/* */

PDA

View Full Version : The Central Flaw of Christianity (another article)



Pages : [1] 2

IAmZamzam
01-18-2011, 09:04 PM
THE CENTRAL FLAW OF CHRISTIANITY

By Yahya Sulaiman, a.k.a. Ziggy Zag


Let us say that you and I are friends and that you have done a lot of treacherous, disrespectful, and ungrateful things toward me. You come forward to me with them, confessing them all. You add, “Look, I know I’ve wronged you. A whole bunch of times. But I’ve come clean with it and I will try my dead level best never to do any of those things again. I know I deserve to get my butt kicked and to be perfectly honest I wouldn’t hold it against you if you started hitting me right now. I’ll gladly take a punch, ’cause I know I deserve it, but if you can find it in your heart to forgive me, I beg that you do so.”

I respond, “Of course I forgive you. I love you more than you could ever know, and I know you better than you know yourself, so I know your repentance to me is sincere. I forgive you for everything. Don’t worry about it.”

And then, just as you’re opening your mouth to thank me in tears, I punch myself dead in the face and knock myself out.

After I’ve come to you ask me what I’m on about. Have I lost my mind? I answer, “Well, someone had to get hit for what you did!”

What would your reaction be? Would you question my logic and possibly even my sanity? Or would you say, “Hey, man, I knew you cared but I never had any idea how much you cared!”

Well, I guess it is the thought that counts—for us fallible and imperfect mortals, who are capable of being so foolish. God, on the other hand, is the one Being from whom we know we definitely cannot expect such silliness. And yet if I were to believe in the substitution doctrine of Christianity, the core concept of the whole religion, established unequivocally all up and down the entire New Testament (Matthew 26:28, Galatians 1:4, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10, Revelation 1:5, 1 Peter 2:24), then I would have to believe something extremely comparable to our bizarre little episode with the punching. God, according to Christian thought, cannot or will not simply let bygones be bygones when he forgives someone their sins. In other words, he has to forgive without forgiving. Someone still has to be punished for your sins when God pardons you of them, and who better to be punished for sinning than a man who’s never sinned before in his entire life?

This is the main problem I have with Christianity now and it was also one of the main problems I had when I was a Christian, because there was perhaps nothing about the religion’s many evident untruths about which I had to put more effort into deceiving myself. The behavior I see from other Christians now frequently suggests the same may be true of them. Henry Ward Beecher or someone once said, “‘I can forgive, but I cannot forget,’ is only another way of saying, ‘I will not forgive.’ Forgiveness ought to be like a cancelled note—torn in two, and burned up, so that it never can be shown against one.” Yet instead of perceiving forgiveness in this very accurate and rational way, Christian dogma—to use the cliché that Christians themselves are always using—instead misrepresents forgiveness as a note of debt transferred from one person who cannot pay it to a loving volunteer who can.

As I heard a brother in the faith put it once, “The Christian concept of entering Heaven is similar to going to the movie theater. To get in you need to pay the ticket price. If you can not [sic] afford the price you get rich uncle Charlie to cough up the money for you. I do not see this as forgiveness. forgiveness [sic] erases all debt and their [sic] is no longer a price to be paid. To be forgiven we need only to repent fully and strive to become loyal servants of Allaah(swt). When our repentance is accepted, there is no longer any bill to pay...There is no charge for Allaah(swt)'s mercy.”

Precisely. Forgiveness is the erasure of moral debt altogether, not a transfer of it from one party to another. Christianity is supposedly a religion centered entirely on grace yet the Christian definition of grace tries to have it both ways, and in doing so attributes both utmost injustice and gross, puzzling impracticality and unreasonability to the Almighty—a savage version of the Almighty who absolutely demands that blood be spilled, even if it is innocent blood.

When you explain all this to a Christian they will invariably, as sure as night follows day and water flows downhill, give one of two responses (often both). The first is an appeal to their bizarre misconception that the Old Testament animal sacrifices somehow presaged the crucifixion. Like the majority of the so-called Messianic prophecies this is just retroactive reinterpretation, completely unheard of before the advent of Christianity itself. Barring this, if the animal sacrifices sufficed for the people of the past, there’s no reason why they should not suffice for the people of the present. As such, even if you grant the animal sacrifice defense the crucifixion would still be pointless, as the only thing God would have to do is either continue having animals be sacrificed throughout history or make the incarnation and atonement happen within the first generation after the Fall. Otherwise you’re stuck with absurd cop-out that the crucifixion saved people before it ever took place, lest you think everyone in that part of history automatically condemned for happening to be born at a certain time.

But such an interpretation of animal sacrifice is completely nonsensical to begin with. Sin cannot be transferred from one creature to another like a transfusion of diseased blood. Sin is a kind of action, the result of personal choice. To transfer sin from one party to another (be the other party an animal or a God-man) would have to mean changing both party’s pasts by causing each party to have made the other's choices instead. Time travel into the past might allow one to do the trick: the only thing stabbing a cow would accomplish is having there being one fewer cow at present. When the Old Testament refers to the sacrificed animal as representing sin it doesn’t mean that literally. Watching the animal die was like watching your sin die, symbolic of God’s actual forgiveness, which came about because in performing the sacrifice you knew you were performing a ritual act of repentance. Otherwise why would the animal be quickly killed instead of being tortured to death for a whole day like Jesus (P) was supposed to have been? If it was just the death and not the pain that did the trick then no stations of the cross would have been necessary; Jesus (P) could’ve just offered himself to be swiftly decapitated by the guards who came to catch him and that’s that. The idea (as established in the biblical passages cited above) is that he was suffering instead of us, which is silly for more reasons than just the one I already explained about this substitution being a needless, graceless act of refusal to forgive. There is yet another problem still, one so obvious that I am puzzled it doesn’t get brought up more often.

Being flogged, crowned with thorns, whacked with a reed, marched across town, and crucified for nine hours is serious business indeed (if it did happen) but by no means is it the grand total of all the suffering that everyone who has ever lived or ever will live deserve for every single sin ever committed in past, present, and future. Even if sin could be transferred, there have been too many sins overall to squeeze them all into such a relatively meager amount of suffering. Heck, there’s probably been more than one individual person who has deserved those exact torments. To punish a single person for every wrongdoing in history would probably take longer than a single person could live. I know that there is no official objective means of measuring this but try to be honest with yourself: isn’t it supposed to be one eye for one eye? Wouldn’t a crucifixion be a fitting punishment only for one person’s unethically crucifying someone, and one bout of torture for one equivalent bout of torture? For heaven’s sake, people, even in the Gospels themselves the perpetrators marvel at what little time the whole thing took (Mark 15:44), and this is supposed to be punishment for every crucifixion, every murder, every rape, every hoarding of every miser, every act of perjury, every act of adultery, every swindling, robbery, vehicular manslaughter, obscene phone call, and Michael Bay movie from the dawn of man till Judgment Day?! Give me a crown of thorns, a beating, and a nine hour crucifixion over what happened to Rasputin any day.

Let us not lose focus here. The important thing is that God does not and should not need anyone to suffer and die so that anyone else can be forgiven. That’s not how forgiveness works. It’s a very simple thing that I can demonstrate for you right now: “I forgive you.” POOF! See how easy it is? And I’m not even omnipotent.

And that brings us to the next of the two inevitable pitiful defenses Christians make for this hole in their doctrinal logic. This defense is to make a quite vague and extremely circular appeal to “the law”—essentially telling us that the reason that we should believe that the law of a good and wise God would ever entail anything as morally monstrous and logically absurd as the atonement doctrine is that…well, it’s God’s law. Like I said, completely circular. Not to mention that neither of these defenses could change anything even if they were valid since the issue is whether or not any text (or at the very least, any interpretation of a text) which depicts God’s grace in such a terrible and impossible fashion can be believed in the first place. Even if “the law” and the old animal sacrifices did demand such a thing as the Christians suggest, that would not be reason to believe in Christianity: it would be reason to disbelieve in the law and sacrifices of the Old Testament (which to be fair has been corrupted, as we’ve discussed endlessly elsewhere), lest one instead have to disbelieve in the goodness and wisdom of God.

Perhaps another plug-in is needed. Let us say that I told you about a murder trial in which the automatic penalty in the case of a conviction is death, barring a pardon from the judge. (This judge, by the way, is someone that you respect and trust a great deal.) A pardon is exactly what the culprit gets. The judge grants him the pardon, bangs his gavel, and everyone starts to rise from their seats because they naturally think that the whole thing is over. But then, with the very next bang of his gavel, the judge pronounces a death sentence on himself. You ask me, in response to hearing this tale, why the judge would do such a thing, how he could do such a thing. I tell you that the law demands that someone has to be put to death when a capital crime is committed and since the judge pardoned the culprit he is naturally obligated to execute himself instead. You protest the logic to me (well, be honest with yourself: wouldn’t you?) and I say, “Look, they’ve been doing something like this since ancient times and this is just fulfilling the tradition. The law demands that this go on. The judge himself wrote that law. Who are you to argue with it?” What would your reaction be? To assume that I must be wrong about a judge as good and wise as you believe this one to be ever authoring such a law? Or would you think that that my story about the judge, and maybe also the very existence of the law I spoke of, isn’t true? Or that you have been gravely mistaken about this judge being good and wise in the first place? Or would you just shrug and go, “Oh well, I guess that’s good enough for me. Want to go out for pizza?”
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
siam
02-15-2011, 08:16 AM
:Dthere are so many holes in Christian logic...its a sieve!---and they are so glaringly big---they wouldn't catch a whale---yet the Christians believe their whale of a tale....;D

It's no surprise then that the time period after Christianity took hold, is referred to as the "DARK AGES"...

Joking aside----there are said to be 2 billion Christians....and many others who also have polytheistic beliefs....it does not say a whole lot about our human intelligence does it?
Reply

Ramadhan
02-16-2011, 10:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by
there are so many holes in Christian logic...its a sieve!---and they are so glaringly big---they wouldn't catch a whale---yet the Christians believe their whale of a tale....


Long time ago when I was first learning english, i bumped into the concept of "blind faith", and later I found that "blind faith" was used often by christians.
Now I know why :D

You have to have blind faith to believe in trinity.
Reply

Trumble
02-17-2011, 08:51 AM
You have to have blind faith somewhere down the line to believe in God, period.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Ramadhan
02-17-2011, 10:03 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by
You have to have blind faith somewhere down the line to believe in God, period.


as well as to not believe in God, period.

Using your standards, everything would require blind faith.
eg. It is a blind faith to believe that behind the username "trumble" is a human, and not just some moronic robot.

Reply

Hiroshi
02-19-2011, 11:24 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
Someone still has to be punished for your sins when God pardons you of them, and who better to be punished for sinning than a man who’s never sinned before in his entire life?

This is the main problem I have with Christianity now and it was also one of the main problems I had when I was a Christian, because there was perhaps nothing about the religion’s many evident untruths about which I had to put more effort into deceiving myself.
Someone who is put in charge of a company of men, for example a government official or an army officer, might well be punished for the actions of those for whom he has oversight. Parents may get into trouble if their young child for which they are responsible causes criminal damage. My son once was on the jury in a court case involving a serious fraud that had caused a great financial loss to a company. A man was being held accountable for this, not because of any of any fraudulent dealings on his part, but because he should have been in a position to prevent the fraud commited by others with responsible oversight.

Now in the Christian view, Jesus has repurchased mankind and has become mankind's lord and owner. This was promised and prophecied by God after the transgression of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:15. But assuming this role means that Jesus takes responsibility for whatever sins mankind has or will commit. If a child of mine played with matches and burned down a house I might have to pay for the damage. Similarly, as a responsible father (Isaiah 9:6), Jesus has paid for our sins to his own cost.
Reply

Insaanah
02-19-2011, 11:48 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
Someone who is put in charge of a company of men, for example a government official or an army officer, might well be punished for the actions of those for whom he has oversight. Parents may get into trouble if their young child for which they are responsible causes criminal damage. My son once was on the jury in a court case involving a serious fraud that had caused a great financial loss to a company. A man was being held accountable for this, not because of any of any fraudulent dealings on his part, but because he should have been in a position to prevent the fraud commited by others with responsible oversight.
Applying these analogies, you are saying that Jesus (peace be upon him) should have been in a position to prevent all humanity from sinning but neglected this duty of his, so he was punished by God for this negligence, lack of oversight, failure of duty and huge sin on his part. If I'm correct, you believe that Jesus (peace be upon him) is divine, a secondary god...I never heard of a sinful god before...
Reply

Hiroshi
02-19-2011, 02:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Insaanah

Applying these analogies, you are saying that Jesus (peace be upon him) should have been in a position to prevent all humanity from sinning but neglected this duty of his, so he was punished by God for this negligence, lack of oversight, failure of duty and huge sin on his part. If I'm correct, you believe that Jesus (peace be upon him) is divine, a secondary god...I never heard of a sinful god before...
The analogy serves to show that someone may be in the position where they have to make up for the shortcomings of someone else. Another way to view this is the scenario when a company runs into financial difficulties and is taken over by another. Through no fault of its own, the company doing the takeover may have to suffer heavy losses in order to cover all of the first company’s debts and to keep it trading. In a similar way, Jesus has paid off all our debts so that we can have a clean standing before God.
Reply

Insaanah
02-19-2011, 02:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
Another way to view this is the scenario when a company runs into financial difficulties and is taken over by another. Through no fault of its own, the company doing the takeover may have to suffer heavy losses in order to cover all of the first company’s debts and to keep it trading. In a similar way, Jesus has paid off all our debts so that we can have a clean standing before God.
So God ran into difficulties forgiving people, so Jesus (peace be upon him) had to take over and suffer heavy loss due to God's ineptness...

Glory be to Allah...
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-19-2011, 03:37 PM
You have hit the nail on the head regarding my main issue with Christianity - Vicarious redemption; that you can escape personal responsibility for your wrongs by causing, endorsing, or accepting the suffering of another. No matter how you try to dress it up, that is the central doctrine of the Christian religion. The article also speaks to other objections I've long held, that belief trumps good works (God cares more about you worshiping him and believing in him than being a good person - this one also applies to Islam) and that pain and suffering is required for forgiveness. How anyone can see this god as anything but a jealous bloodthirsty tyranical monster I have never been able to fathom.
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-19-2011, 03:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
Jesus has paid off all our debts so that we can have a clean standing before God.
And since he did this proactively and since his sacrifice can erase all sin, we should sin all we can, for the more we sin the more Jesus' sacrifice is worth. Jesus is the Lord. And therefore sin brings glory to the lord.

Show me the flaw in that logic.
Reply

Ramadhan
02-19-2011, 04:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by
(God cares more about you worshiping him and believing in him than being a good person - this one also applies to Islam)

I'm sure you were involved in some other previous discussions that has been explained to you that believing in Allah alone does not "save".
Here let me remind you again:
There are numerous ayats in the Qur'an that clearly establish the conditions for those who will be among the lucky ones in the hereafter is:
"Those who believe and do good deeds"

either one is not sufficient.

Again, for the umpteenth time, let me ask you: what exactly have you learnt about Islam since joining this forums in oct 2006 that you did not even know (or maybe you actually pretend to not know) such basic tenet in Islam.
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-20-2011, 01:50 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
There are numerous ayats in the Qur'an that clearly establish the conditions for those who will be among the lucky ones in the hereafter is:
"Those who believe and do good deeds"
Placing belief at par with kindness (Christians do the same - and I find it distasteful, but that's just me). And "good deeds" is usually defined as obedience to God (such as "believe and keep his word"), rather than kindness and empathy towards one fellow humans.

Again, for the umpteenth time, let me ask you: what exactly have you learnt about Islam since joining this forums
From Woodrow and some other muslims I have learned a lot of things. From you and your ilk I have learned that Islam can be just as divisive and tribal as the Christianity I grew up with.
Reply

Ramadhan
02-20-2011, 03:14 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by
Placing belief at par with kindness (Christians do the same - and I find it distasteful, but that's just me). And "good deeds" is usually defined as obedience to God (such as "believe and keep his word"), rather than kindness and empathy towards one fellow humans.

Please tell us a single verse from the Qur'an that excludes "kindness and empathy towards one fellow humans" from "do good deeds"

As this is new to me. It seems you know something that not even the most learned of Qur'an tafseeri know, and not even that the prophet Muhammad SAW explained and taught.

Otherwise I regard it as another of your baseless claims (ie. lies) against Islam.


format_quote Originally Posted by
From Woodrow and some other muslims I have learned a lot of things. From you and your ilk I have learned that Islam can be just as divisive and tribal as the Christianity I grew up with.
You are a guest in this Islamic forums. A good guest would not normally say baseless claims and lies against the guests or guests' religions.
Those that do are not very good guests. They are rude and obnoxious.
Br. Woodrow has been very patient with such obnoxious guests, unfortunately I am not as patient with b.s.
Oh by the way, from you and your ilk in this forum I have the notion of atheists as obnoxious people strengthened.

Haven't you noticed that when you ask questions (in past threads), I always answered helpfully, but I will take stand against those who purposefully spew lies, especially against Islam.
Reply

siam
02-21-2011, 08:02 AM
"God cares more about you worshiping him and believing in him than being a good person - this one also applies to Islam"

This statement cannot properly apply to Islam, as the whole purpose of believing in One God is so that we will follow his guidance(Quran) and do good. That is why "blind belief" is not of much use since one should use intelligence and reason to have conviction---in order for that conviction to have a motivating force.

I do not feel that belief in One God requires blind faith alone.

Original sin---is another Christian theory that disturbs me----unlike the trinity, original sin has ramifications on how Christians interact with others and/or understand human nature.

Perhaps, according to the Christian understanding of human nature---one would be considered guilty until proven innocent........
Reply

Hiroshi
02-21-2011, 08:56 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Insaanah

So God ran into difficulties forgiving people, so Jesus (peace be upon him) had to take over and suffer heavy loss due to God's ineptness...

Glory be to Allah...
I can't see why you would view this as "ineptness" on the part of God. God chooses to be a God of justice. And divine justice required a balancing of the scales. In Genesis 2:17 God tells Adam that if he sins then he will die. Does God go back on his word? Surah 19:71 says that all must either enter into hell or cross a slippery bridge over hell (depending on how one interprets the verse) and states: "this is with your Lord, a Decree which must be accomplished." God does not make a decree of justice only to afterwards disregard it.
Reply

Hiroshi
02-21-2011, 09:20 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
And since he did this proactively and since his sacrifice can erase all sin, we should sin all we can, for the more we sin the more Jesus' sacrifice is worth. Jesus is the Lord. And therefore sin brings glory to the lord.

Show me the flaw in that logic.
The willful, knowing and unrepentant practice of sin is not forgiven (Matthew 12:32; Mark 3:29; 1 John 5:16). Hebrews 6:4-6 explains: "It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance." (NIV) And 1 Thessalonians 4:7 says: "God called us, not with allowance for uncleaness, but in connection with sanctification." (NWT)
Reply

Predator
02-21-2011, 10:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Placing belief at par with kindness (Christians do the same - and I find it distasteful, but that's just me). And "good deeds" is usually defined as obedience to God (such as "believe and keep his word"), rather than kindness and empathy towards one fellow humans.
No kindness or empathy ?????


The Noble Qur'an 3:159
And by the Mercy of Allah, you dealt with them gently. And had you been severe and harsh-hearted, they would have broken away from about you; so pass over (their faults), and ask (Allah's) Forgiveness for them; and consult them in the affair. Then when you have taken a decision, put your trust in Allah, certainly, Allah loves those who put their trust (in Him).

The Noble Qur'an 42:43
And verily, whosoever shows patience and forgives that would truly be from the things recommended by Allah.

The Noble Qur'an 31:17-19
And turn not your face away from men with pride, nor walk in insolence through the earth. Verily, Allah likes not each arrogant boaster.
And be moderate (or show no insolence) in your walking, and lower your voice. Verily, the harshest of all voices is the voice (braying) of the ass.

Hadith - Muslim & Bukhari
"Allah is not kind to him who is not kind to people."

Hadith - Tirmidhi, Saheeh: Related by Aboo Daawood (no. 4177) and at-Tirmidhee (no. 1877).

"He who does not thank people does not thank Allah."

Hadith - Abu Dawud and Tirmidhi
"Those who are kind and considerate to Allah's creatures, Allah bestows His kindness and affection on them. Show kindness to the creatures on the earth so that Allah may be kind to you."


The Noble Qur'an 4:19
O ye who believe! ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness that ye may take away part of the dower ye have given them except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing and Allah brings about through it a great deal of good.

Hadith - Tirmidhi
"The most perfect of the believers is the best of you in character, and the best of you are those among you who are best to their wives."


Hadith - Sahih Bukhari, Book 71, Ch. 16, No. 2025
Narrated 'Aisha (r.a.): "Allah's Messenger said, "Be calm, O 'Aisha! Allah loves that, one should be kind and lenient in all matters."



Naidamar is right , you've been here a long time and yet you dont seem to have gained an understanding on what Islam is all about . You need to go back and start all over again
Reply

Sojourn
02-25-2011, 01:52 AM
This is a caricature of Christian belief.

Not all actions are the same, at often times a sincere "I'm sorry" satisfies for the wrong done. Other times however, a sincere "I'm sorry" is not sufficient. If I am moved by sincere guilt after intentionally killing your family member, saying sorry is not sufficient! Even after recognizing wrong done, and apologizing for it, the wrong must be set right. Under Shariah the punishment is death, in most Western countries it's life in prison. So we have to understand that (1) not all actions are of the same degree and (2) and wrong actions need to be righted (satisfied for.)

Now if we can understand murder is worse than a passing insult, what can be made of Adam's sin? It must first be acknowledged that Christians and Muslims have a similar view with regards to the story. Adam was created by God, lived in a close relationship with God, (in Islam he is said to have lived in paradise), and that after his sin, he was cast out of heaven and forced to suffer the difficulties of life. What Muslims miss, is that the state of Adam prior to his fall, was different to his state after his fall.

We Christians of the West say God gave Adam three gifts, one natural, one preternatural, and one supernatural. The natural gift was existence, the preternatural gift was the good ordering Adam's body and soul, such that he suffered no pain, and could potential live for years on end. Lastly, God gave him a supernatural gift, and this was the most important of all. The relationship Adam had with God was mystical and spiritual. He was in union with God spiritually, and for a creature to be in union with the Creator, this requires a supernatural gift. We call this gift sanctifying grace. When Adam sinned, he lost all but the first gift, the gift of existence. So in essence, mankind lost that relationship with God that is integral to be with him in paradise. As an aside, its for this reason death in the Old Testament is very gloomy, even negative to speak of. Where as after Christ, death is almost something to be looked forward to.

So the question is, since man is need of sanctifying grace to be with God, and therefore be saved, how can he restore it if he lost it? This is the real question Muslims miss. The answer is nothing. No act of a human person can satisfy God, since He is all perfect and infinite. No amount of deeds can be offered to restore us. The sad fact is Islam accepts the fall of man but offers no restoration for it!

You see, the only act that could undue Adams, would have to be a human act, but it would also have to be a perfect act. An act infinite in character, such that it could restore the human race in its entirety. We then realize, that only a God-Man could achieve such an act. A Divine Being that takes on human form, offers an act of sacrifice to abundantly satisfy for the sin of Adam, and ultimately restore the human race. This we firmly proclaim was achieved by Jesus Christ.

Now here is something to ponder over. Christ did not have to die to save us. No, in fact his mere incarnation was sufficient! He literally could have incarnated as an infant and then rose to heaven, and this would have satisfied for the sin of Adam, and all the other since of mankind... past, present, and future! The fact that God chose the the cross shows just how much He really loves us. We therefore utter the famous lines of St John:

We love God, because God loved us first!!!


In Christ,
Sojourn
Reply

Ramadhan
02-25-2011, 04:46 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by
. A Divine Being that takes on human form, offers an act of sacrifice to abundantly satisfy for the sin of Adam, and ultimately restore the human race. This we firmly proclaim was achieved by Jesus Christ.


A god who was one who suddenly had a schizo and multiple personality beget a son and split into wandering spirit, and who decided to sacrifice his son to himself to forgive humans?

a nice pagan story there! ;D
Reply

LavaDog
02-25-2011, 04:53 AM
I always found the biggest flaw with christianity is that it constantly chips away at its own dogma to stay relevant. If a religion is the truth then it should not change for the society the society should change for it.
Reply

Hiroshi
02-25-2011, 08:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar



A god who was one who suddenly had a schizo and multiple personality beget a son and split into wandering spirit, and who decided to sacrifice his son to himself to forgive humans?

a nice pagan story there! ;D
Isn't it a fact that, from Moses' time onwards, for many centuries God commanded the Israelites to make sacrifices for the atonement of sins?
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-25-2011, 08:18 PM
Airforce,

Note that all your responding quotes reference kindness and empathy as obedience to god, and not for their own sake. That is my point. It is not being good for the sake of being good, it is being obedient to God, which happens to be telling you to be good. He could just as easily tell you to be bad and that would be followed just as vigorously because it too is obedience to God. The excuse "God says its ok" or "God told me to do it" pops up for this reason. Killing somebody because God told you to doesn't make it any less immoral.
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-25-2011, 08:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sojourn
Not all actions are the same, at often times a sincere "I'm sorry" satisfies for the wrong done.
An "I'm sorry" to who? One of my main issues with Christianity is that it seems to claim that you can make things good with God and God can forgive you for something you did not to God, but to another fellow human. If you slash my tires and then pray for forgiveness from God that doesn't buy me new tires and doesn't in any way make you less responsible.

