two modern Christian apologists (a Protestant and a Roman Catholic) have written:
"We pass on now to the doctrine of the Atonement, which is that Christ's death was in some sense a sacrifice for sin, and thus reconciled (or made 'at - one') God the Father and sinful man. And though not actually stated in the Creeds, it is implied in the words, was crucified also for us, and who suffered for our salvation"
"Since Christ, God and man, had taken upon Himself our sins (by His death on the cross) in order to atone for them by giving satisfaction to God's outraged justice, he is the mediator between God and man."
This dogma is not only a
denial of the Mercy of God but also of His Justice. To demand the price of blood in order to forgive the sins of men is to
show a complete lack of mercy, and to punish a man who is not guilty for the sins of others, whether the former is willing or not, is the
height of injustice.
Christian apologists try to defend this by saying that Jesus Christ willingly suffered death to pay the price for the sins of men. To this our reply is:
Firstly, it is not historically correct to say that Jesus had come to die willingly and deliberately for the sins of men. We read in the Bible that he did not wish to die on the cross. For, when he knew that his enemies were plotting against his life, he declared that his "soul was exceedingly sorrowful unto death", he asked his disciples to keep watch over him to protect him from his enemies and he prayed to God, "Abba, Father, all things are possible unto Thee; take away this cup from me; nevertheless not what 1 will, but what Thou wilt."[/COLOR
](Mark 14:36)
Secondly, we fail to see how the suffering and death of one man can wipe out the sins of others. It sounds something like the physician breaking his own head to cure the headache of his patients. The idea of substitutionary or vicarious sacrifice is illogical, meaningless and unjust.
Thirdly, the idea that shedding of blood is necessary to appease the Wrath of God has come into Christianity from the primitive man's image of God as an all-powerful demon. We see no connection at all between sin and blood. What is necessary to wash away sin is not blood but
repentance, remorse, persistent struggle against evil inclinations, development of greater sympathy for mankind and determination to carry out the Will of God as revealed to us through the prophets. The Qur'an says:
"To God does not reach the flesh or the blood I of animals they sacrifice), but unto Him is acceptable righteousness on your part"
(22:37)
The doctrine of the Atonement makes the First Person of Godhead into a
blood-thirsty tyrant in order to demonstrate the self-sacrificing love of the Second Person. To a dispassionate critic, the sacrifice of the Second Person appears as much misplaced and meaningless as the demand of the First Person is cruel and sadistic.
Arthur Weigall makes the following significant comment on the doctrine of the Atonement:
"We can no longer accept the appalling theological doctrine that for some mystic reason a propitiatory sacrifice was necessary. It outrages either our conception of God as Almighty or else our conception of Him as All-Loving. The famous Dr. Cruden believed that for the : purpose of this sacrifice
'Christ suffered dreadful pains inflicted by God', and this of course, is a standpoint which nauseates the modem mind and which may well be termed a hideous doctrine, not unconnected with the sadistic tendencies of primitive human nature. Actually, it is of
pagan origin, being, indeed, perhaps the most obvious relic of heathendom in the Faith."
The Christian scheme of salvation is not only
morally and rationally unsound, but also has
no support of the words of Jesus. Jesus may be said to have suffered for the sins of men in the sense that, in order to take them out of darkness into light, he incurred the wrath of the
evildoers and was tortured by them; but that does not mean that his death was an atonement for the sins of others and that only those who believe in his blood would be forgiven.
Jesus had come to rescue men from sin by his teaching and the example of his religiously devoted life to the commands of God, and not by deliberately dying for them on the cross and offering his blood as a propitiation for their sins. When a young man came and asked him "Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?"
he mentioned nothing about his atoning sacrifice and the redeeming power of Iris blood. His reply was the same as that of every other prophet.
For he said: "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God; but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."
(Matthew 19:17)
"Keep the commandments" that, according to Jesus, was the way to eternal life. Salvation could be gained by believing in God, eschewing evil and doing good, and not by accepting Jesus as the redeemer and believing in his blood atonement.
The dogma of the Atonement is unsound, for (1)
man is not born in sin. (2)
God does not require a price to forgive the sinners, and (3)
the idea of substitutionary or vicarious sacrifice is unjust and cruel. By sinning we do not harm God, but ourselves. The stain of sin on our souls can be removed, not by the suffering or death of any other person, whether the latter be willing or unwilling, but by our own repentance, turning away from evil and doing good. And so, when Adam, after the act of disobedience, repented and submitted himself completely to God,
his sin was forgiven. Neither is the sin of Adam inherited by the children of Adam, nor did it require the suffering and death of Jesus Christ to be forgiven.
The truth is that Jesus did not die on the cross at all. The doctrine of the Atonement is a denial of the Justice and Mercy of God.
Islam rejects this dogma. It declares that the forgiveness of sins cannot be obtained by the suffering and sacrifice of any other person, human or divine, but by the Grace of God and our own sincere and persistent efforts to fight against evil and do good:
(that no laden one shall bear another's load, and that man hath only that for which he maketh effort, and that his effort will be seen)
(The Glorious Qur'un 53:38,40)
(Whosoever goeth right, it is only for the good of his own soul that he goeth right, and whosoever erreth, erreth only to its hurt. No laden soul can bear another's load)
(17:15)
Source: http://www.geocities.com/askress2009/articles/84.htm