Jesus is a get out of guilt free card. Vicarious redemption is simply an immoral concept. If you have done something so wrong that you honestly feel you deserve eternal torment in hell, then you shouldn't be looking to get out of it, and certainly not by endorsing the torture and death of an innocent volunteer (Jesus). If you offered to take the place of a convicted killer on death row and die in his place, it would not be just for us to allow that and to declare the killer free of all guilt and set him free.

what can be made of Adam's sin?
Whatever can be made of Adam's sin, should be visited upon Adam, not upon his innocent offspring, and not upon those of us hundreds of generations later. Would it be right to put you in jail because your great great grandfather killed somebody? Of course not.

No act of a human person can satisfy God, since He is all perfect and infinite. No amount of deeds can be offered to restore us.
Which of course is entirely within this God's control. If God is the creator of the universe and all powerful, God can be satisfied with whatever God decides satisfies him. For some odd reason you claim that would be himself performing a ritual of him sending himself in human form to be sacrificed (to himself). How is that really any different than him snapping his fingers and delcaring "I will no longer hold man accountable for his sins"? He's doing that anyway by accepting Jesus (hemself) to pay the price.

And how is it not sadistic for him to want suffering and death as the thing to make him change his mind, as opposed to say good works?

Basically this is the essence of Christianity: God has to create an innocent perfect being (Jesus) and have him tortured and killed, before he can find it in his infinitely loving heart to forgive people and opt not to burn them forever in hell, for something somebody else did before they were born. How is this a mischaracterization? The Muslims have this part right.
Reply

Predator
02-25-2011, 10:46 PM
The excuse "God says its ok" or "God told me to do it" pops up for this reason. Killing somebody because God told you to doesn't make it any less immoral.
Islam doesnt promote violence, bloodshed and brutality since the Qur’an says that Muslims should kill the kuffar wherever they find them


"Kill the mushriqeen (pagans, polytheists, kuffar) where ever you find them." [Al-Qur’an 9:5]
You quote this verse out of context. In order to understand the context, we need to read from

Context of verse is during battlefield verse 1 . It says that there was a peace treaty between the Muslims and the Pagans of Makkah. This treaty was violated by the pagans of Makkah..
A period of four months was given to the Polytheists of Makkah to make amends. Otherwise war would be declared against them. lol,I suppose there will be no action taken if Pyrogylesis treaty were broken


Verse 5 of Surah Taubah says:


"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." [Al-Qur’an 9:5]

This verse is quoted during a battle.

Example of war between America and Vietnam

We know that America was once at war with Vietnam. Suppose the President of America or the General of the American Army told the American soldiers during the war: "Wherever you find the Vietnamese, kill them". Today if I say that the American President said, "Wherever you find the Vietnamese, kill them" without giving the context, I will make him sound like a butcher. But if I quote him in context, that he said it during a war, it will sound very logical, as he was trying to boost the morale of the American soldiers during the war.

, "Kill the Pagans wherever you find them", during a battle to boost the morale of the Muslim soldiers. What the Qur’an is telling Muslim soldiers is, don’t be afraid during battle; wherever you find the enemies kill them.


chapter 9 verse 6 gives the answer to the allegation that Islam promotes violence, brutality and bloodshed. It says:


"If one amongst the pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure that is because they are men without knowledge." [Al-Qur’an 9:6]


The Qur’an not only says that an enemy seeking asylum during the battle should be granted refuge, but also that he should be escorted to a secure place. In the present international scenario, even a kind, peace-loving army General, during a battle, may let the enemy soldiers go free, if they want peace. But which army General will ever tell his soldiers, that if the enemy soldiers want peace during a battle, don’t just let them go free, but also escort them to a place of security?

This is exactly what Allah (swt) says in the Glorious Qur’an to promote peace in the world.

You're starting to sound like those regular Islam hating trolls and gadflies which we get in this forum misquoting verses of the Islam promotes violence, and exhorts its followers to kill those outside the pale of Islam. and show that Islam promotes violence, bloodshed and brutality .
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-25-2011, 11:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Airforce
Islam doesnt promote violence, bloodshed and brutality
That would depend entirely on how we define Islam. You define it as your particular understanding of it, referring to your holy text and hadiths as you see them. Others who claim to practice "Islam" see it differently. To you, they are false muslims, and to them you are. This is also the case with Christianity and any other religion.

As an atheist who does not believe these Gods exist, I do not believe that there is an objective "Islam" or "Christianity", or any other religion for that matter, and I define these religions as the popular understanding of what they are by those who claim to practice them. I am more concerned with what is in the mind of a believer, than what is in the book he carries and claims to follow.

I do sincerely hope that more people come to understand Islam t he way that you do.

"Kill the mushriqeen (pagans, polytheists, kuffar) where ever you find them." [Al-Qur’an 9:5]
You quote this verse out of context. In order to understand the context, we need to read from
I did not quote this verse at all, or any verse for that matter.
Reply

Sojourn
02-26-2011, 01:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar



A god who was one who suddenly had a schizo and multiple personality beget a son and split into wandering spirit, and who decided to sacrifice his son to himself to forgive humans?

a nice pagan story there! ;D
Naidamar,

I've never conversed with you but a little respect is due. Secondly, before you can reject anything, you must first understand it.

We believe the following, God is One Being (Nature) in Three Persons (Hypostasis.) You believe God in One Being in One Person. That is the difference between us. It's wrong to characterize the Trinity as "multiple personality" because we are not talking about personalities, but Persons.

Although the fullness of this truth was revealed by the comming of Christ and the descent of the Holy Spirit, God already revealed something of it in past scripture. Consider the following verse:

"Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah--from the LORD out of the heavens." Genesis 19:24

"The Lord your God is one" so who are these two Lords? You see, some indication is already revealed that although God is one being, He is more than one Hypostasis.


Wa salaam,
Sojourn
Reply

Sojourn
02-26-2011, 01:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by LavaDog
I always found the biggest flaw with christianity is that it constantly chips away at its own dogma to stay relevant. If a religion is the truth then it should not change for the society the society should change for it.
LavaDog,

Ironically that is exactly what attracted me to Orthodox and Catholic Christianity. The monolithic Churches that remain despite the changes in the times.
Reply

Predator
02-26-2011, 08:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
That would depend entirely on how we define Islam. You define it as your particular understanding of it, referring to your holy text and hadiths as you see them. Others who claim to practice "Islam" see it differently.
You only need to look at the Prophet to understand what Islam is all about. Dont look at me or others.


I did not quote this verse at all, or any verse for that matter.
It was obvious you were referring to that verse when you said God commands that we kill innocent people and that its an immoral act. You need to get your facts right . Its actually the "God" of the bible which commands killingof innocents and not the God of the Quran


Ezekiel 9:5-7
"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children.



In contrast the Quran says



005.035. On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it wouldbe as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land

Reply

Sojourn
02-27-2011, 01:26 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
An "I'm sorry" to who? One of my main issues with Christianity is that it seems to claim that you can make things good with God and God can forgive you for something you did not to God, but to another fellow human. If you slash my tires and then pray for forgiveness from God that doesn't buy me new tires and doesn't in any way make you less responsible.
God is transcendent, we can't hurt Him or touch him in any way. Its for this reason that in Christianity, love for God is manifested in loving our neighbor (even our enemy). And harming our neighbor a sign that we are not in God's love. If I harm my neighbor, I must ask God's forgiveness *and* right the wrong I did to my neighbor. It doesn't suffice that I asked God for forgiveness, since sincere forgiveness demands setting things right.

Jesus is a get out of guilt free card.
Certain doctrinal opinions among Christians can give rise to this impression, but it has to be recognized that such opinions are of the minority and run contrary to the tradition.

Vicarious redemption is simply an immoral concept. If you have done something so wrong that you honestly feel you deserve eternal torment in hell, then you shouldn't be looking to get out of it, and certainly not by endorsing the torture and death of an innocent volunteer (Jesus).
I don't understand that second sentence. Humans fall to weakness all the time, havent you regretably hurt someone? Its natural for us to seek restoration after a fall. I'll treat the issue of redemption in the next statement.

If you offered to take the place of a convicted killer on death row and die in his place, it would not be just for us to allow that and to declare the killer free of all guilt and set him free.
This analogy doesn't properly reflect the redemption. A more suiting example is that of a father whose gambling addiction runs his family into debt and ultimate poverty. Even though the evil of squandering money like that is properly the father's fault, the innocent, like his children, still share in his poverty. The Christ-like action would be for a generous doner to pay off the debts and restore the family to an even higher status than they were before.

The key here is that we are, in a sense victims. Our Father Adam squandered something far more valuable than property, and that is the sanctifying grace necessary to have a relationship with God.

Whatever can be made of Adam's sin, should be visited upon Adam, not upon his innocent offspring, and not upon those of us hundreds of generations later. Would it be right to put you in jail because your great great grandfather killed somebody? Of course not.
There is a difference between original sin and actual sin. Many make the mistake of thinking original sin is our inheritence of Adam's personal sin, this is incorrect. Adam's sin is his own, what we inherit, are the consequences of that sin, much like the children in the above example inherited their father's poverty.

St Thomas Aquinas gave another example. He likened the supernatrual and preternatural gifts given to man to that of nobility bestowed on a person. If a King endows a man with nobility, that nobility will be inherited by his offspring. But if the noble should turn on the King, and the King should revoke the man's nobility, than his offspring will also lose the nobility that was at once due to them. And in this, who would say the King is being unjust?

An important point is that original sin means we *lost* something. Sometimes people speak of a "stain" of original sin, but that is a metaphor for what we lost. We lost sanctifying grace, and that is what is necessary for salvation.

Which of course is entirely within this God's control. If God is the creator of the universe and all powerful, God can be satisfied with whatever God decides satisfies him. For some odd reason you claim that would be himself performing a ritual of him sending himself in human form to be sacrificed (to himself). How is that really any different than him snapping his fingers and delcaring "I will no longer hold man accountable for his sins"? He's doing that anyway by accepting Jesus (hemself) to pay the price.
We are well aware that God did not *have* to die on a cross. The theologians have recognized this for a long time! But we have to understand that God is righteous, and that He will seek righteousness. If a wrong is done, God demands it be set right. For God to simply "snap his fingers" would lack justice. Humans don't even act this way! If a man murders another man, do we simply say lets forgive him? No, we too demand justice, because something of the nature of God is imprinted on our hearts.

We come to a dilemma, however. How can we appease a perfect an infinite being? Can prayer, almsigiving, pilgrimages to holy sites, and fasting make appeasement? Absolutely not. Our natural deeds are like filthy rags before God. Don't make the mistake of thinking that man can't merit something from God, it is possible for the man *with* sanctifying grace to merit. But man by himself can do nothing.

If we think about it, we realize it would take a divine act to restore us. But for it to be trully restorative, it would have to be a human act. In a sense, the Divine and human would have to be unified some way. Now this does necessarily entail God incarnating and then being sacrifically killed. The theologians say even one tear running down the infant Christ's cheek would have been sufficient to redeem manking a million times over. The fact that God took on our weakness, and suffered so terribly at the hands of his own creation, shows just how far he would go to rescue us. It really proves that God would do anything for us.

And how is it not sadistic for him to want suffering and death as the thing to make him change his mind, as opposed to say good works?
Dying to rescue one's friends is a good work. It's not sadistic because God does not take pleasure in suffering.

God is immutable, nothing can change His mind since no change exists in Him. He is Pure Eternal Act. This however, is another topic!

Basically this is the essence of Christianity: God has to create an innocent perfect being (Jesus) and have him tortured and killed, before he can find it in his infinitely loving heart to forgive people and opt not to burn them forever in hell, for something somebody else did before they were born. How is this a mischaracterization? The Muslims have this part right.
It's rife with mischaracterizations. The essence of Hell is not fire, but absolute separation from God. When creating us, God did not *have* create us with a supernatural end, so that we may unify with him spiritually (which is heaven.) It was out of the goodness of God that He gave the first humans, the gift of the supernatural life, and this was a gift to be shared by all humans. Instead, our first parents failed and squandered this gift. We *justly* lost the inheritance to this. There is absolutely no way for a finite and imperfect human to appease the infinite and perfect God. No amount of good works would amount to anything in His site. So humans are left with the morose realities of this life, which inlclude sufferings and difficulties, and are ultimately doomed to death and separation from God. It was therefore out of God's goodness and love, that he restored us. The means of our restoration, the cross, was not absolutely necessary. The cross was, as it still is, a sign of contradiction. It was the genius of God that He could take suffering and evil, and turn it into good, thereby restoring mankind it. Those who are restored, are restored to an even higher state than prior to the fall. Such men and women enjoy union with God, can merit from Him, and even their own suffering... meaningless in natural standards... has purpose spiritually. The suffering that the justified undergoe is a means of spiritual growth and aid to others.

Too much can be said on this. It requires a lot of study, reflection, prayer, and fasting.


Wa salaam,
Sojourn
Reply

Ramadhan
02-27-2011, 03:43 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by
Ironically that is exactly what attracted me to Orthodox and Catholic Christianity. The monolithic Churches that remain despite the changes in the times.


The catholic church has not changed?
ROFTL.
Either you really do not know the basic knowledge and history of your own church or you lied.
Reply

Sojourn
02-27-2011, 05:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
The catholic church has not changed?
ROFTL.
Either you really do not know the basic knowledge and history of your own church or you lied.
Or perhaps, as you typically do, you have failed to understand something.
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-27-2011, 05:38 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Airforce
You only need to look at the Prophet to understand what Islam is all about. Dont look at me or others.
It doesn't matter at all to me what the Prophet said or meant or what holy books say or originally meant. I only care about what the given believer thinks they said and meant, and how they interpret it, because THAT is the basis of their actions and attitudes.

It was obvious you were referring to that verse when you said God commands that we kill innocent people
I referred to no quote because the quotes are irrelevant. All that is relevant is that there are people who call themselves muslims who do believe they are to kill innocent people. I support you in pushing for your view of Islam to be dominant and to have their view of Islam known as false Islam. But that is a battle of ideas and really has little to do with what the prophet originally may have meant.
Reply

Ramadhan
02-27-2011, 05:52 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by
Or perhaps, as you typically do, you have failed to understand something.
I see that you are backtracking.
You claimed that catholic dogma never changed, here's just a tiny bit evidence against your claim:

1 . Prayers for the dead . …………-------------------……300 A.D.
2. Making the sign of the cross ………………………… …300 A.D.
3. Veneration of angels & dead saints …………---------…….375 A.D.
4. Use of images in worship………………………………… . 375 A.D.
5. The Mass as a daily celebration……………………………… 394 A.D.
6 Beginning of the exaltation of Mary; the term, "Mother of God" applied a Council of Ephesus……………. .----------------------------------------- 431 A.D.
7 Extreme Unction (Last Rites)……………………………… ..526 A.D.
8. Doctrine of Purgatory-Gregory 1…………………………… .593 A.D..
9. Prayers to Mary & dead saints ……………………………… .600 A.D.
10. Worship of cross, images & relics ……………………… … 786 A.D.
11 Canonization of dead saints ………………………………… ..995 A.D.
12. Celibacy of priesthood …………………………………… …1079 A.D.
13. The Rosary ……………………………………………… … 1090 A.D.
14. Indulgences ……………………………………………… …..1190 A.D.
15. Transubstantiation-Innocent III …………………………… 1215 A.D.
16. Auricular Confession of sins to a priest …………………… 1215 A.D.
17. Adoration of the wafer (Host)…………………………… .. 1220 A.D.
18. Cup forbidden to the people at communion …………………..1414 A.D.
19. Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma……………………………..1439 A.D.
20. The doctrine of the Seven Sacraments confirmed …………….1439 A.D.
21 Tradition declared of equal authority with Bible by Council of Trent…………………………………………----------------… 1545 A.D.
22. Apocryphal books added to Bible ………------------……….1546 A.D.
23. Immaculate Conception of Mary……………………………….1854 A.D.
24, Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals, proclaimed by the Vatican Council ……………… 1870 A.D.
25. Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascension into heaven shortly after her death) ……………………………-----------------------------------……1950 A.D.
26. Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church……………………… 1965 A.D.
Reply

Ramadhan
02-27-2011, 05:55 AM
I like this best from power hungry popes:
The Catholic Church did not adopt the doctrine of papal infallibility until late in the 19th century. Pius IX issued the doctrine.
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-27-2011, 06:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sojourn
This analogy doesn't properly reflect the redemption. A more suiting example is that of a father whose gambling addiction runs his family into debt and ultimate poverty. Even though the evil of squandering money like that is properly the father's fault, the innocent, like his children, still share in his poverty. The Christ-like action would be for a generous doner to pay off the debts and restore the family to an even higher status than they were before.
I say the death row analogy is more apt, because the price being paid is not "giving some money to lift somebody out of poverty", it is the torture and death of an innocent person (Jesus) on the cross. And we are asked to accept that it is done in our name and praise that it was done for us, and that we stand to benefit from it.

Our Father Adam squandered something far more valuable than property, and that is the sanctifying grace necessary to have a relationship with God.
And since this God set the whole system up and has ultimate power, he decides what is the "sactifying grace necessary to have a relationship" with him, and he decides that Adam's folly can be inherited to his offspring. God could just as easily declare Adam's offspring unaffected by Adam's fall.

And in this, who would say the King is being unjust?
I would. I believe in egalitarian society and object to the concept of nobility and caste. And I object to inherited sin for the exact same reason.

If a wrong is done, God demands it be set right. For God to simply "snap his fingers" would lack justice.
Would it lack justice any more than God allowing one person to pay for the wrong of another and then consider that other free of all moral responsibility for their wrong? Sending your manifested human form to go through a death ritual vs snapping your fingers; Both are rituals. Both have nothing to do with holding responsible the person who actually committed the wrong.

If a man murders another man, do we simply say lets forgive him? No, we too demand justice
And as I wrote, we demand justice from the murderer, not an innocent scapegoat.

We come to a dilemma, however. How can we appease a perfect an infinite being?
However he decides to be appeased.

If we think about it, we realize it would take a divine act to restore us. But for it to be trully restorative, it would have to be a human act.
Only if god wanted that to be the case.

Now this does necessarily entail God incarnating and then being sacrifically killed
Which is a completely sadistic condition for this God to set.

Dying to rescue one's friends is a good work.
Not when you are the one demanding the death in order to forgive somebody of something. Also, note that Jesus didn't stay dead, but rose again. Not really much of a sacrifice then. Jesus didn't truly die for your sins. At worst, Jesus had a bad long weekend for your sins.

It's not sadistic because God does not take pleasure in suffering.
The bible does not give me that impression at all. He seems to take great pleasure in visiting all kinds of horrors upon humanity, from swallowing a man with a whale to turning a lady into a pillar of salt to slaughtering all the innocent first born sons of Egypt to flooding the whole world. This God is most certainly not adverse to suffering.
Reply

Sojourn
02-27-2011, 06:25 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar

I see that you are backtracking.
You claimed that catholic dogma never changed, here's just a tiny bit evidence against your claim:
Yawn... plagiarizing protestant material... so original!

Do you know what a dogma is? Many of those things on the list aren't dogma. The list is based on false assumptions and rife with errors.

Just to name a few off the top of my head.... even the Jews prior to Christ prayed for the dead, mass was celebrated daily since apostolic times (see Acts), celibacy is of apostolic origin...


How about you pick one, start a topic on it, and we can discuss it :)
Reply

Sojourn
02-27-2011, 06:30 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
I like this best from power hungry popes:
The Catholic Church did not adopt the doctrine of papal infallibility until late in the 19th century. Pius IX issued the doctrine.
Just because a doctrine was defined on a certain day doesn't mean it was invented. The doctrine of Papal infallibility is Biblical and rooted in tradition. Pope Leo the Great spoke of it over a thousand years ago.
Reply

Predator
02-28-2011, 06:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
It doesn't matter at all to me what the Prophet said or meant or what holy books say or originally meant. I only care about what the given believer thinks they said and meant, and how they interpret it, because THAT is the basis of their actions and attitudes.

So you'r e taking the black sheep and painting all Muslims with the same brush , just like the zionist media

Similarly i can care only about what the atheist Mussolini did and call all you atheist as animals ?

But that is a battle of ideas and really has little to do with what the prophet originally may have meant.
No , you dont know what you're talking about. We all got the message as to what the Prophet meant
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-28-2011, 09:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Airforce
So you'r e taking the black sheep
No, I concern myself with all of the sheep and all of their mindsets. I did not say they are all the same. They each must be dealt with individually.

But yes, special attention must be paid to the violent and hateful ones because they are more dangerous than the peaceful and tolerant ones. Both are Muslims because both see themselves as Muslims and follow what they think is the directives of God as spoken through Mohammed.

Similarly i can care only about what the atheist Mussolini did and call all you atheist as animals ?
You would have a very interesting point to make, and one I would want to hear, if you could show that what you object to in Mussolini is a direct result of his atheism (I didn't even know Musolini was an atheist. Was he?)

No , you dont know what you're talking about. We all got the message as to what the Prophet meant
Different Muslims get different messages from it. Which is why, as I just said, it is important to know the particular views of the particular muslim (or other person) you are dealing with, and not some obscure words in a text or doctrinal understanding that he may not agree with or have even read.
Reply

YieldedOne
03-01-2011, 07:12 PM
Personally, I think what's "flawwed" about Christianity is that it doesn't really keep to what Jesus himself (historically speaking) most likely genuinely taught! If we stuck to that, we'd be a lot better off.

------------------

Torah-asserted, Jesus-affirmed Commandments from God
"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

Torah-asserted, Jesus-affirmed Criteria for "Loving Your Neighbor As Yourself"(Leviticus 19:9-18)
1) When you gain from your work, don't just think about yourself. Think of the poor and the wayfarer.
2) Don't steal.
3) Don't operate by false pretenses or motives.
4) Don't lie to each other.
5) Don't oppress or rob your neighbor.
6) Don't mistreat the physically (or mentally) challenged.
7) Don't promote injustice or partiality. Judge righteously.
8) Don't slander others.
9) Don’t threaten the life of your neighbors.
10) Don't hate your brother (or sister) "in your heart."
11) Don't take vengeance for yourself.
12) Don't hold a grudge against your neighbor.


The "New" Commandment from Jesus...
"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another."
"This is my command: Love each other."

Verification of Jesus' teachings by His followers...
"For this is the message that you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another." --1 John 3:11

For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” --Galatians 5:13-14

The Core Message of Jesus as God's Prophet and Messenger:
Human beings are to express singular worship of and submission to the One Uncreated Creator by a) thanksgiving, adoration and glorification to the Creator and b) works of loving-kindness and compassion to others and ourselves. In this, we are also to consecrate ourselves and be holy, compassionate, merciful, and loving because our Creator is holy, compassionate, merciful and loving.
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
03-01-2011, 07:17 PM
Robert Ingersoll and he 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.
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-01-2011, 10:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
I say the death row analogy is more apt, because the price being paid is not "giving some money to lift somebody out of poverty", it is the torture and death of an innocent person (Jesus) on the cross. And we are asked to accept that it is done in our name and praise that it was done for us, and that we stand to benefit from it.
Your description of the Christians understanding of salvation is more caricature than careful analysis. I take it you haven't seen this post that where I responded to a similar statement you made on another thread:


format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Since you are a reader, I bid you to read two helpful books on this subject:

The Atonement Debate: Papers from the London symposium on the theology of the atonement, contributions by Steve Chalke, Chris Wright, I. Howard Marshal, and Joel Green (Derek Tidball, Daivdi Hilborn, and Justin Thacker, general editors).

Salvation and the Cross, by David A Brondos

Over the course of time, Christians have actually expressed our understanding of the mechanism of salvation in a variety of different ways. What you wrote above comes most closely to being expressed by those who would hold to the Penal Substitution theory generally creditted to Anselm. And while that is the dominant view today, especially among Protestants, for a 1000 years before Anselm other views were dominant and many of those are still expressed today. The thing a non-Christian needs to understand when reading these view, is that they are not (or at least should not be seen) as in competition with one another. One is not right, thereby declaring all others wrong. They at best help to inform our thinking and understanding of what it is that scripture is saying. But scripture, not these writings of theologians, is the source of truth. The job of the theologian is to help clarify that which might remain unclear in the reader's mind after reading the scripture. If he doesn't do that, then find a theologian that does. So, if the penal substitution theory doesn't make clear what it is that you read in scripture as to how God works, then put Anselm and Luther down and instead pick up a real classic like Gregory Nyssa or a modern writer like N.T. Wright.
Reply

IAmZamzam
03-17-2011, 07:05 PM
Grace Seeker: Whether one subscribes to the actual penal substitution doctrine or not makes no difference whatsoever, as none of the alternative doctrines remove the problems I spoke of. They all involve God going to unnecessary and inconsistent lengths to avoid the simple act of mere forgiveness and label punishment or torture of an innocent man as forgiveness or atonement in some way or other. It's just hair-splitting. And if anything in the text should be clear after reading it then you'd think it would be the very central and most important of all doctrines.

Pygoscelis: I would appreciate it a great deal if you would stop pretending that the existence of disagreement makes all dissenting parties' viewpoints equally likely to be valid and equally moot. How would you like it if someone here did the same thing to you about evolution? Just said, "Oh well, that's your interpretation and some scientists have disagreed, who's to say who's right?" It's not as simple as that, is it? There is literally nothing in the world, however certain, that has not had somebody at some point vociferously arguing that it is not true. What matters is whose position is the most rational and likely interpretation. Religion does not hold a monopoly in the "people misusing, misunderstanding, and misquoting to justify their own atrocious actions against the taught philosophy" department. Anything in the world that people feel strongly about does the same, and if you're going to brush off with extreme insouciance a mainstream viewpoint that can be very easily demonstrated to be true just because it's not the only viewpoint then you'll have to be fair and do the same with everything else: the brutal and anti-Marxist variation that the Chinese government uses as Communism, abortion clinic bombers and regular pro-lifers, Nietzsche and Hitler's weird redefinition of his ideas, etc. If you can demonstrate for us how our own interpretation of these Koranic verses about killing is not obviously true then by all means do so. Otherwise don't make believe that it isn't or that it doesn't matter. Truth always matters, especially when it comes to life or death issues. You talk the talk, you walk the walk.
Reply

Fivesolas
03-17-2011, 07:16 PM
If the OP was done in good taste, I might have actually responded to it.
Reply

Fivesolas
03-17-2011, 07:21 PM
I would also suggest that if someone wants to try to refute the doctrine of the Trinity, at least articulate it from a Christian source....Robert Ingersoll...really? lol
Reply

IAmZamzam
03-17-2011, 07:53 PM
That is a pure ad hominem attack. It doesn't matter one whit who said it, only what was said.
Reply

IAmZamzam
03-17-2011, 07:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fivesolas
If the OP was done in good taste, I might have actually responded to it.
What exactly qualifies as good taste? How does taste even enter into it? Would any exposure of the doctrine's nonsensical nature have been distasteful or is it the way I decided to put my exposure?

But no one is putting any pressure on you. In fact, no one asked. One less response means less finger strain and wasted time for me.
Reply

IAmZamzam
03-17-2011, 08:25 PM
Pygoscelis, I just found this quote of yours in another thread:

I get to see how these believers think, and interact with them and clear up misunderstandings about them. I originally came here for this purpose, following the attack on 9/11. A lot of misinformation was going around at that time and I (and I think many others) came to boards such as this to clear them up. I have learned in my time on these boards (and also through in-person conversations with muslims) that much of it is indeed misinformation, including some of it that I didn't think was. I have also learned that some of what I expected was misinformation is in fact true.
So despite "learning" what a misconception these passages were you still refuse to accept what you've already learned? Did you just forget? What exactly did you learn really was "true" and not misinformation? The usual passages that are constantly exposed as misinformation are the ones you quoted, I don't see what the rest would be. It seems to me that you'll take any position necessary, however inconsistent to ones you've taken before, in order to still remain on imaginary vantage ground you can use to scorn religion as backwards, primitive bruja-stick waving superstition. When something seems to you to agree with this viewpoint you accept it wholeheartedly without mentioning any perceived effects, yet when it doesn't, or even if it doesn't make religion look bad in any way at all, you just shrug it off as something that people disagree on and what difference does it make who's right when it causes so much trouble? Either you have learned that all that about Islam teaching oppression and murder is a misconception or you haven't. You can't just shift your ground between the two positions whenever you feel like it. Personally, I doubt very much that you've learned much of anything at all on this board, or that if you have then you still won't immediately discard the information the instant doing so would spell another opportunity to use the word "tribalism" and feel superior. If it's all celestial teapots to you then why take it seriously enough to debate it at all? Would you honestly spend this much time at that forum (I forget its name) where everyone believes they're vampires?
Reply

Fivesolas
03-18-2011, 02:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
That is a pure ad hominem attack. It doesn't matter one whit who said it, only what was said.
I just found it hilarious that an avowed agnostic was used as source material for describing the doctrine of the Trinity. How about I get some atheists to set up what Islam teaches and then try to refute those teachings? That likely would not be acceptable would it? And I am not trying to discredit the man's argument by attacking his character. I am pointing out that an agnostic is hardly an authority to speak on the doctrine of the Trinity.

As to the distastefulness of the OP, it hardly of the nature that engenders respectful dialogue. I am merely pointing that out. I am happy to discuss any subject with anyone at any time.
Reply

JPR
03-18-2011, 02:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
And since he did this proactively and since his sacrifice can erase all sin, we should sin all we can, for the more we sin the more Jesus' sacrifice is worth. Jesus is the Lord. And therefore sin brings glory to the lord. Show me the flaw in that logic.

You're standing on train tracks and the train is coming for you but you are mesmerized by it and you can't move, just waiting for that train to run you over, someone sees you and pushes you at the last minute off the train tracks and loses his life by doing so. I mean, you were a goner, dead for sure but you got saved by this man who sacrified his life for you.

What is your reaction? Will you attend the funeral, thank the man's family, apologize to it, give them money? Are you going to keep playing on that train track to "honor" his sacrifice?

By your own logic you're gonna play in front of every train waiting for someone to give his life to save you. There's the flaw.
Reply

Pygoscelis
03-18-2011, 02:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JPR
You're standing on train tracks and the train is coming for you but you are mesmerized by it and you can't move, just waiting for that train to run you over, someone sees you and pushes you at the last minute off the train tracks and loses his life by doing so. I mean, you were a goner, dead for sure but you got saved by this man who sacrified his life for you.

What is your reaction? Will you attend the funeral, thank the man's family, apologize to it, give them money? Are you going to keep playing on that train track to "honor" his sacrifice?

By your own logic you're gonna play in front of every train waiting for someone to give his life to save you. There's the flaw.
A few problems with this:

1. The man who pushed me out of the way didn't himself send the train or tie me to the track (with the provision that if I believed in his ghost stories and told him I loved him he'd untie me).

2. The man who pushed me out of the way didn't have any other means of saving me. And this was not self imposed.

3. The man who pushed me out of the way didn't have foreknowledge from before I was born that I would go to the track.

4. The man who pushed me out of the way didn't create me with said foreknowledge.

5. The man who pushed me out of the way put himself at considerable risk to rescue me and indeed perished forever because of it. He was not omnipotent and did not simply resurrect himself a few days later.

6. The man who pushed me out of the way did so without demanding anything of me first. He did not demand that I obey him or worship him or approve of suffering of any sort. He was more concerned with my safety than my beliefs.

5. The man who pushed me out of the way didn't do so before I was in danger, and his act of pushing me out of the way does not pr-emptively rescue me from all other danger (provided I praise him). If it did then I COULD play in front of every train I saw and it WOULD bring more credit to him. Just like those handlers of poisonous snakes claim, my saviour would keep me safe.

That last one was the point I was making. But you've brought up the rest with your analogy.

As for Yahya's posts, he resurrected a thread after it was dead for two weeks (fitting given how this is a thread about Jesus) and I don't really remember what he's referring to and don't have the time right now to read the whole thread.
Reply

JPR
03-18-2011, 04:25 PM
Pygo, I think you focus on the wrong aspect. It's not so much about who dies for you, but what can you do to avoid that from happening. Since it has already happened, what can you do not to make it happen again?

God never asked you to only believe in Him. The commandment was to "love Him". So many christians believe in God but don't act on it, just as much as many muslims believe in Allah but don't act on that love! If you love you mom, wife, girlfriend, won't you give her flowers once in a while, tell her you love her and act in a manner that won't bring pain and sorrow to the person you love?

If you think that by only "believing" in God makes you fit for being saved, then you believe in catholicism and protestantism, not biblical christianity. Biblical christianity requires that you repent (which means a change of attitude, or basically stop sinning), not that you keep doing what you were doing. So, no, you are not providing more glory to Him, because you clearly don't believe in Him, and you clearly don't love Him.

Cheers
Reply

IAmZamzam
03-18-2011, 06:06 PM
JPR, it is precisely because I love God that I refuse to believe that He would ever require anything more than repentance, which you seem to acknowledge in your most recent post. You can't have it both ways. Your train track analogy is false in more ways than either Pygoscelis or myself can possibly keep track of. A more accurate one would be that of someone loosing your bonds after you've been tied to the railroad track and then insisting on using the ropes to tie themselves to it instead of getting both of you out of there because they insist that it's absolutely necessary for someone to get run down, even though you've learned your lesson from your brush with death. Or again, that of a judge sentencing himself to death in a condemned man's place because this is his notion of what constitutes a full pardon. It doesn't jibe, and your attempt to make it do so with a terrible and evasive analogy like you gave suggests to me that you are choosing not to accept this. I certainly hope you didn't come up with such an obvious non-sequitur by accident.
Reply

IAmZamzam
03-18-2011, 06:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fivesolas
I just found it hilarious that an avowed agnostic was used as source material for describing the doctrine of the Trinity. How about I get some atheists to set up what Islam teaches and then try to refute those teachings? That likely would not be acceptable would it? And I am not trying to discredit the man's argument by attacking his character. I am pointing out that an agnostic is hardly an authority to speak on the doctrine of the Trinity.

As to the distastefulness of the OP, it hardly of the nature that engenders respectful dialogue. I am merely pointing that out. I am happy to discuss any subject with anyone at any time.
It doesn't matter who makes an argument, only whether the argument itself is valid. According to you it would be more viable if someone else who wasn't an atheist said exactly the same thing, word for word. That doesn't make any sense. What makes it an ad hominem is that you are judging the argument itself by the person making it.
Reply

Pygoscelis
03-18-2011, 06:38 PM
It is rare that Yahya and I agree about anything, but I agree fully with his last two posts. That's got to say something right there.

God never asked you to only believe in Him. The commandment was to "love Him".
Am I really the only one who finds somebody commanding you to love them (on threat of hell no less) to be disturbing?

The central flaw in Christianity (as opposed to the Judaism that came before it) is vicarious redemption. To accept a "saviour" you need something to be saved from, which means you have to believe you deserve hell: Infinite suffering for something finite you may have done (or that your ancestors did).

You then have to accept that the best, no the only, way to get forgiveness is for pain and death to happen (as opposed to doing good works). You must accept your god is bloodthirsty and vindictive. I think this is what Yahya was getting at.

Then finally you have to accept it as just and moral that somebody ELSE can suffer in your place and absolve you of all moral responsibility for whatever it is you did. And that is just blatantly immoral.

Islam has its flaws but it beats Christianity in this respect by miles.
Reply

JPR
03-18-2011, 06:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
JPR, it is precisely because I love God that I refuse to believe that He would ever require anything more than repentance, which you seem to acknowledge in your most recent post. You can't have it both ways.
To show us the cost of sin, like he asked the Jews in the OT to sacrifice something precious if they sinned. He showed everyone through Jesus and his life how He wanted us to act, and to what extant He loves us. He loves us! You, me, the whole world and He acted on it. That's basically how I see this, although I understand this vision is not at all shared by everyone. My question to you though would be: would you die for your son/daughter? If by dying you could save one person whom you love, would you sacrifice yourself?

I'm not trying to open a debate because I know this could be debated until the end of time!

I'm glad we agree on the fact that we all love God! Except Pygos, but that's ok.
Reply

Pygoscelis
03-18-2011, 06:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JPR
would you die for your son/daughter? If by dying you could save one person whom you love, would you sacrifice yourself?
If he did, it would be superior moral act to what Jesus did, for all of the reasons noted in my post above regarding the rail way savior.
Reply

Fivesolas
03-18-2011, 07:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
It is rare that Yahya and I agree about anything, but I agree fully with his last two posts. That's got to say something right there.



Am I really the only one who finds somebody commanding you to love them (on threat of hell no less) to be disturbing?

The central flaw in Christianity (as opposed to the Judaism that came before it) is vicarious redemption. To accept a "saviour" you need something to be saved from, which means you have to believe you deserve hell: Infinite suffering for something finite you may have done (or that your ancestors did).

You then have to accept that the best, no the only, way to get forgiveness is for pain and death to happen (as opposed to doing good works). You must accept your god is bloodthirsty and vindictive. I think this is what Yahya was getting at.

Then finally you have to accept it as just and moral that somebody ELSE can suffer in your place and absolve you of all moral responsibility for whatever it is you did. And that is just blatantly immoral.

Islam has its flaws but it beats Christianity in this respect by miles.
I do not find it disturbing that God commands us what it right and good. I rather expect that. He is God, not me.

I do need to be saved from going to hell, but its my sins putting me there. Hell is the just recompense for my transgressions. Prior to being reconciled to God, I was a His enemy, a hater of Him, immoral, disobedient to my parents, full of cursing, hateful and hating others, deceitful, a liar, et. I recognize and understand that I am a sinner who has been reconciled to God through Christ Jesus. Without being reconciled to God I would expect to be cast into hell.

I think we can try to help you understand atonement, but I am not sure it is expedient.

Let me ask you, if it could be shown to you that God truly does exist, that He truly made Himself known in the person of Jesus Christ, would you repent of your sins and believe in Him?
Reply

Pygoscelis
03-18-2011, 07:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
If you can demonstrate for us how our own interpretation of these Koranic verses about killing is not obviously true then by all means do so. Otherwise don't make believe that it isn't or that it doesn't matter. Truth always matters, especially when it comes to life or death issues.
It is clear that your interpretation is not obviously true. If it was obviously true, we'd all know it, not just your subset of muslims, and not just muslims. We'd ALL know it. We don't. Most of us (atheists, christians, hindus, buddhists, the other muslims, everybody else) dismiss it as religious belief. So even if it was true, it isn't obviously so.

In your response above, which I have now read, I think you don't understand where I'm coming from. I don't care which interpretation of Islam is the "correct" or "proper" interpretation and I don't care what holy texts actually were originally meant to say, especially if this is not what individual or groups of muslims I'm dealing with actually believe. It is what these people actually believe that drives their actions and ideas. And it is their actions and ideas that effect me. The religion isn't what is written down in some book, even if it is designated holy. The religion is what the people actually believe. And yes, that will vary from person to person, denomination to denomination, and group to group.

This is why I never tell people what they believe and why I frequently ask different "believers" of the "same" religion the same questions. I do get very different answers from different "brothers of the same faith", even on this board. For example, Grace Seeker and this new fellow are not giving consistent responses. And if I do quote passages from holy books (which I almost never do) I do it telling them that it is in the book and asking if they agree with it.

So no, I don't care what your "truth" in Islam is or what the "proper" interpretation is. That is a debate to be had between muslims. I care only what your beliefs are and if and how you are prone to act on them. From my vantage point you are all self deluded (and I expect you all believe the same of me), but some delusions are healthier and more cooperative and peaceful and live and let live than others.
Reply

Pygoscelis
03-18-2011, 07:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fivesolas
I do not find it disturbing that God commands us what it right and good. I rather expect that. He is God, not me.
That isn't what I said, but I also find that disturbing. I decide for myself what is right and good. I do not farm out my moral compass, and bury it beneath obedience to power, which is what you seem to be describing. If God told you to do something that you felt was imoral, would you do it? Trusting that God knows better than you do what is right and good? If you were Abraham, would you be prepared to slaughter your son on God's command? If God told you to, would you commit genocide? Would you become a suicide bomber if you sincerely believed God asked you to?

Hell is the just recompense for my transgressions.
No. It isn't. Whatever you did was finite. Hell is infinite, is it not?

Without being reconciled to God I would expect to be cast into hell.
Let me ask you, if it could be shown to you that God truly does exist, that He truly made Himself known in the person of Jesus Christ, would you repent of your sins and believe in Him?
Of course I would believe he exists if he could be shown to exist.

Would I "repent my sins"? That would entirely depend on who God really was and what he really wanted etc. If he was a friendly and kind God that didn't threaten me with hellfire and cared more about how I treat my fellow beings than if I believe in and obey him, then maybe. But if he was a god like that you have described so far, then no. I hope I would have the moral fortitude to stand against him.

One last query. I am curious if you see us non-believers as being as you claim to have been?

immoral, disobedient to my parents, full of cursing, hateful and hating others, deceitful, a liar
Reply

IAmZamzam
03-18-2011, 10:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JPR
To show us the cost of sin, like he asked the Jews in the OT to sacrifice something precious if they sinned.
I've been over the "animal sacrifice" defense in the OP. I don't want to repeat myself.

Would you die for your son/daughter? If by dying you could save one person whom you love, would you sacrifice yourself?
I don't have any children. Would I sacrifice myself for them if I did? Only if it were truly necessary due to my own mortal limitations preventing me from saving them otherwise--limitations which God does not have. One thing I would certainly never do is abuse myself because "you kids deserve to be smacked and someone's gotta pay for what you did!" I'm sick to death of reiterating that point. You are fully capable of grasping how that's what this is about and are forcing yourself into non-sequiturs and emotional appeals to avoid facing the facts. It is clear that you cannot be reasoned with about this. I am seriously wondering whether there would be any point on wasting any kind of dawah on you at all. You don't even want to hear it, do you?
Reply

IAmZamzam
03-18-2011, 10:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
It is clear that your interpretation is not obviously true. If it was obviously true, we'd all know it, not just your subset of muslims, and not just muslims. We'd ALL know it. We don't. Most of us (atheists, christians, hindus, buddhists, the other muslims, everybody else) dismiss it as religious belief. So even if it was true, it isn't obviously so.
You should be ashamed of yourself. Do you really underestimate the human adeptness at missing the obvious that much, or our even greater skill at deceiving ourselves about the obvious?? Have you ever seen anything in the world that's so obvious no one denies it anyway??

In your response above, which I have now read, I think you don't understand where I'm coming from. I don't care which interpretation of Islam is the "correct" or "proper" interpretation and I don't care what holy texts actually were originally meant to say, especially if this is not what individual or groups of muslims I'm dealing with actually believe. It is what these people actually believe that drives their actions and ideas. And it is their actions and ideas that effect me. The religion isn't what is written down in some book, even if it is designated holy. The religion is what the people actually believe. And yes, that will vary from person to person, denomination to denomination, and group to group.
Okay, then, Pygoscelis, I can play that game too. How if I tell you that I'm not the least bit interested in whether Communist China represents all atheists, only in what they've done? Don't even THINK about diverting the issue to atheism not being a belief system yet again, you know very well that's not what it's about. Should I blame their anti-religious oppression on their own personal atheistic ideas and then shrug it off if you try to protest?

But of course trying to get you to put yourself in someone else's shoes has never worked before and it won't work now because even if you don't cop out with the old "atheism is not a belief system" line you'll find some nitpick or other to use as an excuse to miss the point. So let me spell it out for you: misrepresentation is always a grave issue. Always. If you don't care if we're misrepresented, only in what the misrepresenting parties are doing, then you will have no choice unless you want to be a hypocrite but to think the same thing about every party out there, including all those in the world you personally belong to. Can you name me a single occasion on which it makes no difference if people's entire worldview is being thoroughly (and in many cases, deceptively) misrepresented? Does the existence of disagreement somehow make the issue unimportant? Make an effort at an answer.

So no, I don't care what your "truth" in Islam is or what the "proper" interpretation is. That is a debate to be had between muslims. I care only what your beliefs are and if and how you are prone to act on them. From my vantage point you are all self deluded (and I expect you all believe the same of me), but some delusions are healthier and more cooperative and peaceful and live and let live than others.
I love how "truth" and "proper" are in quotation marks automatically, implying that the words have no real application to begin with, as though the Koranic passages in question were as impenetrable and ambiguous as Nostradamus. Because we all know that "fight with those who fight with you but do not attack first" is the most cryptic statement ever uttered, and what do you care if some people take it to mean "attack first and slay anyone who disagrees with you", because after all, who's to say whose interpretation is right? You make me sick to my stomach.

Learn to appreciate the value of the virtue of truth!
Reply

Pygoscelis
03-18-2011, 10:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Naw. But you should be for continually taking such a bellicose stance. I know you want me to be ashamed of myself and that you think I'm rude, stupid, make you sick to your stomach, etc. I get it. You don't like me and what you think I represent. You don't have to. I don't care. But perhaps you could write with some civility anyway.

Do you really underestimate the human adeptness at missing the obvious that much
If most people miss something, it wasn't obvious. That is what obvious means.

How if I tell you that I'm not the least bit interested in whether Communist China represents all atheists, only in what they've done?
That is fine.

Don't even THINK about diverting the issue to atheism not being a belief system yet again
It isn't one. You seem to know that. It seems to bother you. I can't grasp why.

Should I blame their anti-religious oppression on their own personal atheistic ideas
Sure, if they do it in the name of what they call "atheism". That has nothing to do with me or my beliefs (or lack thereof).

If you don't care if we're misrepresented
Why do you think I don't care if you're misrepresented? Distinguish yourself if you like. I don't see all people who call themselves "muslims" as the same. That is why I keep asking different ones the same questions (which you then get annoyed at me for, because I'm "not learning anything"). I thought I made that explicit in my last post. Re-read it maybe?

I love how "truth" and "proper" are in quotation marks automatically, implying that the words have no real application to begin with
They don't, from my vantage point. There is no truth in Islam. It is all fantasy and delusion as far as I can tell. Hence, me being a non-muslim (and atheist for that matter).
Reply

3rddec
03-18-2011, 11:18 PM
Pygoscelis i posted a message for you in another thread i didnt realise you were in here lol. I can feel some of your struggle for in truth an Athiest can struggle as much with their faith as much as a believer. If you want to find God you first need to be Honest with yourself. What are you afraid that a belief in God may ask of you. What part of yourself are you afraid of loosing and why. Forget about all the flag waving zealots ; believe what i say if you can ; you can have a personal relationship with God and still ask questions. I spent 30 years in what I now call the wilderness until I took one step in faith and finally admitted how I was creating so many wonderfull arguements just to fool myself and admitted to myself what was really going on. And no I didnt fall of my horse or have some Flash of light or get carried away by the spirit in some religious meeting but a slow gradual putting together of all the little messages the spirit was sending me. Don't let pride or ego get between you and your TRUE FATHER . I agree with the muslims on that point you do have to submit yourself to Gods will ; he will only ask of you what you can give and will strenghen you overtime. You have to surrender yourself to God so he can love you; he is no rapist.

I would be happy to talk further with you but have no idea how to get private chat in this forum. I hope I haven't come across to spiritual; I am not some Praise the Lord fanatic but I have really felt God working in my life lately. If I could do some sort of spock startreck mind meld so you could understand I would.

I do hope you can find what I feel you are looking for; try to look beyond the Loudest singers and the brightest peacocks in whatever religion you try to explore but look at the humble simple believers ; listen to their story ; thats where you will find truth.

Love and Respect
Reply

IAmZamzam
03-18-2011, 11:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
If most people miss something, it wasn't obvious. That is what obvious means.
No. It isn't. "Obvious" means that something is plain enough so that one doesn't have an excuse to miss it. People will always be capable anyway. People can deny anything. You know this. Does the obviousness of the roundness of the earth mean that the Flat Earth Society therefore doesn't really exist?

It isn't one. You seem to know that. It seems to bother you. I can't grasp why.
What bothers me is the way you keep using such an utterly irrelevant fact as an evasion, and this occasion is more disturbing than ever, as it proves that no matter how thoroughly I preemptively demonstrate its irrelevance beforehand you will still just completely ignore that, selectively quote me again, and continue right on your merry way like nothing had happened. That is beyond evasive and all the way in the "intellectually dishonest" column.

Sure, if they do it in the name of what they call "atheism". That has nothing to do with me or my beliefs (or lack thereof).
HELLO?! Make the connection...?!

Why do you think I don't care if you're misrepresented? Distinguish yourself if you like. I don't see all people who call themselves "muslims" as the same. That is why I keep asking different ones the same questions (which you then get annoyed at me for, because I'm "not learning anything"). I thought I made that explicit in my last post. Re-read it maybe?
Why do I think that you don't care? Gee, I don't know, maybe it has something to do with your REPEATEDLY TELLING ME YOU DON'T CARE. Just one frickin' post ago, for example, you said, "I don't care which interpretation of Islam is the 'correct' or 'proper' interpretation and I don't care what holy texts actually were originally meant to say, especially if this is not what individual or groups of muslims I'm dealing with actually believe." Now how could I have got the impression from something as subtle as that? I'm afraid your guess is as good as mine.

They don't, from my vantage point. There is no truth in Islam. It is all fantasy and delusion as far as I can tell. Hence, me being a non-muslim (and atheist for that matter).
Whether Islam itself is true does not have any bearing whatsoever on whether a completely black-is-white-and-up-is-down interpretation of what is provably is against is untrue. I don't believe in Buddhism any more than you do but does that have anything to do with the very real truth that the eightfold path described in its scriptures does not endorse murder and any interpretation anyone could have of it that it does it obviously borne out of either ignorance or self-delusion? Would it be excusable for me to brush off someone arguing against that interpretation just because I happen to think Buddhism itself is wrong?

God willing, if I see one more bit of deceptive editing I'm reporting you. That's a promise.
Reply

Pygoscelis
03-19-2011, 03:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
Why do I think that you don't care? Gee, I don't know, maybe it has something to do with your REPEATEDLY TELLING ME YOU DON'T CARE. Just one frickin' post ago, for example, you said, "I don't care which interpretation of Islam is the 'correct' or 'proper' interpretation and I don't care what holy texts actually were originally meant to say, especially if this is not what individual or groups of muslims I'm dealing with actually believe." Now how could I have got the impression from something as subtle as that? I'm afraid your guess is as good as mine.
And what is it you think I don't care about? Maybe its what I said I don't care about instead of this straw man you are clinging to with all your might, causing you such frustration. For the final time, I don't group all muslims (or christians for that matter) as one, which is why I ask the same questions repeatedly (which also seems to bother you). I care about how people are prone to act and what they think and believe. I do not care what a text says, especially if they don't read it, follow it, or interpret it as you do.

God willing, if I see one more bit of deceptive editing I'm reporting you. That's a promise.
This hostile attitude of yours prevents any further discussion.
Reply

Pygoscelis
03-19-2011, 03:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by 3rddec
I can feel some of your struggle for in truth an Athiest can struggle as much with their faith as much as a believer. If you want to find God you first need to be Honest with yourself.
There are some misconceptions you are holding here. I have no interest in "finding God" and my struggle is not with "my faith". I am comfortable with my world view. My struggle, if there is any, is with some (not all) religious people, and the disturbing ideas they hold and actions they take. It is mostly with abrahamic religious people, who are the ones that most often push their religions on others and that I have encountered in my real life having an impact with some disturbing views and agendas (such as towards homosexual people, but not only that).

What are you afraid that a belief in God may ask of you. What part of yourself are you afraid of loosing and why.
Mostly my liberty, free thought, and self respect (I would never bow down to any tyrant, human or divine). Don't get me wrong now. I do not believe that all believers necessarily lose those things upon conversion, but I would.

believe what i say if you can ; you can have a personal relationship with God
I really don't think it is a matter of choice to believe. You either do or you do not. I don't think I could make myself believe in God any more than you could make yourself believe in things you see as imaginary (like faeries, etc).

I would be happy to talk further with you but have no idea how to get private chat in this forum. I hope I haven't come across to spiritual; I am not some Praise the Lord fanatic but I have really felt God working in my life lately.
You have not come across as abrasive or fanatic. You have come across as genuine and caring and I do appreciate your motivations. Your heart is in the right place. But I ask you to realize that we don't all see the world the same way you do. I really, honestly, without any word of a lie or self deception, do not believe your god exists. I believe it is imaginary. I do believe it brings you comfort and so I am happy that you have it, so long as it does not drive you to harm others, and I can't imagine in your case that it ever would. I hope that doesn't come across as overly abrassive or rude to you. We simply do not see the world the same way.

Love and Respect
And to you as well.
Reply

3rddec
03-19-2011, 03:29 PM
If you read my posts you will see I understand the logic of athiesm so I do not take your comments as abrassive at all ; if at any point in the future you should feel differently and want someone to bat ideas off who isn't goin to treat you as an idiot for your stance feel free to private message me.

Love and Respect
Reply

IAmZamzam
03-19-2011, 03:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
And what is it you think I don't care about? Maybe its what I said I don't care about instead of this straw man you are clinging to with all your might, causing you such frustration. For the final time, I don't group all muslims (or christians for that matter) as one, which is why I ask the same questions repeatedly (which also seems to bother you). I care about how people are prone to act and what they think and believe. I do not care what a text says, especially if they don't read it, follow it, or interpret it as you do.
Do you have some secret agreement with some other board member to always receive from them reputation points for each usage of the words "tribalism" or "straw man"?

If anyone here other than Pygoscelis sees any distinction whatsoever between "caring if we're misrepresented" and "caring which interpretation of Islam is the 'correct' or 'proper' interpretation [or] what the holy texts actually were originally meant to say", let them speak up!

This hostile attitude of yours prevents any further discussion.
Fine with me! Just don't think you can get away with depicting yourself as being no sort of liar or self-deceiver after all the dishonest selective editing and even more selective understanding you've done. You yourself are the one and only person here you're fooling.
Reply

YieldedOne
03-19-2011, 03:46 PM
Let me have some fun with this...

Yahya Sulaiman:
The important thing is that God does not and should not need anyone to suffer and die so that anyone else can be forgiven. That’s not how forgiveness works. It’s a very simple thing that I can demonstrate for you right now: “I forgive you.” POOF! See how easy it is? And I’m not even omnipotent.

Hmmm...

Eastern Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism have a substantively different soteriology; this is sometimes cited as the core difference between Eastern and Western Christianity. Salvation is not seen as legal release, but transformation of the human nature itself in the Son taking on human nature. In contrast to other forms of Christianity, the Orthodox tend to use the word "expiation" with regard to what is accomplished in the sacrificial act. In Orthodox theology, expiation is an act of offering that seeks to change the one making the offering. The Greek word that is translated both into propitiation and expiation is "hilasmos" which means "to make acceptable and enable one to draw close to God". Thus the Orthodox emphasis would be that Christ died, not to appease an angry and vindictive Father, or to avert the wrath of God, but to change people so that they may become more like God.

This is quite important, yo. If you are going to cite the Christians view of atonement as a "central flaw", it would be good to know that their are MORE VARIATIONS of the concept than just Anselm's.

Just a thought.

For more...see here...

In Orthodox theology generally it can be said that the language of "payment" and "ransom" is rather understood as a metaphorical and symbolical way of saying that Christ has done all things necessary to save and redeem mankind enslaved to the devil, sin and death, and under the wrath of God. He "paid the price," not in some legalistic or juridical or economic meaning. He "paid the price" not to the devil whose rights over man were won by deceit and tyranny. He "paid the price" not to God the Father in the sense that God delights in His sufferings and received "satisfaction" from His creatures in Him. He "paid the price" rather, we might say, to Reality Itself. He "paid the price" to create the conditions in and through which man might receive the forgiveness of sins and eternal life by dying and rising again in Him to newness of life (See Rom 5-8; Gal 2-4).

By dying on the cross and rising from the dead, Jesus Christ cleansed the world from evil and sin. He defeated the devil "in his own territory" and on "his own terms." The "wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23). So the Son of God became man and took upon Himself the sins of the world and died a voluntary death. By His sinless and innocent death accomplished entirely by His free will -- and not by physical, moral, or juridical necessity -- He made death to die and to become itself the source and the way into life eternal.
Reply

IAmZamzam
03-19-2011, 03:49 PM
I've already mentioned how the other variations don't change anything substantial. It all remains. And God is fully capable (you know, being God and all) of transforming us at will without having to go through the trouble of having Himself be tortured to death.

Perhaps we can discuss it when I get back. See you (God willing) around the 2nd or 3rd. Till then, toodle-oo!
Reply

YieldedOne
03-19-2011, 03:57 PM
Safe travels, brother! Be blessed! ;)
Reply

JPR
03-19-2011, 09:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
One thing I would certainly never do is abuse myself because "you kids deserve to be smacked and someone's gotta pay for what you did!" I'm sick to death of reiterating that point. You are fully capable of grasping how that's what this is about and are forcing yourself into non-sequiturs and emotional appeals to avoid facing the facts. It is clear that you cannot be reasoned with about this. I am seriously wondering whether there would be any point on wasting any kind of dawah on you at all. You don't even want to hear it, do you?
I clearly understand what you're trying to say but what you're trying to do is reason about God's plan (in my belief anyways). It's like if I was to tell you that what's in the Qu'ran makes no sense and that what Allah is telling you to do is illogical! To me it's the proof of the ultimate love of God who wants to be as close to us as He can without forcing us to love Him. Otherwise He would just go "poof!" "I'm God, now believe in me!".

I can't believe in Islam, and you can't believe in christianity. I'm willing to sit and understand why you believe what you believe and I'm willing to explain to you why I believe what I believe. I can tell you I gave Islam and the Qu'ran a fair chance at convincing me.

Hope you make good travels!
Reply

Pygoscelis
03-19-2011, 11:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
By dying on the cross and rising from the dead, Jesus Christ cleansed the world from evil and sin.
Then why is there still evil and sin? And how can he rationally have erased PAST evil and sin?

So the Son of God became man and took upon Himself the sins of the world and died a voluntary death. By His sinless and innocent death accomplished entirely by His free will -- and not by physical, moral, or juridical necessity -- He made death to die and to become itself the source and the way into life eternal. [/I]
If it was not by physical, moral, or judicial neccesity, then why was it needed at all? Why could God not simply snap his fingers and forgive us all as you pointed out at the start of your post? Clearly there is some purpose to sending Jesus to die. Or is it just an elaborate ritual so to be more memorable? I am having difficulty following the logic in your post. Is it because it gives us a perfect moral example to follow (Jesus) and if we follow that example we are foregiven? And if so, could some of us not act in such a way without said example? Also, if this is the idea, then why would he have to suffer on the cross after giving the example and not simply ascend into heaven without that?
Reply

Pygoscelis
03-20-2011, 12:02 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by JPR
To me it's the proof of the ultimate love of God who wants to be as close to us as He can
You consider ultimate love as something requiring pain and death and ultimate suffering?

without forcing us to love Him.
Not forcing perhaps, but plenty of bribing (heaven) and threatening (hell). He certainly doesn't do it without coercion.

Otherwise He would just go "poof!" "I'm God, now believe in me!".
Indeed. Note that such a thing would not take away free will. You would believe in him, but you would still have to choose to obey him and worship him.
Reply

SalamChristian
03-20-2011, 01:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Then why is there still evil and sin? And how can he rationally have erased PAST evil and sin?
Answers to your 2 questions:
1. There is still evil and sin because God has given us free will, and he is unwilling to take this away. He wants us to have the opportunity to choose. That is part of the joy of being God's creation. The difficulty you are having is in seeing that Jesus' work is not done. There is the first coming, and then the second coming. In between, the Holy Spirit is doing its work in the hearts of men in order to save as many as possible (all of them who are willing to repent) before the second coming. At the second coming, Christ slays all those who are unwilling to accept the truth. Then there will be no sin, because it will have been slain. Simple as pie.
2. Erasing and cleansing are not the same thing, in my view. Cleansing means it is taken off of you, and it falls somewhere else (away from you and God). But none of this matters, because God is also the creator in Abrahamic religions, and that which gives life can also take it away. Just as he can bring about things out of nothingness, he can also destroy them eternally. I know that you probably don't believe in the idea of creating something out of nothing, seeing as you are an atheist. Consider this: have you ever heard of a prisoner's dilemma? Or perhaps have you heard of the economic concept of benefits of trade? In both of these examples, wealth is created simply by loving other people and seeing how you depend upon each other, and they are well documented and proven both by mathematicians and economists. Of course, again, you probably don't believe in this, because most atheists believe completely in our rudimentary understanding of physics. Check out the Bose-Einstein Condensate. It's a fourth state of matter, theorized by Einstein and proven by Bose. It behaves in ways that physicists cannot yet explain. The atoms share energy, and behave as a community as opposed to as individuals.

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Is it because it gives us a perfect moral example to follow (Jesus) and if we follow that example we are foregiven? And if so, could some of us not act in such a way without said example? Also, if this is the idea, then why would he have to suffer on the cross after giving the example and not simply ascend into heaven without that?
Answers to your questions in order:
1. Yes. We are told to follow Jesus' (pbuh) example, plain and simple.
2. We have the free will to act in this way. Unfortunately, it seems like human-beings since the original sin of Adam/Eve have been unable to remember the happiness and ultimate freedom that comes from loving others as yourself (the example of Jesus). This is tied to our fear of death. It began as shame, and ended as death. There is a great quote from Anthony Hopkins in the movie "The Edge:" "Do you know what people die of when they get lost in the woods? No? They die of shame. They are so ashamed that they have gotten lost, that they just sit down and die." Jesus was able to show us that even death is meaningless via the resurrection. In this way, he destroyed our reason for staying ashamed, and showed us that there is no reason to live in shame and fear. Without this proof, apparently mankind would have found another reason to keep on sinning regardless of what philosophers and prophets kept on telling them--fear of death.
3. He suffered on the cross so that we could see that suffering is temporary; that death is temporary. He chose to suffer. That's the point people don't understand. He chose to suffer because he wanted to do God's will in showing stubborn humanity that even death is meaningless. It was an act of love, both of God's love toward us, and Jesus' love toward God, and through the connection of the two of them, both in both. And, to anticipate your response, God was not turning his back on Jesus. After the resurrection, Jesus was rewarded more than before by God for his faithfulness in the face of torture, and he now sits on the right hand of God.

Peace.
Reply

SalamChristian
03-20-2011, 01:27 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Indeed. Note that such a thing would not take away free will. You would believe in him, but you would still have to choose to obey him and worship him.
Pygoscelis, you are both misunderstanding and being mistaught. It's not because God would just go "poof!" or anything like that. The proof of God's existence has been with us from the very beginning. Read Romans 1 and you will see this is a basic tenet of Christian faith. Anyone who tells you different has not yet discovered these aspects of Christian faith. In the Garden, when God created us, we already had eternal life and love and happiness. We were cast out not when we didn't worship God, but when we started believing lies, when God (who is the manifestation of the truth) had told us otherwise. Because one of the many names for God is the truth, stopping worship of him and believing lies are synonymous. But the truth is still written in his creation, for all who look closely. I tripled-majored at college, and I am in my final semester, and I can tell you that spending so much time studying has moved me back to faith. I was more of an agnostic when I came to college, who still was holding on to the basic ethical tenets of my faith. But the more I studied, the more I realized that the natural law of the subjects I was looking at deeply was one of both righteousness and mercy, just like our God.

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Not forcing perhaps, but plenty of bribing (heaven) and threatening (hell). He certainly doesn't do it without coercion.
He does not manipulate your free will whatsoever. That is left for you to fill with whatever you like. As for your flesh and body, what do you have to complain about? He gave that to you anyway, and he has every right to take it away and give it to someone who will use it to help others.
Reply

IAmZamzam
04-16-2011, 06:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JPR
I clearly understand what you're trying to say but what you're trying to do is reason about God's plan (in my belief anyways). It's like if I was to tell you that what's in the Qu'ran makes no sense and that what Allah is telling you to do is illogical! To me it's the proof of the ultimate love of God who wants to be as close to us as He can without forcing us to love Him. Otherwise He would just go "poof!" "I'm God, now believe in me!".

I can't believe in Islam, and you can't believe in christianity. I'm willing to sit and understand why you believe what you believe and I'm willing to explain to you why I believe what I believe. I can tell you I gave Islam and the Qu'ran a fair chance at convincing me.

Hope you make good travels!
JPR, I got sick to death of the intellectually cowardly "reason is not the domain of religion" cop-out long before graduating from a Lutheran high school. God's true religion should never have to back people into such a corner if it is at all evidently true. I have very few if any qualms with the logic of my own religion and every attempt I've ever seen anyone make to show how it is illogical (though to be fair there seems to be a very limited and redundant repertoire of attempts) has invariably failed--in all but a couple of select cases spectacularly failed. This means that whether or not Islam is the true faith it is certainly the one I have best reason for holding and how could God hold me accountable for believing in something I have every reason to believe and have seen no workable reasons not to believe if I'm wrong? You believe in a religion that forces you to give up reason when discussing it (always selectively--I've yet to see anyone make that defense who doesn't go right back on it a moment later when they think reason supports their position or could help them in argument; it's hypocrisy). I do not.
Reply

UsayIsaIsayGod
04-16-2011, 08:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
You consider ultimate love as something requiring pain and death and ultimate suffering?
Love is taking a bullet to defend a nation of families and small children. Love is spending hard-earned money to help an unfortunate stranger. Love is sacrificing yourself, whether it is you and your spouse moving from the booth to the small table so a family can be seated, giving up dreams of a musical career to make your marriage work, or placing your life on the line for the safety of others. These are my opinions, take from them what you will.
Reply

Grace Seeker
04-16-2011, 10:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by UsayIsaIsayGod
Love is taking a bullet to defend a nation of families and small children. Love is spending hard-earned money to help an unfortunate stranger. Love is sacrificing yourself, whether it is you and your spouse moving from the booth to the small table so a family can be seated, giving up dreams of a musical career to make your marriage work, or placing your life on the line for the safety of others. These are my opinions, take from them what you will.
I don't think the question was whether or not love might lead one to do these things, but was with regard to ultimate love. The emphasis, as I understood the question, being more on the adjective than the noun.

Could not ultimate love be just as evident in remaining true to one's marriage vows or nurturing a child into responsible adulthood as in these other things. Ultimate love seems to me to be tied to the fact that it is a final act of the offering of one's self to another without reservation or equivocation. But it is possible that the consequences of that offering do NOT ultimately require sacrifice, they may just as likely ultimately result in shared blessings and great joy. What makes it ultimate is that it is the finality of the decision to act out of love, and that decision being irrevokable.
Reply

IAmZamzam
04-16-2011, 10:09 PM
Wrong. Love is sacrificing yourself when there is any conceivable need to do so, not when you could have easily avoided it without negatively affecting anything. That is not love, it's a well-intentioned act of folly and waste. An almighty hand is never tied. The forgiveness of God (praise Him) is so wonderful simply because it, like all forgiveness (but most especially his own) is so free and there could never be any price to be paid by anyone for anyone. Allah (praise Him) is called the Merciful Redeemer because His mercy, for those He decides to grant it to--which includes anyone who is genuinely penitent, no strings attached nor necessary--is automatic and does not require any price to be paid, either by the sinner himself or by an innocent third party who otherwise must suffer for no good reason. This is what makes our idea of what God (praise Him) is like so much more accurate, more aptly worshipful, and more beautiful than the twisted Christian conception. This is what I've been explaining all along, and what you have been deliberately choosing not to allow yourself to grasp all along. The true, literal, classical definition of a kafir is "one who holds the truth in his heart". If I were you I'd ask yourself whether there's any chance at all you're doing that. But you're not going to, are you?
Reply

UsayIsaIsayGod
04-16-2011, 10:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I don't think the question was whether or not love might lead one to do these things, but was with regard to ultimate love. The emphasis, as I understood the question, being more on the adjective than the noun.
As James wrote, 'love not in word but in deed', and in another place, 'faith without works is dead.' As I posted, 'love is sacrificing yourself', where the ultimate sacrifice is taking death upon one's self for the benefit of another.
Reply

IAmZamzam
04-16-2011, 10:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Ultimate love seems to me to be tied to the fact that it is a final act of the offering of one's self to another without reservation or equivocation. But it is possible that the consequences of that offering do NOT ultimately require sacrifice, they may just as likely ultimately result in shared blessings and great joy. What makes it ultimate is that it is the finality of the decision to act out of love, and that decision being irrevokable.
God already offers Himself to be united and shared with us by allowing us a chance at Paradise--a chance based entirely on our own decisions through His own good grace, no death by torture necessary from any quarter.
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-17-2011, 01:54 AM
This is another of those threads that was resurrected (ironic given the topic) after 4 weeks of the last post, so I don't really remember what was going on in it before its hiatus. Reading SalamChristian's posts though I want to thank SalamChristian for his well thought out responses.
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-17-2011, 01:54 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by UsayIsaIsayGod
As James wrote, 'love not in word but in deed', and in another place, 'faith without works is dead.' As I posted, 'love is sacrificing yourself', where the ultimate sacrifice is taking death upon one's self for the benefit of another.
Going with this logic, wouldn't it also require staying dead for more than a couple of days before resurrecting yourself and restoring yourself to be like it never happened? It really isn't much of a sacrifice. He didn't give anything up.

My question about requiring blood and pain and suffering was along the lines of what Yawya was saying above. This is God. He could simply forgive you your sins. He has all powers etc. But in order to do so he decides that there must be suffering. He then allows that suffering to be from somebody OTHER than you. So it isn't about sacrifice or giving of yourself, but rather about the ritual of pain and suffering. Which is just twisted as I see it.
Reply

Grace Seeker
04-18-2011, 08:02 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Going with this logic, wouldn't it also require staying dead for more than a couple of days before resurrecting yourself and restoring yourself to be like it never happened? It really isn't much of a sacrifice. He didn't give anything up.

My question about requiring blood and pain and suffering was along the lines of what Yawya was saying above. This is God. He could simply forgive you your sins. He has all powers etc. But in order to do so he decides that there must be suffering. He then allows that suffering to be from somebody OTHER than you. So it isn't about sacrifice or giving of yourself, but rather about the ritual of pain and suffering. Which is just twisted as I see it.


Actually, I understand Jesus' atoning sacrifice to be more about God voluntarily taking on himself the pain of the world so that we might be relieved of the natural consequences of our actions. It isn't about punishment as much as it is about burdern lifting and relationship reconciling.
Reply

IAmZamzam
04-27-2011, 01:21 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Actually, I understand Jesus' atoning sacrifice to be more about God voluntarily taking on himself the pain of the world so that we might be relieved of the natural consequences of our actions. It isn't about punishment as much as it is about burdern lifting and relationship reconciling.
And that changed what precisely in terms of what I argued in the OP? Seems to me you'd still have exactly the same problems. You're splitting hairs.

Don't give me the old "I wasn't talking to you", you're as capable of carrying on two convos at once as anyone. I want an answer.
Reply

gmcbroom
04-27-2011, 04:11 AM
Yahya Sulaiman, your OP actually illustrates the vary reason why Islam couldn't be confirmed by the The Gospels. We are in essence two totally different faiths. Each one views God differently. For Christians its about family. The Heavenly Father and us his children united through the body of Christ his Son. It's about love. To jews and christians we broke the relationship with God when we disobeyed in the Garden of Eden. Once we did that there was no way for us to repair that breach only God could do that. And repair it he did; through the sacrifice of his Son the Lord Jesus Christ who is True God and True Man. This is what Christians believe.

Muslims have a master slave relationship with God. That view isn't supported in the Bible in either the Old or New Testaments.

So, we have to totally different views of God and thus they are in essence different faiths. Christians will believe as they believe and Muslims will believe what they believe, it's as simple as that. It even says that those that follow the Gospels or Injeel and Old testament or Taurate should follow there own books in the Koran. So clearly, we can't ever truly connect the two. Judaism and Christianity are Abrahamic religions. They have similarities throughout them. Islam is said to be an Abrahamic religion yet aside from Acknowledging God, Abraham, Ishmael, Mose, Jesus, and Mary it has nothing else to connect it to them. It stands alone. So, from a muslim perspective Christianity is flawed and from a Christian perspective Islam is flawed. All we can really do is agree to disagree and worship God in our own ways.

Peace be with you
Reply

Ramadhan
04-27-2011, 04:32 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
Yahya Sulaiman, your OP actually illustrates the vary reason why Islam couldn't be confirmed by the The Gospels. We are in essence two totally different faiths. Each one views God differently. For Christians its about family. The Heavenly Father and us his children united through the body of Christ his Son. It's about love. To jews and christians we broke the relationship with God when we disobeyed in the Garden of Eden. Once we did that there was no way for us to repair that breach only God could do that. And repair it he did; through the sacrifice of his Son the Lord Jesus Christ who is True God and True Man. This is what Christians believe. Muslims have a master slave relationship with God. That view isn't supported in the Bible in either the Old or New Testaments. So, we have to totally different views of God and thus they are in essence different faiths. Christians will believe as they believe and Muslims will believe what they believe, it's as simple as that. It even says that those that follow the Gospels or Injeel and Old testament or Taurate should follow there own books in the Koran. So clearly, we can't ever truly connect the two. Judaism and Christianity are Abrahamic religions. They have similarities throughout them. Islam is said to be an Abrahamic religion yet aside from Acknowledging God, Abraham, Ishmael, Mose, Jesus, and Mary it has nothing else to connect it to them. It stands alone. So, from a muslim perspective Christianity is flawed and from a Christian perspective Islam is flawed. All we can really do is agree to disagree and worship God in our own ways.
Are you trying to re-write facts and aspiring to become a fiction writer?
For all you have written here, none is supported by the OT and the actual sayings and actions of Jesus (pbuh), and none of what you claim of Islam is not grounded in the reality of qur'an, ahadeeth and the practices of muslims.

In fact, christianity theology of three gods in one is the odd one out. Just ask any jews.
Jesus (pbuh) upheld the mosaic laws and tried to correct the wrong belief of polytheistic jews. Ironically, centuries after his departure, people who claim to follow him elevated him as god. All prophets from Abraham to Jesus (pbut) strictly taught montheism and to worship One God, and NEVER worship creation. Christians worship a human as god.

You claim muslims have no connection to the prophets Let's see:
Abraham, Ismail, Isaac, Moses, david, Mary, Jesus (pbut) all fasted month long, giving alms, pray and prostrate on regular times (still continued by orthodox jews), sacrificing animals for food donation during certain times, circumcision for men, never eating swine, etc etc. Who are still honoring and continuing all those teachings and practices by the prophets? NOT christians.

You can ask any knowledgeable and practicing jews which one between christians and muslims are closer to judaism, I guarantee you 100% will say that Islam is closer to Judaism.
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-27-2011, 02:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Actually, I understand Jesus' atoning sacrifice to be more about God voluntarily taking on himself the pain of the world so that we might be relieved of the natural consequences of our actions. It isn't about punishment as much as it is about burdern lifting and relationship reconciling.
Assuming that God set the whole system up, I see no real distinction between "relieving us of the natural consequences" and opting not to punish us. It is like saying that the natural consequences of you not giving a mugger your money in a dark alley is him murdering you, but he has taken it upon himself to remove those natural consequences from you and to instead just walk away. In both cases the person creates a threatening "consequence" and then opts not to execute it.
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-27-2011, 02:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
You can ask any knowledgeable and practicing jews which one between christians and muslims are closer to judaism, I guarantee you 100% will say that Islam is closer to Judaism.
From an outsider's point of view I would agree that Judaism and Islam seem more similar to each other than either does to Christianity. The foundation is different. The first two are strictly about obedience and personal responsibility to God. The latter introduces vicarious redemption as a central focus, and pushes aside said personal responsibility. In Christianity you are ultimately not held accountable for your actions, so long as in the end you repent and turn to Jesus as your fall guy.
Reply

JPR
04-27-2011, 02:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
In Christianity you are ultimately not held accountable for your actions, so long as in the end you repent and turn to Jesus as your fall guy.

Totally far from the truth. How can you truly believe in Jesus and his message and still not become a better person? Baptism MUST be accompanied with repentance, which means becoming better, a 180 turn from what you were doing before. If I tell you about the greatness of vegetarianism and how good it is for your health and all the benefits you can gain from it but after I convince you I go eat a steak, am I really believing in all the virtues of vegetarianism?

The same goes with christianism: if I convince you that you should love your ennemies, you should love God with all your heart and everybody on the planet as God's children and creation, then I turn around and start being disrespectful to everyone and I curse my ennemies, do I really believe in Jesus?

Even Jesus asked for forgiveness for the people who put him on the cross, at least he was consequential with what he thaught!

Peace!
Reply

Grace Seeker
04-27-2011, 11:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
From an outsider's point of view I would agree that Judaism and Islam seem more similar to each other than either does to Christianity. The foundation is different. The first two are strictly about obedience and personal responsibility to God. The latter introduces vicarious redemption as a central focus, and pushes aside said personal responsibility. In Christianity you are ultimately not held accountable for your actions, so long as in the end you repent and turn to Jesus as your fall guy.
I definitely agree with you that Judaism and Islam seem closer to each other than Christianity does to either of them specifically because the Islam and Judaism both seem to be primarily about obedience, while Christianity is about relationship.

With regard to Christianity, I want to throw out to you an idea that you didn't really touch on. The idea is that it is God, who assumes the responsibility for putting the world back right as he is the only one who has the ability to do so. And though in the larger scheme of him he is the wronged party, in the sense that his creation has rebelled against what he created it to do and be, but still he becomes the one to seek and achieve reconcilation fixing that which was broken. I sumbit that there is no actual punishment other than that he continues to allow for the existence of free will and those who refuse to be fixed are allowed to remain broken rather than restored to the purpose for which they were created -- i.e. to live in an appropriate and nurturing relationship with their creator. The absence of that restoration is by comparison punishment in itself, but it is the individual's choice.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-02-2011, 11:11 PM
if it were up to me, then i'd rather not participate in this thread simply for the fact that the opening post is so long and as such (in order to both do justice to the individual who started this thread and for the nature of the discussion) my post would have to be considerably longer. writing long posts isn't something i particularly like doing but given that it still feels as though the member who started this thread still has not received an appropriate answer, i might as well expound the christian logic as it comes to the matter of forgiveness and the atonement. that said, i'll try to quote the relevant sections of your post and if it feels like i've missed something, then i am more than willing to make another post specifically on the matter.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
Well, I guess it is the thought that counts—for us fallible and imperfect mortals, who are capable of being so foolish. God, on the other hand, is the one Being from whom we know we definitely cannot expect such silliness. And yet if I were to believe in the substitution doctrine of Christianity, the core concept of the whole religion, established unequivocally all up and down the entire New Testament (Matthew 26:28, Galatians 1:4, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10, Revelation 1:5, 1 Peter 2:24), then I would have to believe something extremely comparable to our bizarre little episode with the punching. God, according to Christian thought, cannot or will not simply let bygones be bygones when he forgives someone their sins. In other words, he has to forgive without forgiving. Someone still has to be punished for your sins when God pardons you of them, and who better to be punished for sinning than a man who’s never sinned before in his entire life?
it should first be stated that the matter isn't at all as simple as you make it seem. before we can even at all begin speaking of forgiveness, we ought first speak of how the being of god, and the concepts of sin and forgiveness are understood within christianity. the caveat here is that in entering this discussion, i am not at all trying to make you believe this, but merely only trying to give a logical basis for the christian belief. if it is the case that such a thing is accomplished then my task is done and your article will have been refuted. now, with that out of the way, we can move on.

(note: what follows is partly what i have written on this subject for a different purpose and given that it is not native to this thread i will place it in italics)

god: More than simply being the entity who sustains everything in existence, adherents of both the aforementioned Abrahamic faiths maintain that God is life itself (John 1:4). Furthermore, his will is as such that we should live and to do so in full (John 10:10), hence why he has decreed certain commandments to our benefit. If God wishes that we should live and makes provisions for us to truly live then it follows that each commandment is the pathway to life itself (Deut. 30:19). [...] Christians believe that God is the possessor of attributes such as power, knowledge, holiness etc. Now given that God is infinite, it follows that his very attributes are infinite as well such that he not only possess power but all power (Jer. 16:21), not only knowledge but all knowledge (Romans 11:33), he is not moderately holy but all-holy (Ezek. 39:7). Furthermore, the quality of being infinite is as such that there can be no moment at all where his divine attributes are not exhibited in his self. By this I mean that, as he is in himself, at no point can he fail to know all things, or fail to be omnipotent, nor to be infinitely just or infinitely merciful etc. He is always and completely the measure of his attributes at all times without ceasing to be one in order to exhibit the other.

sin: In just a few words, sin is the breaking of God’s sovereign law. Yet more than that, if the commandments are the pathway to life itself, then the going against them can only mean and most certainly be, death. I will speak a bit further of sin seeing as having a deeper appreciation of sin is absolutely crucial to this discussion. As the commandments are life, sin is death. Sin is the complete reversal of the decrees of God, it is the imposition of the human will above that of the divine and it is an affront to God’s wisdom, love, and goodness. In fact, it is the opposition to God’s very purpose for us and life cannot truly be had outside of the design which God has implemented. As such sin not only merits punishment (hell) but demands it—this is the inevitable outcome. It is not that God is bad—rather, God is good and we are bad and being goodness itself, God upholds good and this is why he has to punish evil. The punishment of evil, no matter how we may particularly feel about it, is good. I stress this over and over again because it is imperative that the outcome of sin be not reduced to the mere arbitrary will of God but rather that it’s result be understood as a logical conclusion. Once more, logic and justice are as such that sin inevitably and always, leads to death. If God is life, and sin is the disconnect to that life, how could the decision to sin not be consummated in death?

The bible describes sin as a debt whose method of payment and price is death (Romans 6:23, Hebrews 9:22) and God, since he is infinitely holy and just, requires that sin be punished; that all debts be paid. Now the nature of a debt is as such that he who has no debt can pay the debt of another. This is because a debt (in a manner of speaking) is extraneous to the individual and hence the individual is not levied for something that is absolutely inherent to his self but rather he is levied for a property that is wholly contingent to his being. In just the same way, while everyone is born with sin, sin itself is not absolutely inherent to the human being and thus is not a non-contingent property that the human would possess in every possible world (ie. we can imagine a possible world where humans do not sin such as heaven or pre-fall Eden). Therefore, given that sin is an extrinsic quality, it is possible and perfectly logical for a third party to pay the debt of sin belonging to another. Hence the feasibility of animal sacrifices in the Old Testament (Leviticus 5:11, Leviticus 17:11).

To better illustrate this point, think of renting an apartment. Now imagine that through various circumstances you have spent your savings to the point that you are not able to pay any of your bills, much less the cost of renting your apartment. Given your great debt, it is impossible for you to pay your own debt and neither is it fair for the government (while it would be within their power) to just pretend that you did not owe them anything (i.e. simply forgive), for that would not be a display of justice. While you would not be able to pay the debt, it would be possible for someone else (such as a parent or brother) to step in and pay the debt for you so that justice would be served (and mercy bestowed on you) and you would not be left in the miserable situation that you had placed yourself in; in full view of your loving parent and/or relative.

While the above analogy does convey the overall message of the gospel, it is not perfect in its transmission. According to the word of God, the debt accrued due to sin is infinite. Simply a moments thought will suffice for one to understand why this is so. Every time an individual sins, they do so primarily against God (Psalm 51:4, Acts 5:1-16) and how could the punishment for sinning against a being of infinite worth be anything less than infinite in return? The Bible also says that everyone has sinned (Romans 3:23) hence that bars anyone else from stepping in and paying another’s debt to God. Yet aside from being just, God is also infinitely loving, and while it would be perfectly fair for him to condemn the entire world to hell, that would not be an expression of love. This is why he, being the only individual who could possibly lead a perfectly sinless life and satisfy a debt of infinite value, chose to pay the price for mankind (John 3:16).

[...] Christianity portrays God as acting in complete harmony with all his divine attributes such that he does not have to cease displaying one attribute (such as infinite justice) in order to exhibit another (such as infinite mercy). Through Christ’s death on the cross, every single sin, that in this case, a believer commits, is consistently punished by the full force of the rightfully deserved wrath of God that is reserved for all manner of ungodliness. The Christian understanding is as such that sin is always—and I mean always—punished with it’s inevitable result, death. The Christian God never fails to exemplify his attributes of holiness and justice to the full, there is never an instance where he fails to be just in order to be merciful yet thanks to the cross, neither is there ever an instance where God fails to be merciful in order to be just. Rather, the cross enables God to consistently be both simultaneously. Sin is always justly punished and undeserved mercy is always given to fallible man. The concept of sacrifice, inherent in the concept of death and punishment, is imperative to justice. Sin has to be punished, therefore sacrifice is always required yet thanks to the death of Christ, sacrifice is consistently dealt (rather, a sacrifice of infinite worth was dealt once and for all) and thus enabling God to display his mercy to fallible man without compromising his justice. Therefore, Christians believe in a God who is consistent with his self and escapes the trap of pitting one divine attribute against another.


format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
God, according to Christian thought, cannot or will not simply let bygones be bygones when he forgives someone their sins. In other words, he has to forgive without forgiving.
the above comes on the heels of your example of forgiving your friend. the problem with that is that it completely disregards the fact that god is the ultimate standard in the universe and as such he necessarily upholds the good. just as he is necessarily omnipotent, omniscient and omnisapient etc. he by necessity is also the very upholder of justice. given that justice is part of his very being, it is necessarily infinite and if it is indeed infinite then it could not at all be exhibited limitedly (kind of along the lines that given that god is perfect, he could not at any point be anything less than perfect). he is not somewhat just but rather all-just. seeing as he is all-just and sin by its logical conclusion (as a disconnect to the life-giving commandments of god can only end in death) then we find ourselves with a case where every guilty individual must merit death. if you and i agree that god is infinite justice, then as with all his other attributes (such that he is always just, always all-knowing etc.), he must be infinitely just consistently and such a scenario ends in hell for all humanity. yet given the cross, god is able to display both justice and mercy consistently.

The Muslim God on the other hand has to set one infinite attribute in opposition to another. I mean, we understand that the proper punishment for sin is death and that justice is not synonymous to mercy. When Allah forgives, he displays mercy, but he does not display justice and vice versa. Where Allah does forgive, there is no provision in Islam that enables sin to always and consistently end in the natural conclusion that is demanded by both logic and justice—death. Hence, Islam presents us with a god who is in contradiction with himself. There is no unison or harmony to his being to the point where he is forced to have one infinite attribute trump another. Not only is Allah’s contradiction one of ontological proportions, but logical as well. To illustrate, it is understood that to have an infinite being who is the possessor of certain attributes signifies that those attributes are exemplified infinitely (part of this concept is the understanding that such attributes have to be present at all times) yet Allah only exemplifies his attributes of infinite justice and mercy (among others) limitedly and at the degradation of the other. (One must ask themselves how it can be that one infinite attribute can at all be pitted against the other and in so doing go so far as trump it’s opposite. If these attributes be infinite, then they cannot be limited much less be cancelled out by the other for that would violate the law of non-contradiction. Seeing as Allah has need to, and in fact does, cease to exhibit one property for the other, it follows that as the fullness of these attributes go, Allah does not possess them in their entirety. This of course puts into question his claims of being infinite in any respect. But I digress.) He is unable to be consistent with his self and is resolved to compromise his own attributes (and as such, his grandeur) in order to be able to deal with his creation. This is quite the scary thought, that justice itself has to stoop down to the level of injustice so that a certain end might be met—if such a prospect weren’t so sad I’d be led to call it the grossest display of pure, unadulterated evil. Evil, because according to the ramifications of the Muslim philosophy, Ultimate Justice is not averse to becoming unjust, for the sake of his worshipers. Where justice, ceases to be just; you only have the most heinous evil.

The God of Islam is helpless when it comes to the manner in which he can reconcile harmony in his being with the punishment and mercy he allots to his creation. The picture we are presented with in Islam is of a God that cannot be true to himself and in fact utterly lacks justice when he forgives, and completely lacks mercy when he deals justly with the reality of sin. His lack of justice is evident in the fact that he will not punish sin as is demanded by logic, his goodness, justice, and his holiness and is wont to sweep a person’s sins under the rug, so to speak. Such that the travesty and deviation of his design and purpose is never put to right but simply ignored.


format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
( a ) Forgiveness ought to be like a cancelled note—torn in two, and burned up, so that it never can be shown against one.” Yet instead of perceiving forgiveness in this very accurate and rational way, Christian dogma—to use the cliché that Christians themselves are always using— ( b )instead misrepresents forgiveness as a note of debt transferred from one person who cannot pay it to a loving volunteer who can.
( a ) in the above you completely ignore the concept of justice. forgiveness is mercy, it is not justice and if god's attributes are infinite, then there is no point at which he can fail to be just (just as there is no point at which he can fail to be all-powerful etc.) and once again, mercy and justice quite often are in opposition to one another. you believe in a deity who has to pick between the two and cannot be either just or merciful at the same time---there simply is no harmony in his divine nature. your points make sense when one focuses only on one attribute of god yet when they try to reconcile this with his other attributes your whole argument unravels.

( b ) are you going to argue that sin is not a debt? if it isn't a debt than why is the sinner punished? why will the polytheists face an eternity in hell? it is because they have a debt to pay and a debt against an infinite being is itself infinite. if sin is not a debt and as such it need not be logically repaid to god then why would he keep individuals in hell forever? simply for the sheer enjoyment? or is it because the logical nature of things such as shirk require that this debt be paid. so then even in islam sin is viewed as a debt to god (for if it weren't then god would have no business setting the matter right either through forgiveness or punishment) and as such this point fails as well.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
Precisely. Forgiveness is the erasure of moral debt altogether, not a transfer of it from one party to another. Christianity is supposedly a religion centered entirely on grace yet the Christian definition of grace tries to have it both ways, and in doing so attributes both utmost injustice and gross, puzzling impracticality and unreasonability to the Almighty—a savage version of the Almighty who absolutely demands that blood be spilled, even if it is innocent blood.
once again your point fails when we try to harmonize the above understanding with the other attributes of god--such as infinite justice. mercy is not justice (for justice means getting what you deserve and forgiveness is something that no one deserves). the fact is that whenever the muslim deity displays justice, he does not display mercy and whenever he displays mercy, he does not display justice. your god cannot be consistent in his own being and he is in utter conflict as it regards his divine attributes. he cannot even be said to be infinitely just or infinitely merciful for his attributes regularly trump the other as it comes to his divine nature. once again, your points all sound well when we only examine the attribute of mercy, but when we try to couple what you've said with the being of god in general we find that these all fall flat on their face.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
When you explain all this to a Christian they will invariably, as sure as night follows day and water flows downhill, give one of two responses (often both). The first is an appeal to their bizarre misconception that the Old Testament animal sacrifices somehow presaged the crucifixion. Like the majority of the so-called Messianic prophecies this is just retroactive reinterpretation, completely unheard of before the advent of Christianity itself. Barring this, if the animal sacrifices sufficed for the people of the past, there’s no reason why they should not suffice for the people of the present. As such, even if you grant the animal sacrifice defense the crucifixion would still be pointless, as the only thing God would have to do is either continue having animals be sacrificed throughout history or make the incarnation and atonement happen within the first generation after the Fall. Otherwise you’re stuck with absurd cop-out that the crucifixion saved people before it ever took place, lest you think everyone in that part of history automatically condemned for happening to be born at a certain time.
the animal sacrifices never saved anyone, rather they were meant as to symbolize the death of christ. everyone who has been saved since the beginning of history has been saved through the blood of christ. the bible is quite clear that all our burdens were laid on him and contrary to what you imply, no act of changing the past would have to have occurred. if sin is a debt then whenever the debt is paid rests entirely on the individual to whom the debt is owed. if i sincerely believe that in a week from now, a family member will pay your debt to me then i certainly can wait until the next week to receive my payment. let us not forget that with god, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day. but furthermore, throughout your entire post you simply ignore the concept of justice altogether. can you please show us how at all your conception of forgiveness squares with the notion of justice?

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
But such an interpretation of animal sacrifice is completely nonsensical to begin with. Sin cannot be transferred from one creature to another like a transfusion of diseased blood. Sin is a kind of action, the result of personal choice. To transfer sin from one party to another (be the other party an animal or a God-man) would have to mean changing both party’s pasts by causing each party to have made the other's choices instead. Time travel into the past might allow one to do the trick: the only thing stabbing a cow would accomplish is having there being one fewer cow at present. When the Old Testament refers to the sacrificed animal as representing sin it doesn’t mean that literally. Watching the animal die was like watching your sin die, symbolic of God’s actual forgiveness, which came about because in performing the sacrifice you knew you were performing a ritual act of repentance. Otherwise why would the animal be quickly killed instead of being tortured to death for a whole day like Jesus (P) was supposed to have been? If it was just the death and not the pain that did the trick then no stations of the cross would have been necessary; Jesus (P) could’ve just offered himself to be swiftly decapitated by the guards who came to catch him and that’s that. The idea (as established in the biblical passages cited above) is that he was suffering instead of us, which is silly for more reasons than just the one I already explained about this substitution being a needless, graceless act of refusal to forgive. There is yet another problem still, one so obvious that I am puzzled it doesn’t get brought up more often.
that is actually incorrect. sin is a debt and in fact is not intrinsic to the individual. the nature of a debt is as such that it can in fact be paid by a third party and as such the above is once again refuted. there need not be any actual change to one's past in the same manner that when the parent pays the rent of their child to get them out of debt, it would not mean that it was actually the parent who had been late on their payments.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
Being flogged, crowned with thorns, whacked with a reed, marched across town, and crucified for nine hours is serious business indeed (if it did happen) but by no means is it the grand total of all the suffering that everyone who has ever lived or ever will live deserve for every single sin ever committed in past, present, and future. Even if sin could be transferred, there have been too many sins overall to squeeze them all into such a relatively meager amount of suffering. Heck, there’s probably been more than one individual person who has deserved those exact torments. To punish a single person for every wrongdoing in history would probably take longer than a single person could live. I know that there is no official objective means of measuring this but try to be honest with yourself: isn’t it supposed to be one eye for one eye? Wouldn’t a crucifixion be a fitting punishment only for one person’s unethically crucifying someone, and one bout of torture for one equivalent bout of torture? For heaven’s sake, people, even in the Gospels themselves the perpetrators marvel at what little time the whole thing took (Mark 15:44), and this is supposed to be punishment for every crucifixion, every murder, every rape, every hoarding of every miser, every act of perjury, every act of adultery, every swindling, robbery, vehicular manslaughter, obscene phone call, and Michael Bay movie from the dawn of man till Judgment Day?! Give me a crown of thorns, a beating, and a nine hour crucifixion over what happened to Rasputin any day.
clearly you do not possess an adequate understanding of the atonement. the true suffering did not consist of being nailed to the cross, or flogged, beaten etc. but rather in the wrath of god which flows from the justice of god being meted out on the person of christ. the punishment was to the very soul and whatever physical suffering coming from a crucifixion would be trivial in comparison. the matter of time need not be an issue for if christ is himself infinite in his own being than it is perfectly possible to experience an infinite amount of suffering in a finite period. in other posts around this forum you mention how well you understood christianity yet i have not seen this knowledge displayed within your post at all. the manner in which you end the above sentence is actually quite telling in how you seemed to have never understood the matter you so casually make light of at all. where did you get such an understanding?

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
Perhaps another plug-in is needed. Let us say that I told you about a murder trial in which the automatic penalty in the case of a conviction is death, barring a pardon from the judge. (This judge, by the way, is someone that you respect and trust a great deal.) A pardon is exactly what the culprit gets. The judge grants him the pardon, bangs his gavel, and everyone starts to rise from their seats because they naturally think that the whole thing is over. But then, with the very next bang of his gavel, the judge pronounces a death sentence on himself. You ask me, in response to hearing this tale, why the judge would do such a thing, how he could do such a thing. I tell you that the law demands that someone has to be put to death when a capital crime is committed and since the judge pardoned the culprit he is naturally obligated to execute himself instead. You protest the logic to me (well, be honest with yourself: wouldn’t you?) and I say, “Look, they’ve been doing something like this since ancient times and this is just fulfilling the tradition. The law demands that this go on. The judge himself wrote that law. Who are you to argue with it?” What would your reaction be? To assume that I must be wrong about a judge as good and wise as you believe this one to be ever authoring such a law? Or would you think that that my story about the judge, and maybe also the very existence of the law I spoke of, isn’t true? Or that you have been gravely mistaken about this judge being good and wise in the first place? Or would you just shrug and go, “Oh well, I guess that’s good enough for me. Want to go out for pizza?”
i have seen an argument along these lines elsewhere and they only work as long as one misrepresents the atonement and the concept of forgiveness. you do not understand that sin is twofold, there is the immediate consequences for sin (which primarily deals with making restitution with each other), and the eternal consequences for sin (which means making restitution to god). if i kill an individual, i can in fact pay for my crime according to our laws by giving my life in exchange. while i would have 'satisfied' the immediate consequence of my sin to the victim (as far as earthly law is concerned) i would not have satisfied the eternal consequence of my sin for that is against god and god being infinite, the sin against him requires a payment that is infinite in return. christ came to save us from this payment and not the immediate one (if he had saved us from the immediate payment then christians would not need to make restitutions towards other individuals) and as such your example does not work. if we were to be consistent, the judge could not take on the punishment of the guilty individual because the immediate payment would not have been paid. as such, your analogy fails for it confuses the consequences of sin that christians believe had been paid by christ.

i'm sure that i've ignored some other things in your post but i'm certainly willing to focus on them later should you feel these to be pertinent to the discussion.
Reply

IAmZamzam
05-03-2011, 06:05 PM
Sol, my hands are not in any condition to give a full response to you right now. Perhaps someone else would like to take over in the meanwhile...?
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-03-2011, 06:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
Sol, my hands are not in any condition to give a full response to you right now. Perhaps someone else would like to take over in the meanwhile...?
greetings yahya. alright and no worries, we can continue the discussion whenever your hands have become sufficiently well enough to enter into such a discussion. of course in the meantime i am more than glad to carry on the discussion with whomever is willing.
Reply

gmcbroom
05-04-2011, 05:16 AM
Sol, concerning post number 95, that was an excellent post.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-04-2011, 12:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
Sol, concerning post number 95, that was an excellent post.
thanks gmc, i'm glad that you found it helpful.

on that note, i have read the objections concerning christianity within this thread and have found none to be at all damaging or serious. while it would be very simple to begin quoting individuals within this thread and responding etc. i do not necessarily wish to force anyone into a discussion (other than perhaps, the op; though this would be at whatever time would be convenient for him) yet if it is the case that one should think their point not to have been properly responded to then i would be more than willing to enter into a discussion with them on the matter (i would ask that they have read my post #95 first so as to understand where i'm coming from).
Reply

M.I.A.
05-04-2011, 12:56 PM
sols thinking of life and death or use thereof in his answer makes me think that he forgets that the commandments were to ultimately provide provision for the afterlife and not a pathway to happiness in this life, if he takes any role model than it will be clear that was the message.

a sort of minimizing of sin for this life, damage control.. not a license to gallivant care free as if this were the garden of eden.

...but i guess that placing liability on somebody else means that is exactly the point, gods forgiveness is negated for becoming a non god fearing people.


its a crap analogy but,
the way life works is that people take turns to punch each other in the face, if someone does that to you.. you are well entitled to punch them back.
obviously somebody forgave you for not having a clue what you were doing..
2000 years later you still did not get the point.
Reply

Woodrow
05-04-2011, 01:15 PM
Peace Sol.

I'm a bit on the slow side and at the moment doubt if I could contribute to much more than one thought. So I am at the moment only looking at a very small part of your post #95


format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
Being flogged, crowned with thorns, whacked with a reed, marched across town, and crucified for nine hours is serious business indeed (if it did happen) but by no means is it the grand total of all the suffering that everyone who has ever lived or ever will live deserve for every single sin ever committed in past, present, and future. Even if sin could be transferred, there have been too many sins overall to squeeze them all into such a relatively meager amount of suffering. Heck, there’s probably been more than one individual person who has deserved those exact torments. To punish a single person for every wrongdoing in history would probably take longer than a single person could live. I know that there is no official objective means of measuring this but try to be honest with yourself: isn’t it supposed to be one eye for one eye? Wouldn’t a crucifixion be a fitting punishment only for one person’s unethically crucifying someone, and one bout of torture for one equivalent bout of torture? For heaven’s sake, people, even in the Gospels themselves the perpetrators marvel at what little time the whole thing took (Mark 15:44), and this is supposed to be punishment for every crucifixion, every murder, every rape, every hoarding of every miser, every act of perjury, every act of adultery, every swindling, robbery, vehicular manslaughter, obscene phone call, and Michael Bay movie from the dawn of man till Judgment Day?! Give me a crown of thorns, a beating, and a nine hour crucifixion over what happened to Rasputin any day.
clearly you do not possess an adequate understanding of the atonement. the true suffering did not consist of being nailed to the cross, or flogged, beaten etc. but rather in the wrath of god which flows from the justice of god being meted out on the person of christ. the punishment was to the very soul and whatever physical suffering coming from a crucifixion would be trivial in comparison. the matter of time need not be an issue for if christ is himself infinite in his own being than it is perfectly possible to experience an infinite amount of suffering in a finite period. in other posts around this forum you mention how well you understood christianity yet i have not seen this knowledge displayed within your post at all. the manner in which you end the above sentence is actually quite telling in how you seemed to have never understood the matter you so casually make light of at all. where did you get such an understanding?
In an over simplification I see the above dialogue as being:

Yahya Sulaiman: "The Crucifixion if it actually happened was pointless and the punishment while horrible was no worse than others have endured.

Sol Invictus: " The punishment was not the atonement. The atonement was Jesus(as) taking on the wrath of God(swt) so that all of mankind need not face it."
I can not imagine an infinite God(swt) having the need to vent his anger. How could an all powerful being have any need for anger except if it is to be a prod to guide the lost back to the proper path. This concept has reduced God(swt) to an emotional entity who requires an outlet to satisfy His anger.
Reply

M.I.A.
05-04-2011, 01:31 PM
i agree with woodrow,

we are all just a means to an end..in the end.
jesus pbuh was built for the job.. everybody that saw him knew.

it was a test for the people that saw him, interacted with him, kind of like the lepers of the time..
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-04-2011, 02:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
( a ) I can not imagine an infinite God(swt) having the need to vent his anger. How could an all powerful being have any need for anger ( b ) except if it is to be a prod to guide the lost back to the proper path. ( c ) This concept has reduced God(swt) to an emotional entity who requires an outlet to satisfy His anger.
( a ) greetings woodrow, it must be said that this may just be a difference between islam and christianity yet let me explain why i feel that the god whom you advocate in the above is drastically substandard in my opinion. first, we should define what we mean by the wrath of god:

The wrath of God is His eternal detestation of all unrighteousness. It is the displeasure and indignation of Divine equity against evil. It is the holiness of God stirred into activity against sin. It is the moving cause of that just sentence which He passes upon evil-doers. God is angry against sin because it is a rebelling against His authority, a wrong done to His inviolable sovereignty. Insurrectionists against God’s government shall be made to know that God is the Lord. They shall be made to feel how great that Majesty is which they despise, and how dreadful is that threatened wrath which they so little regarded. Not that God’s anger is a malignant and malicious retaliation, inflicting injury for the sake of it, or in return for injury received. No; while God will vindicate His dominion as Governor of the universe, He will not be vindictive. --- A. W. Pink

the wrath of god actually flows directly from god's holiness and love. while that may sound initially counter-intuitive, it is not illogical. if we first define god as the source of all goodness and the lover of the good, then it follows that in the degree in which he loves the good, he hates evil. for example, given that i love children, i hate pedophilia or seeing as i love animals, i am absolutely incensed by animal cruelty. i cannot claim to love x and remain indifferent or not be driven to anger if x is violated in the same way that one cannot love justice and remain indifferent if justice is violated. it would seem that the general muslim position here is that anger is not fit of god and if this is so, then i must sincerely say that the muslim deity is substandard. one simply cannot be absolutely loving, without being driven to anger by things which do not flow from love. god cannot be good without being angered by evil. if i remain indifferent at the suffering of the people around the world, if i am not infuriated by how much we as a people hurt one another, then i never loved in the first place. i do not know if you have children woodrow but assuming that you do, could you remain indifferent, aloof, uncaring at the sight of them suffering or would you not be angry at the fact of their suffering? one simply cannot be a moral agent and not be outraged by immorality.

( b ) i would once again have to disagree with this. the anger of god is good in itself, it need not even lead to the individual changing their ways (though this would be hoped for). anger at immorality is the first thing that a moral being must possess. if you love the good then you do not remain indifferent to evil, no you do not even moderately dislike evil but rather you hate it (do note that there is a difference between hating the evil and hating the person). god is not ashamed of his anger towards evil, in fact it is a moral perfection and to lack this anger is to lack perfection. evil tries to set itself up against the good, and even to overcome the good. if god himself is the very good in question than how could god not be incensed by all that which is not god yet wishes to set itself up as god?

( c ) no, this concept has not reduced god but actually vindicates him and displays his majesty. goodness is opposed to all form of evil and the more one loves the good the more they are infuriated by evil (once again the subject is evil and not the person). what you claim in your paragraph is actually what truly reduces god and not what the bible says. moral outrage is a divine perfection just as the punishment of evil is. these may not necessarily be pleasing to us but what is good is not always synonymous with what is pleasing or even with what is nice. now, you try to argue for a god who loves yet is not driven to wrath by evil and that simply does not make sense. if god loves goodness absolutely and without measure, then he must hate evil absolutely and without measure. he is wrathful precisely because he is loving.

Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. --- Romans 12:19 KJV (on another note, notice the debt motif again in that the word 'repay' is used to signify the punishment of sin)
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-04-2011, 02:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.
sols thinking of life and death or use thereof in his answer makes me think that he forgets that the commandments were to ultimately provide provision for the afterlife and not a pathway to happiness in this life, if he takes any role model than it will be clear that was the message.
that is incredibly wrong:

For I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess. --- Deut. 30:16 NIV

This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live --- Deut. 30:19 NIV
Reply

M.I.A.
05-04-2011, 03:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
that is incredibly wrong:

For I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess. --- Deut. 30:16 NIV

This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live --- Deut. 30:19 NIV
at first sight this is opposite of what we as muslims believe, the quran says if you believe then long for death.. it is in reference to jews but the understanding is to remove fear.
the quran further mentions of the transgressions of bounds and within this is the definition of life.

so all things are set before us, are you going to sit at home or do something about it.

anyway, i have chosen life for the most part..
fortunately we have been taught to hold the tongue, control our anger and trust and love our god moreso than living life to the fullest..our understanding of this world differs. i can understand that you can quote scripture but in our understanding of it we differ greatly.
Reply

Grace Seeker
05-04-2011, 03:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.
the commandments were to ultimately provide provision for the afterlife and not a pathway to happiness in this life
I would disagree that this is a true statement -- at least not from my faith perspective.



As to the wrath of God that is also under discussion, speaking for myself and not all of Christendom, I have found this idea as popularly expressed in most quarters to have less and less value in my understanding of God and his nature. And I would argue that what we call the expression of anger as an emotional response to some outside stimuli is not at all consistent with a biblical understanding of God. Though we may see God acting in ways that we may have termed anger in humans, that does not mean that in one who is wholly other than us, that what we see is in fact anger. Even when the text itself says, "Then the LORD’s anger burned against Moses..." (Exodus 4:14), it seems to me that this is speaking in anthropomorphisizing language and not indicative of God's actual nature.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-04-2011, 04:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
As to the wrath of God that is also under discussion, speaking for myself and not all of Christendom, I have found this idea as popularly expressed in most quarters to have less and less value in my understanding of God and his nature. And I would argue that what we call the expression of anger as an emotional response to some outside stimuli is not at all consistent with a biblical understanding of God. Though we may see God acting in ways that we may have termed anger in humans, that does not mean that in one who is wholly other than us, that what we see is in fact anger. Even when the text itself says, "Then the LORD’s anger burned against Moses..." (Exodus 4:14), it seems to me that this is speaking in anthropomorphisizing language and not indicative of God's actual nature.
agreed. i believe that st. amselm spoke concerning he 'emotions' of god. certainly, god's emotions are not our emotions as god's knowledge and being is wholly different than ours. yet, the difference (though infinite) is not as such that terms such as "god exists, you exist" or "god knows, you know" are rendered incomprehensible. though the difference is infinite, it does not mean that no point of similarity exists and we as finite creatures can only speak as it concerns this point where god's being and experiences fall in line with ours.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-04-2011, 04:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
As to the wrath of God that is also under discussion, speaking for myself and not all of Christendom, I have found this idea as popularly expressed in most quarters to have less and less value in my understanding of God and his nature. And I would argue that what we call the expression of anger as an emotional response to some outside stimuli is not at all consistent with a biblical understanding of God. Though we may see God acting in ways that we may have termed anger in humans, that does not mean that in one who is wholly other than us, that what we see is in fact anger. Even when the text itself says, "Then the LORD’s anger burned against Moses..." (Exodus 4:14), it seems to me that this is speaking in anthropomorphisizing language and not indicative of God's actual nature.
agreed. i believe that st. amselm spoke concerning he 'emotions' of god. certainly, god's emotions are not our emotions as god's knowledge and being is wholly different than ours. yet, the difference (though infinite) is not as such that terms such as "god exists, you exist" or "god knows, you know" are rendered incomprehensible. though the difference is infinite, it does not mean that no point of similarity exists and we as finite creatures can only speak as it concerns this point where god's being and experiences fall in line with ours.
Reply

M.I.A.
05-04-2011, 07:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I would disagree that this is a true statement -- at least not from my faith perspective.



As to the wrath of God that is also under discussion, speaking for myself and not all of Christendom, I have found this idea as popularly expressed in most quarters to have less and less value in my understanding of God and his nature. And I would argue that what we call the expression of anger as an emotional response to some outside stimuli is not at all consistent with a biblical understanding of God. Though we may see God acting in ways that we may have termed anger in humans, that does not mean that in one who is wholly other than us, that what we see is in fact anger. Even when the text itself says, "Then the LORD’s anger burned against Moses..." (Exodus 4:14), it seems to me that this is speaking in anthropomorphisizing language and not indicative of God's actual nature.
it was probably not the same sort of anger as expressed in the plagues of Egypt.

i stand by my statement,
with hardship comes ease..this may not mean that living tomorrow will be easier than today.. but the things learned today will be put into practice tomorrow.. and so on and so on.
Reply

Grace Seeker
05-05-2011, 06:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.
the commandments were to ultimately provide provision for the afterlife and not a pathway to happiness in this life
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I would disagree that this is a true statement -- at least not from my faith perspective.
</p>

format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.
i stand by my statement,
with hardship comes ease..this may not mean that living tomorrow will be easier than today.. but the things learned today will be put into practice tomorrow.. and so on and so on.
I don't disagree with your observation that with hardship comes ease. Certainly "hard knocks" become a source of learning for many people that makes life easier in the long term. I've personally experienced this with regard both to academic failures and achievements, and also in learning to develop quality relationships with people. I suspect it is so in many areas of life, religious knowledge and moral character not to be excluded.

But how does that reality substantiate the initial idea that "the commandments were to ultimately provide provision for the afterlife and not a pathway to happiness in this life?"
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-05-2011, 06:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
</p>
But how does that reality substantiate the initial idea that "the commandments were to ultimately provide provision for the afterlife and not a pathway to happiness in this life?"
indeed i'm wondering about this as well.
Reply

Grace Seeker
05-05-2011, 07:11 PM
Perhaps a word with regard to the Christian understanding of life and its purpose would help here.

Chiefly, we understand that our purpose in life, indeed the purpose for all of creation is to give glory to God. This means that God not us, neither in terms of our happiness in this life nor our eternal reward of an afterlife in paradise, is the ultimate reason for anything -- commandments included.

With regard to what some see as a distinction between this present life and an after life, Jesus' message about God's kingdom seems to me to make clear that such distinctions are artificial and more a result of looking at things through the moral eyes of a human, than from a divine perspective. Jesus' message focused on the kingdom of God. Something that he did not speak about as only being present a the distant eschatological future that we would only partake of someday. Rather, he spoke of it as being near, even hear. He taught us to pray for God's kingdom to come, "on earth as in heaven." And he taught us to live in such a way that in small respect it might already be so, simply by our own presence as if we were an advance scout engaged in the the establishment of God's kingdom. Thus, for those who live out God's will, we don't just wait for a future reward, we enjoy it already now even as we await a greater consumation of it in "the last days." But for the Christian, our happiness is not found in the events of this life, nor even from being in heaven; our joy is found from being in God's will regardless of our geographical location. What God's commandment ultimately are then are one form of guidance by which we might find our way into God's will for our lives be it today, tomorrow, or forever.
Reply

M.I.A.
05-05-2011, 08:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Perhaps a word with regard to the Christian understanding of life and its purpose would help here.

Chiefly, we understand that our purpose in life, indeed the purpose for all of creation is to give glory to God. This means that God not us, neither in terms of our happiness in this life nor our eternal reward of an afterlife in paradise, is the ultimate reason for anything -- commandments included.

With regard to what some see as a distinction between this present life and an after life, Jesus' message about God's kingdom seems to me to make clear that such distinctions are artificial and more a result of looking at things through the moral eyes of a human, than from a divine perspective. Jesus' message focused on the kingdom of God. Something that he did not speak about as only being present a the distant eschatological future that we would only partake of someday. Rather, he spoke of it as being near, even hear. He taught us to pray for God's kingdom to come, "on earth as in heaven." And he taught us to live in such a way that in small respect it might already be so, simply by our own presence as if we were an advance scout engaged in the the establishment of God's kingdom. Thus, for those who live out God's will, we don't just wait for a future reward, we enjoy it already now even as we await a greater consumation of it in "the last days." But for the Christian, our happiness is not found in the events of this life, nor even from being in heaven; our joy is found from being in God's will regardless of our geographical location. What God's commandment ultimately are then are one form of guidance by which we might find our way into God's will for our lives be it today, tomorrow, or forever.
when i pray..which is less often than i am obligated to do. i pray that allah makes use of me in this world and that he forgives me.

this is the reality i live in, no certainty of any action and yet an irrefutable awareness at the majesty and power of allah.
it is like the action of relinquishing freedom of will and still having fear of ones actions.

as such that fear is the intent of my prayers and has become my reality.. the act of really enjoying something has been removed from most things.
i know most things i enjoy are sin so they are removed.
fear of causing harm at any given moment removes enjoyment from other things.. but does well to keep my awake.
..even when presented with opportunities i am a notoriously bad decision maker.

so you can imagine who i think about most of the time.

this way has opened my eyes a little to the way things work, no matter how hard i try.. ultimately things happen as they do and that freedom of choice still exists. if i could openly speak my mind to somebody i would say exactly as you already know.. we all profess to believe in the god.. what we do while chasing enjoyment i can only imagine.

if it means to surrender every aspect of my supposed life to make sure i can minimize the damage i cause then that is enjoyment. and if i have missed the point of this life because of the path i have chosen then i know that god knows it.. self righteousness is disposed of with great ease, it is the easiest thing i have removed from myself and yet here we are again me trying to prove that what i represent is the truth.

..easier not to know who i am or what i do until that final day.

believe me i was so close to having everything i ever wanted before i lost it all(cliched but true),this life may still be the carrot on the stick that motivates me.. but i am under no illusion any more about who is in charge.

i hope not to be remembered as a bad guy, in this conversation or the next.
Reply

IAmZamzam
05-05-2011, 09:03 PM
Let’s see if I can do this succinctly enough not to hurt myself.

format_quote Originally Posted by SolInvictus
The bible describes sin as a debt whose method of payment and price is death (Romans 6:23, Hebrews 9:22) and God, since he is infinitely holy and just, requires that sin be punished; that all debts be paid. Now the nature of a debt is as such that he who has no debt can pay the debt of another. This is because a debt (in a manner of speaking) is extraneous to the individual and hence the individual is not levied for something that is absolutely inherent to his self but rather he is levied for a property that is wholly contingent to his being. In just the same way, while everyone is born with sin, sin itself is not absolutely inherent to the human being and thus is not a non-contingent property that the human would possess in every possible world (ie. we can imagine a possible world where humans do not sin such as heaven or pre-fall Eden). Therefore, given that sin is an extrinsic quality, it is possible and perfectly logical for a third party to pay the debt of sin belonging to another. Hence the feasibility of animal sacrifices in the Old Testament (Leviticus 5:11, Leviticus 17:11).

To better illustrate this point, think of renting an apartment. Now imagine that through various circumstances you have spent your savings to the point that you are not able to pay any of your bills, much less the cost of renting your apartment. Given your great debt, it is impossible for you to pay your own debt and neither is it fair for the government (while it would be within their power) to just pretend that you did not owe them anything (i.e. simply forgive), for that would not be a display of justice. While you would not be able to pay the debt, it would be possible for someone else (such as a parent or brother) to step in and pay the debt for you so that justice would be served (and mercy bestowed on you) and you would not be left in the miserable situation that you had placed yourself in; in full view of your loving parent and/or relative.
This is just a more technical-sounding, confusing, fancy way of making the “one person paying another person’s monetary debt” analogy (indeed, you go on and on with it in parts I don’t quote) which I very soundly refuted in the article itself:

format_quote Originally Posted by Me
Henry Ward Beecher or someone once said, “...Forgiveness ought to be like a cancelled note—torn in two, and burned up, so that it never can be shown against one.” Yet instead of perceiving forgiveness in this very accurate and rational way, Christian dogma—to use the cliché that Christians themselves are always using—instead misrepresents forgiveness as a note of debt transferred from one person who cannot pay it to a loving volunteer who can. As I heard a brother in the faith put it once, “The Christian concept of entering Heaven is similar to going to the movie theater. To get in you need to pay the ticket price. If you can not [sic] afford the price you get rich uncle Charlie to cough up the money for you. I do not see this as forgiveness. forgiveness [sic] erases all debt and their [sic] is no longer a price to be paid. To be forgiven we need only to repent fully and strive to become loyal servants of Allaah(swt). When our repentance is accepted, there is no longer any bill to pay...There is no charge for Allaah(swt)'s mercy.” Precisely. Forgiveness is the erasure of moral debt altogether, not a transfer of it from one party to another. Christianity is supposedly a religion centered entirely on grace yet the Christian definition of grace tries to have it both ways, and in doing so attributes both utmost injustice and gross, puzzling impracticality and unreasonability to the Almighty....
format_quote Originally Posted by SolInvictus
The Christian God never fails to exemplify his attributes of holiness and justice to the full, there is never an instance where he fails to be just in order to be merciful yet thanks to the cross, neither is there ever an instance where God fails to be merciful in order to be just. Rather, the cross enables God to consistently be both simultaneously...He must be infinitely just consistently and such a scenario ends in hell for all humanity. yet given the cross, god is able to display both justice and mercy consistently.
Thank you for unknowingly and inadvertently proving my point about these Christian doctrines limiting a limitless God—who in actual fact never needs anything to enable Him to do anything, and can solve any problem without having to resort to torturing Himself to death for no good reason to do so.

And once again: punishment is the opposite of forgiveness. Changing the identity of the one being punished does not negate this fact.

format_quote Originally Posted by SolInvictus
The Muslim God on the other hand has to set one infinite attribute in opposition to another. I mean, we understand that the proper punishment for sin is death and that justice is not synonymous to mercy. When Allah forgives, he displays mercy, but he does not display justice and vice versa. Where Allah does forgive, there is no provision in Islam that enables sin to always and consistently end in the natural conclusion that is demanded by both logic and justice—death. Hence, Islam presents us with a god who is in contradiction with himself. There is no unison or harmony to his being to the point where he is forced to have one infinite attribute trump another.
There is nothing unjust about a person who has the right to decide what, if any, punishment someone receives deciding on no punishment because he knows that none is necessary due to genuine repentance. If someone were sentenced to seven years of grueling slavery under a person he had wronged (there were many instances of this is ancient legal codes), and the wronged party exercised his right as the man’s new master to free him because after talking to him he had correctly ascertained that he had learned his lesson, no one would accuse him of injustice because of his mercy. Indeed, you could plug in any situation and you’ll find it’s the same. When God has the right to punish and chooses instead for very good reasons not to exercise it, what’s unjust in that? It was his right. By the logic of Christianity the master spoken of above would have to sign himself over to the sentenced man because those seven years must be done by somebody, dagnabbit!

I don’t know what it is about the imaginary paradoxes of Christian doctrine that allow Christians to use them time and again as a cop-out counter-argument for things. If anything whatsoever doesn’t make sense about Jesus’s (P) being incarnate, you just shrug it off as it being due to His being “both perfect God and perfect man”. If anything about the Trinity is demonstrated as not making sense then it’s only because of the Triune quality itself, which is beyond our mortal comprehension—when it is not more convenient to argue that we’re “just not understanding it” instead; Christians will shift back and forth between these two contrary positions willy nilly as it suits them. And if anything God does in your doctrine or stories is shown to be unjust, why it’s only because He has both perfect justice and perfect mercy. I guess the attraction of these cop-outs is how nice it is to have something already difficult to understand to fall back on. If the rebuttal doesn’t confuse us then you can still insist that we’re “just not getting it”, or at worst hypocritically claim the issue as being beyond mortal comprehension anyway. Whatever the reason is, I’m getting awfully tired of the trend.

format_quote Originally Posted by SolInvictus
Are you going to argue that sin is not a debt?
Sin results in a debt of sorts to God, but not a literal “sum must be paid by someone, it doesn’t matter who” sense like with actual money. That’s just an equivocation fallacy. No one should ever have to pay for another person’s wrongdoing.

if it isn't a debt than why is the sinner punished? why will the polytheists face an eternity in hell? it is because they have a debt to pay and a debt against an infinite being is itself infinite. if sin is not a debt and as such it need not be logically repaid to god then why would he keep individuals in hell forever? simply for the sheer enjoyment? or is it because the logical nature of things such as shirk require that this debt be paid. so then even in islam sin is viewed as a debt to god (for if it weren't then god would have no business setting the matter right either through forgiveness or punishment) and as such this point fails as well.
There are some dissenters among us Muslims to the idea that anyone will be in hell forever, and most of us agree (with much scriptural back-up) that at the very least a great many of the d-a-m-n-e-d will not. Nevertheless, to argue that there is nothing evil about someone being tortured and crucified on earth for other people’s sins is the same logic as arguing that anyone should have to go to hell forever for other people’s sins. By the way, which is worse: earthly death by torture or eternal hell? Can the greater of the two somehow paid in full by lesser? Even if it could, one person’s eternity in hell would be the maximum that could be paid for, not all people’s. Even with the desperate theory you propose below you still have the mathematical problem of adding infinities to each other.

format_quote Originally Posted by SolInvictus
The muslim deity...cannot even be said to be infinitely just or infinitely merciful for his attributes regularly trump the other as it comes to his divine nature.
There is no “muslim deity”. It’s the same Deity that Christians and Jews worship. You can refuse to acknowledge this till you’re blue in the face but it won’t change anything. It is a well known objective fact. Nor does our conception of what the Deity is like say anything about infinite mercy. The Koran refers to Him instead merely as “the most merciful of those who have mercy”. If either your notion of God or ours involved infinite mercy then neither of us would believe in hell. Well, you would, I’m sure, but only because of the “fall back on the paradox” cop-out discussed above. Nothing is too contradictory for a Christian to believe based on the acknowledged fact that it is paradoxical alone. How odd.

format_quote Originally Posted by SolInvictus
clearly you do not possess an adequate understanding of the atonement. the true suffering did not consist of being nailed to the cross, or flogged, beaten etc. but rather in the wrath of god which flows from the justice of god being meted out on the person of christ. the punishment was to the very soul and whatever physical suffering coming from a crucifixion would be trivial in comparison. the matter of time need not be an issue for if christ is himself infinite in his own being than it is perfectly possible to experience an infinite amount of suffering in a finite period.
The mode of punishment doesn’t change the fact that it is still one entity being punished for what another entity did. Besides, the argument in question that you’re responding to was very much an offhand and secondary point, somewhat of a vaguely irrelevant sideshow that I included only because I find it strange how seldom it seems to get brought up or even thought up anywhere. In any event I have never heard anyone make your defense before so I’m pretty sure it’s only individual apologetics as opposed to scripturally established dogma.

format_quote Originally Posted by SolInvictus
In other posts around this forum you mention how well you understood christianity yet i have not seen this knowledge displayed within your post at all. the manner in which you end the above sentence is actually quite telling in how you seemed to have never understood the matter you so casually make light of at all. where did you get such an understanding?
I am not at all surprised at once again hearing my disagreements with Christianity and refusal to interpret certain things in the same way that Christians do presented as automatic ignorance of it—the old “you just don’t understand us!” is one of the most ancient and universally practiced cop-outs in the world. But it’s not at all often that I get that response, not for disagreeing with Christianity itself, but instead for not considering an off-the-cuff attempt at explaining something away using hypotheticals, which the Christian apparently pulled out of his you-know-what. Usually it’s at least for not seeing actual dogma the same way that Christians do, or having non-Christian biblical interpretations.

I have seen an argument along these lines elsewhere and they only work as long as one misrepresents the atonement and the concept of forgiveness. you do not understand that sin is twofold, there is the immediate consequences for sin (which primarily deals with making restitution with each other), and the eternal consequences for sin (which means making restitution to god). if i kill an individual, i can in fact pay for my crime according to our laws by giving my life in exchange. while i would have 'satisfied' the immediate consequence of my sin to the victim (as far as earthly law is concerned) i would not have satisfied the eternal consequence of my sin for that is against god and god being infinite, the sin against him requires a payment that is infinite in return.
I am getting tired of this peculiar idea of yours that just because an entity is infinite that means that wronging it is committing infinite wrong. It is the size of the action itself, and not the size of the victim, that makes the difference. Your logic is equivalent to that of someone saying that murdering a murderer makes one responsible for all the murders that he ever committed: something is being done to X and X has quality A, so the thing being done must itself have quality A.

format_quote Originally Posted by SolInvictus
christ came to save us from this payment and not the immediate one (if he had saved us from the immediate payment then christians would not need to make restitutions towards other individuals) and as such your example does not work. if we were to be consistent, the judge could not take on the punishment of the guilty individual because the immediate payment would not have been paid. as such, your analogy fails for it confuses the consequences of sin that christians believe had been paid by christ.
You cannot escape the logic of my post by making up some distinction between “immediate” and “eternal” consequences which, even if it’s true, is still irrelevant. Since you seem incapable of grasping, no matter how much or how well I explain the problems involved, that this is not like monetary debts I’ll borrow the analogy myself: the difference between a down payment owed and a continual mortage owed does not matter one tiny little whit when the issue in the first place is whether it is right to charge someone a debt they can’t possibly ever pay and then claim to be doing them a favor when you, the charger, pay (yourself??) up instead, when there was never any need for the debt in the first place as the chargers needs no money and knows that the debtor can’t pay and will do his best not to run up any more debts in the future. But I really am asking for it by submitting to this stupid monetary analogy even as a hypothetical when I’ve already explained how it simply doesn’t work at all.

I really need to rest.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-06-2011, 02:51 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
This is just a more technical-sounding, confusing, fancy way of making the “one person paying another person’s monetary debt” analogy (indeed, you go on and on with it in parts I don’t quote) which I very soundly refuted in the article itself:
greetings yahya. if you feel that you have refuted this then we certainly do have ourselves a problem but before speaking more on the matter, let us actually look at what you have said:

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
Henry Ward Beecher or someone once said, “... ( a ) Forgiveness ought to be like a cancelled note—torn in two, and burned up, so that it never can be shown against one.” ( b ) Yet instead of perceiving forgiveness in this very accurate and rational way, Christian dogma—to use the cliché that Christians themselves are always using—instead misrepresents forgiveness as a note of debt transferred from one person who cannot pay it to a loving volunteer who can. ( c ) As I heard a brother in the faith put it once, “The Christian concept of entering Heaven is similar to going to the movie theater. To get in you need to pay the ticket price. If you can not [sic] afford the price you get rich uncle Charlie to cough up the money for you. I do not see this as forgiveness. forgiveness [sic] erases all debt and their [sic] is no longer a price to be paid. To be forgiven we need only to repent fully and strive to become loyal servants of Allaah(swt). When our repentance is accepted, there is no longer any bill to pay...There is no charge for Allaah(swt)'s mercy.” Precisely. Forgiveness is the erasure of moral debt altogether, not a transfer of it from one party to another. Christianity is supposedly a religion centered entirely on grace yet the Christian definition of grace tries to have it both ways, and in doing so attributes both utmost injustice and gross, puzzling impracticality and unreasonability to the Almighty....
( a ) what exactly in the above is diametrically opposed to the christian understanding? does the christian not claim that the blood of christ cancels their debt to god? do they not believe that they have passed from judgement into life? i have noticed that parcelled throughout your post there are these peculiar lines which make no sense outside of simply misrepresenting what christianity claims and the above is just another example.

( b ) wait, a minute. you claim that we find in christianity something totally contradictory to what is underlined in section ( a ) yet never do you actually explain how this is so. you simply state this without backing it up. if one's debt is paid then does this not mean that the matter is ended, cancelled, burned up (or whatever other ways of putting it you have so kindly enumerated within your post)? the odd thing here is that you make your claim without basing this on fact and as such we find ourselves with yet another point that makes little sense outside of disparaging christianity simply for the sake of it. how does the christian understanding not lead to our sin(s) "never [being shown] shown against [us]" anymore? so far your argumentation has been so full of holes that it surprises even myself.

( c ) the analogy of yours actually proves nothing. in what way does it show that the christian conception of forgiveness does not lead to a "cancelled note"? for one thing, your analogy is faulty because in no sense does the concept of forgiveness play any role at all in watching a movie. certainly i can stretch your point to gain an understanding of what you're attempting to say but the analogy is a bad one. the individual in the example is not in any sort of debt towards the theatre company and this is unlike the discussion we are engaging in.

"If you can not [sic] afford the price you get rich uncle Charlie to cough up the money for you. I do not see this as forgiveness. forgiveness [sic] erases all debt and their [sic] is no longer a price to be paid." and this is precisely where things get good. the christian understanding is that the atonement was an expression of justice (hence why i could say: "the true suffering did not consist of being nailed to the cross, or flogged, beaten etc. but rather in the wrath of god which flows from the justice of god being meted out on the person of christ") and forgiveness is subsequently given through this. you first error is that you lack a proper understanding of what is an expression of forgiveness and what is one of justice. but more importantly, here we go again with unsupported claims (i.e. "forgiveness [sic] erases all debt and their [sic] is no longer a price to be paid"). in what way do christians say that after god has forgiven them through the blood of christ they must still pay for their sins to god (as if christ's sacrifice wasn't enough)? yes, forgiveness does indeed erase all debt and as such the christian has passed from death into life.


In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace --- Ephesians 1:7 NIV

"Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood --- Acts 20:28 NASB

so at this point i must again ask you, where exactly is the argument? you claim that forgiveness ought to be like a cancelled note and who exactly is disagreeing with this? do christians not say that christ paid for their sins once and for all and as such they stand justified before god? your objection is either said in complete ignorance of christian teaching or a clear act of deceit. individuals on this board ought to stop thinking that merely denying a matter constitutes debunking it. the paragraph in which you claimed that your refutation was to be found was little more than a string of denials of the christian doctrine followed by no actual argument against it. my review of your post certainly is not starting off well.

"To be forgiven we need only to repent fully and strive to become loyal servants of Allaah(swt).[/U] When our repentance is accepted, there is no longer any bill to pay" <--- and this is where we get into the point of justice. i have noted that you have completely ignored this subject which i find quite odd (can a discussion on forgiveness at all be had without invoking the notion of justice? is it alright for the courts to simply forgive the person who murdered an innocent man? technically, they could pronounce a "not guilty" verdict yet such would not be an expression of justice and hence they are completely unable to do so). before we even get to the matter of being forgiven, we must first answer the question of whether it is just to be forgiven. god is the ultimate standard in the universe and as such he has a duty to necessarily uphold the good. god cannot act contrary to justice. sure, he can withhold mercy (forgiveness) but he cannot withhold justice and as such the little discussion that you have hitherto entertained without at all appealing to the concept of justice is rendered moot. once again, as long as we ignore the concept of justice altogether, your diatribe on the christian faith could in fact be sustained yet when we actually look at things in the greater context and begin to appreciate all of god's attributes, your points all fall flat.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
( d ) Thank you for unknowingly and inadvertently proving my point about these Christian doctrines limiting a limitless God—who in actual fact never needs anything to enable Him to do anything, and can solve any problem without having to resort to torturing Himself to death for no good reason to do so.
the only thing that i have inadvertently proven is your complete ignorance of what limitless actually means. it does not mean that he possesses no limits but rather that his limits do not somehow render him anything less than the one, perfect divine being. for the fact of the matter is that god is in fact limited--by a lot of things actually. he cannot lie, cannot steal, cannot sin etc., his aseity and omnipotence limit him to such a respect that he cannot cease to exist etc., god is limited by the rules of logic and so forth. so no, your appeal to limiting an infinite god simply won't work here for it only shows how you do not understand what is meant when christians and even muslims say that god is infinite.

note: as we shall soon see it is rather you who limits god and in fact imply that he is not perfect by claiming that some of his attributes aren't infinite. as such, he does not possess them in their entirety, and therefore cannot possess goodness in its entirety and this results in him not possessing perfection for he lacks the full measure of what is needed to be perfect. yet i digress.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
( e ) who in actual fact never needs anything to enable Him to do anything, and can solve any problem without having to resort to torturing Himself to death for no good reason to do so.
once again, you are in fact wrong. god needs justice for he cannot simply act in any manner whatsoever. if he could act in any manner possible then he would not need justice but he certainly needs his actions to conform to certain standards such as justice (and before i hear the words euthrypho, plato and dilemma shouted at me we should also mention that these standards are found in his own being and as such we have nicely averted such a problem). the cross was an expression of justice and i would hope that you would at least keep from making such blithe, superficial comments on christian doctrine for we can all engage in the same particularly as it comes to your prophet engaging in sexual relations with a 9 year old girl and yet out of common decency, i avert putting the matter in manners that are repulsive to both you and myself (though i certainly condemn such an action). the problem here is that you still have not touched on the concept of justice and you have not shown us how your god is just when he forgives seeing as forgiveness by its very definition (i.e. mercy) is the opposite of justice. the muslim deity is simply incapable of being just and merciful at the same time concerning the same matter. given that he is not just consistently, then he is not the very emodiment of justice nor of goodness for to fail to embody justice is to fail to embody goodness. to fail to embody goodness is to fail to embody perfection, oh dear, we seem to have come to a parade of horribles.

note: if the muslim deity is not infinite justice or mercy, then he is not the full and in fact very embodiment of goodness etc. your failing argument has now driven you to commit blasphemy, congratulations.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
And once again: punishment is the opposite of forgiveness. Changing the identity of the one being punished does not negate this fact.
first of all, your first sentence adds nothing to the discussion. punishment is an expression of justice and as such i have already included this particular understanding when i had contrasted justice to forgiveness repeatedly throughout my post. let's not waste any more words then are needed.

i'm not too sure what you're getting at with your second sentence and as such i would kindly request you to elaborate on this point. edit: now i think i do. you are saying that the cross is an expression of punishment and not of forgiveness and i must say that you are right. forgiveness flows from what happened on the cross. the cross itself highlights the justice of god. notice that it is called the atonement, to make "at-one-ment". it is a term that has to do with justice and the setting right of wrongs. the fact that you once again did not understand this further highlights your need for further study before you at all begin to start writing articles on the matter. perhaps then we would not run into such misunderstandings of elementary issues.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
Sin results in a debt of sorts to God, but not a literal “sum must be paid by someone, it doesn’t matter who” sense like with actual money.
alright, so we agree that sin results in debt. i should mention that i did not argue that sin resulted in a monetary sum being pained but that it functioned along the lines of debt (to which i then subsequently gave examples involving a monetary unit). yet what is more troubling is that you simply assert the above without any proof (i.e. that a third party cannot pay one's debt). can you actually attack my definition of debt (it was actually a fairly all-encompassing definition and it is simply you who misunderstood it as relating only to money) before making claims that s yet have to be proved? if debt is contingent to the person then it need not only be that particular individual who has to pay this debt. in a sense, this discussion is indeed moot because we have examples in which debt operates in such a fashion. the bible clearly claims that divine law functions in such a way and given that we have proof both from logic and experience that this is perfectly in keeping with the idea of debt, then the christian understanding cannot be attacked. simply by admitting that sin "results in a debt of sorts to God" you have lost all logical grounds for criticism. we certainly know how debt operates and what has been claimed by christians is not at all illogical within such parameters. yet, this discussion is nothing if not entertaining and as such even though realistically speaking, your point has been refuted (even by yourself, thank you very much), we can certainly carry on as we have. i'd like to see what other manner of supposed proof you can bring to salvage your argument.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
No one should ever have to pay for another person’s wrongdoing.
incorrect---incorrect in whatever sense we read the above. first of, christ did not have to pay (in the sense that he was forced to) but rather chose to pay. secondly, people are able to and in fact do pay for the wrongdoings of others all the time (surprisingly even in islam; you might want to look into the matter of noah's flood as it is related in the qur'an)---remember the example of monetary debt? the fact is that the above doesn't make any sense at all and is as ridiculous as it is incredibly wrong. how did you even come up with the above?

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
( f ) There is nothing unjust about a person who has the right to decide what, if any, punishment someone receives deciding on no punishment because he knows that none is necessary due to genuine repentance. ( e )If someone were sentenced to seven years of grueling slavery under a person he had wronged (there were many instances of this is ancient legal codes), and the wronged party exercised his right as the man’s new master to free him because after talking to him he had correctly ascertained that he had learned his lesson, no one would accuse him of injustice because of his mercy. Indeed, you could plug in any situation and you’ll find it’s the same.
( f ) here we somewhat play off the words "no punishment" and "necessary". there are two ways in which the words can be understood within the above context. the first being that no punishment is necessary because the individual was never guilty in the first place, and the second is that no punishment is necessary because the person though being guilty, is given a break from his judge. the second of these i do not agree with as it concerns the being of god. just as god is infinitely loving, all-knowing etc. he is also infinitely just. he is the only righteous judge in the true sense of the word and as such he upholds justice consistently. you seem to not understand what justice is. if you commit a wrong then justice demands that punishment be meted out. just as in the case of the murderer, he may have truly learnt his lesson but punishment is not only to make the individual acknowledge his error, but also to punish the very act of sin. if punishment was only guided by whether the individual acknowledge their error or not, then why would the polytheists remain in hell forever? are you seriously going to tell me that they will not have understood that they worshiped only idols and things which were not the one god? would hell even be needed because as one stands before the throne of god and is being judged, will you seriously tell me that they will not realize that they have been in error? clearly, not only is your point not logically viable but even violates the teachings of islam.

( e ) once again the difference between the two is that the new master does not function in the capacity of ultimate justice. justice is not only there to punish you until you have realized that you are wrong (for in such a case, hell would not be needed) but rather to punish your sin as well. furthermore, god is justice itself. just as love cannot help but love, so can neither justice help but be just. justice is not mercy (forgiveness) and you simply ignore this. of course, your rejoinder would consist of "well god is also mercy" (well actually you might not seeing as you go on to say that god is not mercy but rather merciful, as such he possesses attributes in his own divine nature that aren't infinite. of course this means that he isn't infinite in the first place but i suppose that such is the sacrifice you're willing to make in order to defend your failing point) but this would still lead us with a contradiction in the divine nature where he has to pit two infinite attributes against the other and can never be in harmony as it concerns his own being.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
I don’t know what it is about the imaginary paradoxes of Christian doctrine that allow Christians to use them time and again as a cop-out counter-argument for things. If anything whatsoever doesn’t make sense about Jesus’s (P) being incarnate, you just shrug it off as it being due to His being “both perfect God and perfect man”. If anything about the Trinity is demonstrated as not making sense then it’s only because of the Triune quality itself, which is beyond our mortal comprehension—when it is not more convenient to argue that we’re “just not understanding it” instead; Christians will shift back and forth between these two contrary positions willy nilly as it suits them. And if anything God does in your doctrine or stories is shown to be unjust, why it’s only because He has both perfect justice and perfect mercy. I guess the attraction of these cop-outs is how nice it is to have something already difficult to understand to fall back on. If the rebuttal doesn’t confuse us then you can still insist that we’re “just not getting it”, or at worst hypocritically claim the issue as being beyond mortal comprehension anyway. Whatever the reason is, I’m getting awfully tired of the trend.
oh please, instead of carrying on with such a meaningless diatribe, can you actually get to the point? if you mean that i have highlighted clear contradictions within the being of your god while i ignore supposed contradictions with the incarnation of christ then quote for us the relevant parts of my post. you'll note that i chose my words very carefully and yes, the christian actually has a defense that the muslim does not. given the dual nature of christ, no contradiction happens within any of the nature but rather between them (in a superficial sense i suppose). the divine nature remains as is and is in full harmony as it concerns itself and the human nature likewise. given that the muslim deity's single nature means that the contradictions happen within the divine nature then you certainly do have a monumental problem.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
There are some dissenters among us Muslims to the idea that anyone will be in hell forever, and most of us agree (with much scriptural back-up) that at the very least a great many of the d-a-m-n-e-d will not.
as it concerns the above, i certainly am not interested in the specifics of the intra-islamic debate on the matter yet even so, if there is even one individual who remains in hell forever then my point is made. you have not brought anything relevant to the discussion.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
By the way, which is worse: earthly death by torture or eternal hell? Can the greater of the two somehow paid in full by lesser? Even if it could, one person’s eternity in hell would be the maximum that could be paid for, not all people’s. Even with the desperate theory you propose below you still have the mathematical problem of adding infinities to each other.
once again you display to us how little you understand christianity in the first place. the wrath of god refers to the very eternal punishment that hell consists of. so it is not a question of whether or not christ's death on earth is worse than the punishment in hell because he in fact experienced that very punishment. in fact, he experienced it to a higher degree than any other individual will ever experience it within any one time for their punishment will be meted out throughout eternity for no finite being can experience an infinity in one moment yet christ experienced the full sum in a finite moment and as such in terns of intensity, christ's suffering was worse. the problem is actually in your lack of understanding for at any one moment, the inhabitants of hell would experience a finite amount of suffering, it is infinite only in that it would last forever and as such, there are no two infinities that are added together in the punishment of christ but rather only the single full sum consisting of finite moments. the fact that you granted that christ could even pay for one person's infinite punishment proved to be your undoing in this case.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
There is no “muslim deity”.
i agree. but in all seriousness, what exactly are you trying to do with your post? when i say the muslim deity i do not mean to speak as if such a being actually existed, i certainly don't believe that the god espoused in the qur'an actually exists but rather i mean to speak of the conception of god that we find within the qur'an. it should be acknowledged that you, in a superficial sense, (as with all those who pray to a "higher power") direct your worship to Yahweh for there is no god besides him yet this does not mean that you worship him properly as he has intended and as such muslim deity refers to that conception of god that one finds within the qur'an. please let's not nitpick here---especially when the discussion has nothing to with whether muslims and christians worship the same god.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
The Koran refers to Him instead merely as “the most merciful of those who have mercy”. If either your notion of God or ours involved infinite mercy then neither of us would believe in hell. Well, you would, I’m sure, but only because of the “fall back on the paradox” cop-out discussed above. Nothing is too contradictory for a Christian to believe based on the acknowledged fact that it is paradoxical alone. How odd.
it must first be said that the crucial point was whether the muslim deity was infinite justice or not. if we follow the same lines then the muslim deity is not infinitely just but only the most just. so that means that at times he's unjust for if he were just consistently and at all times, then he would be infinitely just and justice itself (for only the being of justice is just at all times). this brings up further problems such as him not being infinite goodness for he lacks infinite justice or mercy etc. do you see the trappings you get yourself in when you try to defend such a failing position as yours? now to answer your question as to how mercy can exist alongside the place we term hell, the christian response is that even hell is an expression of love and mercy. if god is the source of all goodness and life, then the choice to disconnect oneself to that life (as in refusing to follow his decrees, disbelieving in what he has revealed) is to choose hell. god in his infinite mercy allows us to make our choices for ourselves for even though the stakes are high, if our choices had no eternal consequences then not only would your life cease to have any real meaning (seriously start reading up on the loss of immortality by existentialists and particularly absurdist: sartre, camus etc) but you would in fact lose all worth. in his love and mercy, he has allowed you to be responsible for yourself and that weight of responsibility is perhaps most poignantly felt by the reality of hell. i'm glad that you've at least admitted that your deity possesses both logical, and ontological paradoxes in his own divine nature.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
In any event I have never heard anyone make your defense before so I’m pretty sure it’s only individual apologetics as opposed to scripturally established dogma.
the above is precisely why i called you ignorant. you simply do not understand what christians at all mean by the statement, "christ saved us from hell" or variations thereof. time and again you prove that you are simply not fit to be pontificating on such a matter.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
I am getting tired of this peculiar idea of yours that just because an entity is infinite that means that wronging it is committing infinite wrong. It is the size of the action itself, and not the size of the victim, that makes the difference. Your logic is equivalent to that of someone saying that murdering a murderer makes one responsible for all the murders that he ever committed: something is being done to X and X has quality A, so the thing being done must itself have quality A.
so far, you have not ceased to amaze me. you once again misunderstand the claim as if size had anything to do with it but rather it is the act! if god is a being of infinite worth, then a crime against him is necessarily infinite. a person is of more worth than an animal and the animal is of more worth than the insect etc. in just the same way that given the kind of being that the ant is, 'crimes' to this entity are measured in respect to its worth in the same way that crimes against a person are measured in respect to their worth as a human being (that is, simply by being a human being they are of worth more than any other creature). we take far more serious the willful killing of a human than the willful killing of an ant--even a colony of ants. in fact, while there exists such a thing as murdering a person, there is no such thing as murdering an ant and this once more goes to show how worth plays an intricate part in the severity of a crime. you seem to possess a very low view of god in that you can claim that a crime against god is not an error of infinite proportions. a crime against god is an infinite wrong, he is the sole being to which no wrong should ever be directed towards. therefore, it is actually your peculiar idea that has been refuted.

once again, the payment for crimes against a finite being and as such one of finite worth is necessarily finite. yet crimes against an infinite being (and as such one who is of infinite worth) is infinite wrong and as such the payment thereof is of infinite value. your inability to make sense of such a simple concept is quite disheartening.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
You cannot escape the logic of my post by making up some distinction between “immediate” and “eternal” consequences which, even if it’s true, is still irrelevant.
the distinction is not arbitrary. please begin to show how it is instead of merely claiming this. you have a bad habit of claiming things that you do not back up and this really needs to stop if we are at all going to continue.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
whether it is right to charge someone a debt they can’t possibly ever pay and then claim to be doing them a favor when you, the charger, pay (yourself??) up instead, when there was never any need for the debt in the first place as the chargers needs no money and knows that the debtor can’t pay and will do his best not to run up any more debts in the future.
oh dear, the problem with making and then attacking incorrect analogies is that you are simply attacking a strawman. the issue isn't that the debt was such that we could never pay it--no, we were at one point able to for there was indeed a time where we lived in perfect communion with god (i.e. we gave god his 'due'. we gave to god what was 'owed' to him). that was pre-fall eden and it is only after sinning that we were thus unable to pay the debt (as superficial as that may sound). so please start attacking my actual analogy (seeing as it is in keeping with what i have just presented) instead of making your own substandard comparison and thinking yourself to have done a good job by attacking it and not the one i have presented.

now, given all your errors in the above, i hope your next post will do a better job in defending your position.
Reply

IAmZamzam
05-06-2011, 11:58 PM
The size of the posts during these sorts of arguments always grow exponentially like ungainly, badly kept hedges and I want out. My hands aren't up to the task. Let the people who read our little debate decide for themselves what to think of it, I can't continue with tendonitis like I have.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-07-2011, 12:52 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
The size of the posts during these sorts of arguments always grow exponentially like ungainly, badly kept hedges and I want out. My hands aren't up to the task. Let the people who read our little debate decide for themselves what to think of it, I can't continue with tendonitis like I have.
certainly we can end this discussion here (and i hope that somebody else can pick up where yahya has left off) for your health is far more valuable then the outcome of this debate. i do agree with letting members themselves decide as to how the christian understanding fared but it should be made known that given the biases that we all possess, any claims made by your co-religionists will be taken with a grain of salt unless accompanied with a viable reason for their decision. furthermore, my invitation to the past participants within this thread is always open. when allowed to stand on its own merits the christian doctrine is unassailable.
Reply

M.I.A.
05-07-2011, 09:23 AM
sins have a habit of being paid of there and then, allah swt is just at accounting for them.. as long as one is sufficiently numb enough to not even be aware of this, life continues with us merrily skipping along.
ps this is a big if but if jesus pbuh died for somebodies sins.. it was not yours, that boat has already left.
if you believe in the second coming then maybe your doctrine stands... if he recognizes you or if you recognize him will be the test your faith faces..

can i ask you what role he will play this time round?
Reply

Grace Seeker
05-07-2011, 03:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.
sins have a habit of being paid of there and then, allah swt is just at accounting for them.. as long as one is sufficiently numb enough to not even be aware of this, life continues with us merrily skipping along.
ps this is a big if but if jesus pbuh died for somebodies sins.. it was not yours, that boat has already left.
if you believe in the second coming then maybe your doctrine stands... if he recognizes you or if you recognize him will be the test your faith faces..

can i ask you what role he will play this time round?

Not sure why you suggest "that boat has already left"? Perhaps you don't understand the Christian idea of the value of Jesus' death as being a sacrifice not for specific acts of omission and commission by individuals, but rather for the corporate sins of all humanity and to make possible our reconciliation with God.

I know that you, as a Muslim, don't believe that humans are born with a sin nature. But it is this, that you don't believe in, which Christians understand as keeping us from reconciling with God on our own merit. Jesus, the Christ, in living the perfect life that Adam failed to do (and all of the rest of us have also failed to do since) because of his disobedience, comes as the representative of humanity (sometimes in scripture referred to as the second Adam). Jesus then accomplishes for us what we could not do ourselves and returns us to that zero point that you believe babies are born into. And then, just as Muslims believe, we can indeed seek forgiveness and receive it directly from God. That this is possible for any of us, at any time in all of human history, Christians believe has been made possible by the work of Christ which is once for all.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-07-2011, 04:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Not sure why suggest "that boat has already left"? Perhaps you don't understanding the Christian idea of the value of Jesus' death as being a sacrifice not for specific acts of omission and commission by individuals, but rather for the corporate sins of all humanity and to make possible our reconciliation with God.

I know that you, as a Muslim, don't believe that humans are born with a sin nature. But it is this, that you don't believe in, which Christians understand as keeping us from reconciling with God on our own merit. Jesus, the Christ, in living the perfect life that Adam failed to do (and all of the rest of us have also failed to do since) because of his disobedience, comes as the representative of humanity (sometimes in scripture referred to as the second Adam). Jesus then accomplishes for us what we could not do ourselves and returns us to that zero point that you believe babies are born into. And then, just as Muslims believe, we can indeed seek forgiveness and receive it directly from God. That this is possible for any of us, at any time in all of human history, Christians believe has been made possible by the work of Christ which is once for all.
thank you gene, your post is certainly welcomed. at times you read some things on here and you find yourself unable to respond because you simply cannot understand what is being asked or argued. this is when it is good to have someone else with greater insight on the matter to help you out.

as always, i invite anyone with the time and interest to contribute to this thread for too many wrong opinions have been sustained in the previous few pages and such things say less about the christian doctrine than about people's incorrect understanding of the christian doctrine.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-07-2011, 04:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.
at first sight this is opposite of what we as muslims believe, the quran says if you believe then long for death
having just browsed through this thread again, i just noticed the above. i must say that i am horrified by the above. it is not in keeping with what god has revealed in the bible and i would even call it an evil doctrine. christians are never called to long for death for christ came so that we might live and to do so in full (john 10:10). in fact it is the devil who would ask you to long for death for he comes only to steal, kill and destroy. throughout the entire bible, we find that the ways of the lord are just and they are the pathway to life. christ repeatedly calls himself the bread of life, he is called the resurrection, he is called the eternal life that was with the father. so according to the bible, god calls us towards life and not towards death. it is the devil who would call you towards death for if heaven and god are true life, then separation from god in hell is true death. god would never ask you to long for death, even in longing to be with him we long for life for in him there is no death and as such to long for death is to long to be separated from god.
Reply

Woodrow
05-07-2011, 06:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
having just browsed through this thread again, i just noticed the above. i must say that i am horrified by the above. it is not in keeping with what god has revealed in the bible and i would even call it an evil doctrine. christians are never called to long for death for christ came so that we might live and to do so in full (john 10:10). in fact it is the devil who would ask you to long for death for he comes only to steal, kill and destroy. throughout the entire bible, we find that the ways of the lord are just and they are the pathway to life. christ repeatedly calls himself the bread of life, he is called the resurrection, he is called the eternal life that was with the father. so according to the bible, god calls us towards life and not towards death. it is the devil who would call you towards death for if heaven and god are true life, then separation from god in hell is true death. god would never ask you to long for death, even in longing to be with him we long for life for in him there is no death and as such to long for death is to long to be separated from god.
It is a bit of a contradiction in us longing for death yet at the same time are not to seek it. To say we long for death is more in line in saying we long for Jannah (Heaven). Yes we should and do long for death. but a death we are prepared for and assured of acceptance into Jannah. we long to be sincere Muslims and true Believers worthy of a death that is a door to eternal Happiness.

But, at the same time the thought of death and dieing with unforgiven sin is a horrifying thought as that would be the door to eternal torment. For the truly pious and forgiven, death is something to look forward to, to the unforgiven sinner it should be a very fearful thought and prod us into reaching the level of piety we will welcome death. Few of us are at that stage so to us the thought that we should long for death is a reminder, we have a long way to go before we can reach that level of piety.
Reply

M.I.A.
05-07-2011, 06:53 PM
lol, i aint even mad.

its the first time that iv seen you mention that guy, what role does he play in the world?

calling a person to death is easy but no matter what you do, that moment cannot be brought forward or postponed.

you misconstrue what i have said even though i tried to explain it. when you truly see the world and the people.. what we have to do to try and "survive" then you know this is not heaven.

this is the place where gossip is used to keep people alive.
this is the place where the daily rags, dramas, sitcoms and "reality" shows dictate the topic of conversation for the masses.

this is not life, it has truly been a long time since manna was sent from the heavens.

that is not the worst of it.. people kill people for there own preservation and interests. better to long for death then become it.

anyway there is much contradiction if you seek it.

islam says, if you take a life then it is though you have killed the whole of humanity and if you save a life it is like saving the whole of humanity.

islam says that if you are at war then the use of any strategy is permitted.

unfortunately only the stupid would use the second without understanding the entirety of the religion.. it is still an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, transgression of bounds is something that every man should learn...and yet is entirely individual.

after all, a man who has been beat all his life is probably the most dangerous man in the world.

understanding this world and "life" is a long journey.. travel it with eyes open so you may know the signs that he rehearses to you day after day.

the devil has no power to kill, steal or destroy..
it is the hands of men that make those choices.


somebodies gonna come in an tell me to shup up soon.

but ultimately if you look at muslims, in half the world they are dieing and in the other half they are lost.. we will not attain any unity or victory until it is due.
until blood lust becomes a thing of the past, intent becomes clean again..until we walk this earth unarmed..or carrying such weapons we are not capable of using.

here is the fault of our people, when we learn a hadith and add it to our collection.. that collection should already be in practice. when we make a thread, we should know what we said in the last thread we made.

im not even mad, not at sol anyway.
Reply

Grace Seeker
05-07-2011, 07:19 PM
Language, culture, and even our own preconceptions about what another is saying can sometimes get in the way of understanding. As I read multiple posts by different individuals, I don't really think there is a significantly different view of whether one should "long for death" among Christian and Muslim. For both of us there is a belief that this world doesn't measure up to all that it not only should be, but could be if people were to fully submit themselves to following God's will. For both of us, there is a belief in an afterlife that is blessed by a new and improved relationship with God. For both of us there is a view of new and eternal life with God in some sort of paradise. So, for both of us one can see why some might actually yearn for this future time, and yet, again for both of us, there are constraints that cause us to not intentionally seek to end our lives in order to enter into this future afterlife.

However, I do see one point of contradistinction between Islam and Christianity. If I am understanding Islam correctly, Islam sees this life as a test to get through; whereas Christianity sees this life as something that can itself be a reward. This reward is in two different formats:


The first has been mentioned above by Sol in speaking of how Chrisians understand God as offering abudant life in Christ, "pressed down and overflowing". That unique turn of a phrase relates to the Jewish understanding of the measurable ways in which God blessed his people. He gives us blessing so great that they cannot all be contain and so that those who have experience God's blessing find there is no room for anything other than joy in their lives.


The second is in a clearer understanding of the last days as presented in the Bible. While many Christians talk about going to live with God forever in heaven, and countless hymns convey the same message (I'll Fly Away, When We All Get To Heaven, When The Roll Is Called Up Yonder) a closer examination of the book of Revelation reveals that in the end we don't go to heaven, but heaven comes to earth. See Revelation 21:
1 Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”
The scene continues, but that is enough to show the difference between the Bible's portyal of the ultimate paradise and the view of Jannah found in Islam, which sounds more like that which is described in those Christian hymns I mentioned above.
Reply

M.I.A.
05-07-2011, 07:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by




Grace Seeker


;1435625
However, I do see one point of contradistinction between Islam and Christianity. If I am understanding Islam correctly, Islam sees this life as a test to get through; whereas Christianity sees this life as something that can itself be a reward. This reward is in two different formats:

a lot of people are able to live contently and this is not a problem, islam and chrisitany and in fact most people can live side by side happily, this life is both a test and reward.. but if you make this life a test then it becomes so.. and if you make this life a reward then it becomes so.
..when your winning your winning and when your losing your losing..when i win i hope it is not at the cost of another.

this is the paradox, when you win against somebody that deserves to lose isnt it good?

is this the same as leaving the hungry hungry? and the poor poor? after all surely they deserve it.
Reply

Grace Seeker
05-07-2011, 08:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.
this is the paradox, when you win against somebody that deserves to lose isnt it good?

is this the same as leaving the hungry hungry? and the poor poor? after all surely they deserve it.

What are you talking about?

I don't see life as a competition against another person so that we have winners and losers. Is this your personal view, because I've never seen that expressed in either Islam or Christianity before. It sounds more like Donald Trumpism than any religion I know.

And who is talking about leaving the hungry hungry or the poor poor, and since when does anything claim that anyone deserves such?
Reply

M.I.A.
05-07-2011, 10:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
What are you talking about?

I don't see life as a competition against another person so that we have winners and losers. Is this your personal view, because I've never seen that expressed in either Islam or Christianity before. It sounds more like Donald Trumpism than any religion I know.

And who is talking about leaving the hungry hungry or the poor poor, and since when does anything claim that anyone deserves such?
mankind is competition, do you have brothers or sisters?
have you ever seen food aid given in countries where people are in need?
ever been to a job interview?

maybe as reward you mean things that bring happiness, a family, a nice evening with friends.. a reward or a test? after all, im sure what you have discussed will be passed on in other conversations.

maybe we need to define reward.. the test has already been defined.

don't know about Trump though, beautiful women, most expensive house in America and a successful businessman.. sounds as though he's in gods good books by anyone's measure...

and if he is the measure then sol is right and i am most definitely wrong.
Reply

M.I.A.
05-07-2011, 11:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
and here i was worried that my muslim brothers weren't keeping up with this thread. it's nice to see you guys participating.


your inability to be courteous is but a blemish on your own character.


( a ) for god so loved the world that he gave his only son so that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. --- John 3:16 NIV

in simple terms, you drastically fail to understand the argument that god never speaks of coming to him as longing for death. rather, it is always spoken of in terms of longing for life because that is exactly what it is. the christian does not long for death but rather life and the blessing that we have received through christ is never spoken of in terms of longing for death for in that case we have actually inversed the picture. what is longed for is true life.

( b ) none of those martyrs longed for death. they longed for life. the question isn't whether death can be a conduit towards heaven but rather that coming towards god is never spoken of in terms of longing for death. you simply fail to understand this.


greetings woodrow. i am perfectly aware of what you speak of in the above but all the same my point is that the gift of god is never spoken of in terms of longing for death. it is always spoken of in terms of longing for life because to say that we long for death actually reverses the situation. the bible never portrays god as saying, come to me and i will give you death but rather, come to me and i will give you life. it isn't that our decision to follow god might not end in us losing our lives but rather that it is never spoken of that way because we do not even truly lose life. true life is found in a loving relationship with god and in the respect that this relationship has been maintained, we never in fact lose life. anyway once more my point of contention is that nowhere does god ask you to long for death. longing to be with him is not longing for death for not everyone will have to die in order to be with him. when god ushers in judgement day and the true believers are welcomed to heaven, do you truly believe that everyone of them will have had to die before such a thing is accomplished? the fact is that people will still be alive (though perhaps you and i will long be dead) and as such these (that is, the believers) will not need to die in order to be with god. as such, to say that we ought to long for death is inherently imperfect. you do not know whether you will die before you meet god--the only appropriate thing is to say that you long for life or you long for god. it is never a longing for death.

anyway, now that we have gotten past this hurdle, can we receive the muslim position as it comes to the argument that has been presented with regards to the christian conception of forgiveness? we have now seen that the shoe is on the other foot, so to speak, and it is not the christian understanding but rather the muslim understanding that is substandard and i would very much like if this claim of mine could be proved wrong (with reference to my article that is).
we have reached this stalemate in another thread, a point of contention that is based on interpretation and one which you will always be able to dodge around.. the body of the posts has been brushed aside by yourself.

but anyway, long for death.. to remove the fear of having your life taken away.
further more, if you believe then long for death.
to remove fear of having your life taken away because you "believe"

i think its like signing up for the bomb disposal team.. would you do it?

i dont know what this would encourage in day to day living but the story of Daniel AS came to mind. so i read it again.

http://www.essex1.com/people/paul/bible12.html
Reply

Woodrow
05-08-2011, 12:29 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
greetings woodrow. i am perfectly aware of what you speak of in the above but all the same my point is that the gift of god is never spoken of in terms of longing for death. it is always spoken of in terms of longing for life because to say that we long for death actually reverses the situation. the bible never portrays god as saying, come to me and i will give you death but rather, come to me and i will give you life. it isn't that our decision to follow god might not end in us losing our lives but rather that it is never spoken of that way because we do not even truly lose life. true life is found in a loving relationship with god and in the respect that this relationship has been maintained, we never in fact lose life. anyway once more my point of contention is that nowhere does god ask you to long for death. longing to be with him is not longing for death for not everyone will have to die in order to be with him. when god ushers in judgement day and the true believers are welcomed to heaven, do you truly believe that everyone of them will have had to die before such a thing is accomplished? the fact is that people will still be alive (though perhaps you and i will long be dead) and as such these (that is, the believers) will not need to die in order to be with god. as such, to say that we ought to long for death is inherently imperfect. you do not know whether you will die before you meet god--the only appropriate thing is to say that you long for life or you long for god. it is never a longing for death.

anyway, now that we have gotten past this hurdle, can we receive the muslim position as it comes to the argument that has been presented with regards to the christian conception of forgiveness? we have now seen that the shoe is on the other foot, so to speak, and it is not the christian understanding but rather the muslim understanding that is substandard and i would very much like if this claim of mine could be proved wrong (with reference to my article that is).
Peace Sol,

I see a difference of opinion as to what death is. Perhaps an analogy would help explain how I view life and death. Think of life as being school, we are students in this school called life. It is our desire to complete this school and look forward to the last day of school. Many of us will desire desire to graduate with high grades and proceed to success and fulfillment. Some of us will never make it to graduation we will either be drop outs or expelled. Death is the last day of school in this school called life. We should long for it and for it to be Graduation and not be drop outs or kick outs. The Death we long for is the one of Graduation. Death for the graduate is not the end of life, it is graduating to a better life.
Reply

M.I.A.
05-08-2011, 12:36 AM
as a failure myself :skeleton:
:scared:
..things do not look good. time to call it a day i think.
Reply

Grace Seeker
05-08-2011, 02:17 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.
mankind is competition, do you have brothers or sisters?
have you ever seen food aid given in countries where people are in need?
ever been to a job interview?

maybe as reward you mean things that bring happiness, a family, a nice evening with friends.. a reward or a test? after all, im sure what you have discussed will be passed on in other conversations.

maybe we need to define reward.. the test has already been defined.

don't know about Trump though, beautiful women, most expensive house in America and a successful businessman.. sounds as though he's in gods good books by anyone's measure...

and if he is the measure then sol is right and i am most definitely wrong.

MIA, I think we are living in different worlds. Yes, I do have a brother. And yes I know that there is competition in this world. But I can't relate to what you describe as having to do with how I choose to live my life or as part of my relationship with God.
Reply

M.I.A.
05-08-2011, 10:31 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
MIA, I think we are living in different worlds. Yes, I do have a brother. And yes I know that there is competition in this world. But I can't relate to what you describe as having to do with how I choose to live my life or as part of my relationship with God.
i agree. the more i try to explain myself the harder it is to relate to anything..i understand its a warped perspective so its cool.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-08-2011, 09:34 PM
greetings woodrow. i see that we simply have a difference of opinion on this, fair enough.

that said this thread is moving away from its original purpose. can we all go back to the original purpose of this thread? so far it has been shown that the islamic understanding of forgiveness is actually quite troubling and rife with contradictions and unlike using this thread to merely deprecate islam (as has been done vis a vis christianity by those who clearly functioned under a misunderstanding of christian doctrine), i'd like to see how muslims would respond to the question of how the islamic conception of forgiveness could at all be correct much less just. key points which the muslim position used to disparage the christian conception of forgiveness have been shown to be quite wrong yet we have not been shown how the problems which have been brought up with the manner in which the muslim deity forgives are at all erroneous.
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
05-09-2011, 05:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
greetings woodrow. i see that we simply have a difference of opinion on this, fair enough.

that said this thread is moving away from its original purpose. can we all go back to the original purpose of this thread? so far it has been shown that the islamic understanding of forgiveness is actually quite troubling and rife with contradictions and unlike using this thread to merely deprecate islam (as has been done vis a vis christianity by those who clearly functioned under a misunderstanding of christian doctrine), i'd like to see how muslims would respond to the question of how the islamic conception of forgiveness could at all be correct much less just. key points which the muslim position used to disparage the christian conception of forgiveness have been shown to be quite wrong yet we have not been shown how the problems which have been brought up with the manner in which the muslim deity forgives are at all erroneous.
Greetingts Sol,

Let us look at essentially what the Christian blood atonement of sin actually is:

So Christians believe God transferred the sin of mankind upon (a person of) Himself and had Himself killed at the hands of a bunch of Jews and Romans in order to forgive the sin. On the other hand Muslims believe God simply forgives sin out of His Mercy without a need to have to send himself to the earth, lower himself and get himself slaughterewd at the hands of Jews and Romans.

The Muslim view clearly makes MUCH more sense once an individual considers the Attributes of God.

So Who brought the concept of sin into existence? God.

Did God bring himself to the Earth and kill Himself in order to bring the idea of sin into existence? No.

Think about it, if God can introduce the idea of sin without a need to kill Himself then surely you can believe God can forgive people without having to sacrificing Himself.

So clearly God is the Ever Living and the most merciful and Forgiving and therefore he does NOT need to "die" in order to Forgive the sin of mankind. So therefore the Christian belief of God dying for the sin of people is VERY problematic but the Islamic belief of God forgiving without dying is in line with a consistent and correct view of God.

So, do we need God to sacrifice Himself in order to forgive sinners? No. The Islamic view of God simply forgiving out of His Mercy is therefore sufficient.

So the clear conclusion is that the Christian idea of blood atonement of God killing himself in order to forgive his own creations is one that lowers God and one that is not consitant with the teachings of the Bible nor it is consitant with true monotheism.
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
05-09-2011, 06:02 PM
The Christian idea of forgiveness is that has to be bought by the bearing of a just punishment, or the giving of an adequate satisfaction, or the offering of a sufficient sacrifice, is not forgiveness, but merely an acknowledgement that the debt has been paid in full. But in the recorded teaching of Jesus there is, in contrast, genuine divine forgiveness for those who are truly penitent and vividly conscious of their utter unworthiness.

Look at the lords prayer in Matthew 6:9–13. Here we are taught to address God directly as our heavenly Father and to ask for forgiveness for our sins, expecting to receive this, the only condition being that we in turn forgive one another. There is NO suggestion at all of the need for a mediator between ourselves and God or for an atoning death to enable God to forgive.

What cruel God would order the slaughtering of his only begotten son in order to forgive the sins which man never did in the first place but instead "inherited". That is like you passing your sins onto your son who never did anything to deserve that sin in the first place. Then for your son to gain forgiveness for a sin he never committed God then lowers himself so as to bring himself to the earth and "bore himself of a women" and then get slaughtered by his very own creations in order to forgive mankind for the sins they NEVER did in the first place.

This concept of the blood atonement of sin is VERY troubling indeed and is not consistant at all with the idea of a just and merciful God but that of a cruel God who slaughters himeself by the hands of his own creations just to forgive the sins they his creations never committed in the first place for this concept in fact makes no sense at all and again is not consitant with the true teachings of the Bible or Jesus.
Reply

IAmZamzam
05-09-2011, 07:40 PM
I hope brother Woodrow steps in. He's good at dealing with your type and his hands seem in much better condition than my own.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-09-2011, 07:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Greetingts Sol,

Let us look at essentially what the Christian blood atonement of sin actually is:

So Christians believe God transferred the sin of mankind upon (a person of) Himself and had Himself killed at the hands of a bunch of Jews and Romans in order to forgive the sin. On the other hand Muslims believe God simply forgives sin out of His Mercy without a need to have to send himself to the earth, lower himself and get himself slaughterewd at the hands of Jews and Romans.

The Muslim view clearly makes MUCH more sense once an individual considers the Attributes of God.

So Who brought the concept of sin into existence? God.

Did God bring himself to the Earth and kill Himself in order to bring the idea of sin into existence? No.

Think about it, if God can introduce the idea of sin without a need to kill Himself then surely you can believe God can forgive people without having to sacrificing Himself.

So clearly God is the Ever Living and the most merciful and Forgiving and therefore he does NOT need to "die" in order to Forgive the sin of mankind. So therefore the Christian belief of God dying for the sin of people is VERY problematic but the Islamic belief of God forgiving without dying is in line with a consistent and correct view of God.

So, do we need God to sacrifice Himself in order to forgive sinners? No. The Islamic view of God simply forgiving out of His Mercy is therefore sufficient.

So the clear conclusion is that the Christian idea of blood atonement of God killing himself in order to forgive his own creations is one that lowers God and one that is not consitant with the teachings of the Bible nor it is consitant with true monotheism.
greetings hamza, it's nice that you could join us. given that the other thread i participated in was closed and no reason given for the closure, i didn't think that we'd be involved in another debate so soon; and yet here we are. i'm tired at the moment so this will be quite short. please deal with the argument i have presented instead of amassing a mass of emotionism and loaded words for a rebuttal. in fact, there is almost no argument in the above except that you're basically saying that your idea of forgiveness sounds better. we're not arguing about what sounds better but rather what is better. if you want to prove your point the first thing you have to start attacking is the concept of whether sin is indeed a debt. once you even admit this position then you have lost all grounds for criticizing the christian doctrine so could we please begin with this?

sin only exists once it is actualized and if this is what you're claiming then you have just made god the very first sinner. points such as this are what make me kick myself for responding when i'm clearly too tired to.

once again, you don't in fact show how your conception of forgiveness at all squares with justice. you simply deal with generalizations but stay clear of actually engaging in specifics. could we get past all the nice sounding words and actually be presented with an argument?

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
But in the recorded teaching of Jesus there is, in contrast, genuine divine forgiveness for those who are truly penitent and vividly conscious of their utter unworthiness.

Look at the lords prayer in Matthew 6:9–13. Here we are taught to address God directly as our heavenly Father and to ask for forgiveness for our sins, expecting to receive this, the only condition being that we in turn forgive one another. There is NO suggestion at all of the need for a mediator between ourselves and God or for an atoning death to enable God to forgive.
i really am tired right now and i shouldn't be writing a response right now but all for the sake of guiding you to write a better post next time i'll try to do this as quickly as possible. first of all, please stop trying to use the bible in order to defend your argument for if muslims could actually prove their position from the bible, they wouldn't claim that it was corrupted. be consistent, either the bible is corrupted or not and don't even give us the excuse of "whatever fits with islam" because this would only mean that you are not taking the bible in the way that it presents itself but are merely ignoring whatever you don't like. so anyway, you claimed that christ never suggests that his sacrifice is needed for the world to be reconciled to god and forgiveness given. that is factually wrong and is actually an act of deceit. rather, it is either that you have never read the relevant portions of the bible (and as such you shouldn't come here thinking yourself capable of using them in your argumentation) or that you have but instead have chosen to lie about those aspects which completely refute your point (and as such you have said more than enough concerning your character)---take your pick. anyway as far as a rebuttal goes:

23 Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 24 Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. [...] 27 “Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. 28 Father, glorify your name!” Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and will glorify it again.” 29 The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him. 30 Jesus said, “This voice was for your benefit, not mine. 31 Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. 32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” 33 He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die. — John 10:23-24, 27-33 NIV

and now one more from the very gospel which you quote from: This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. --- Matthew 26:28 NIV

the above clearly contradicts what you have said and plainly shows you to be either ignorant of the matter you take upon yourself to argue about or that your character leaves us with much to be desired. for the fact is, if what you claim about the lord's prayer were in fact true, then matthew could not at all have written concerning christ's saving blood; and yet he did. your point cannot be made to harmonize with the above citations i have presented while my point can harmonize both mine and your matthean passage perfectly. anyway it's rather simple to see who's wrong here but i am truly interested and would in fact like for the audience to note what will happen now. you claimed that christ never taught about the necessity of his blood for the forgiveness of the world and you have clearly been shown to be in error. now what will you do, will you admit to have been wrong or will you suddenly claim that the bible doesn't teach this (as you have done in another thread concerning this very same discussion). i would hope that you will at this time be consistent.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
What cruel God would order the slaughtering of his only begotten son in order to forgive the sins which man never did in the first place but instead "inherited". That is like you sinning and passing it onto your sin who never did anything to deserve that sin. Then for your son to gain forgiveness for a sin he never did God lowers himself as to bring himself to the earth and "bore himself of a women" and then get slaughtered by his very own creations in order to forgive mankjind for a sin they never did in the first place.
emotionism, loaded words and strawmen. am i really expected to respond to a post built on nothing but logical fallacies? that said, you bring up the matter of original sin and while this subject is casually related, we are not speaking of original sin here but only on the matter in which forgiveness is to be had. my points all work without even needing to appeal to the concept of original sin and while i could certainly defend even this doctrine, i'd rather not get into needless debates. if however, you would maintain that my points are in fact predicated on the concept of original sin (and as such a discussion concerning this matter is explicitly necessary) then please prove how this could at all be so. yet once more, in the above we don't find an argument at all but mere opinion. please do both yourself and the muslim position a favour and go back to my post and if you feel that it lacks logic, please start quoting the relevant sections that you want to respond to. furthermore, simply claiming that the islamic concept of forgiveness sounds better does not vindicate the muslim deity---much less when we have shown quite clearly how he could not at all be just when he forgives, when sinning against the being of god would necessarily involve an infinite debt to be paid back, when sin functions exactly like a debt, when the muslim deity is in disharmony as it relates to his own divine nature etc.

oh, and if you feel that individuals in islam don't inherit the sin of others then you clearly need to go back and read the story of noah's flood. here is my post again concerning this subject and i have yet to get a response from the muslims on this board:

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
( a ) i'd have to disagree my friend. in islam and in life people regularly take the punishments of others. look at the story of noah. muslims and christians believe that god ordered a flood which consumed the whole world. now we can be more than sure that little babies and children died in this flood too and in islam the flood is specifically brought on humanity in order to punish polytheism yet little babies whom one can only assume weren't polytheists died as well. why is this? now in christinity the matter can easily be reconciled when one remembers that everyone is born a sinner and there is no one who is just and as such the punishment of sinners is perfectly in keeping with god's righteousness. in islam however, the babies at the very least are sinless and to have them drown along with the polytheists because of the sin of the polytheists is unjust. there are many examples that one can bring that show the exact same pattern of allah regularly punishing the just because of the sins of the sinners and as such you will have to explain to us how you can maintain that an individual does not take on the sins of another when the islamic deity regularly punishes individuals for the sins of others.
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
read the story of noah in the qur'an. the muslim deity is quite clear in the fact that the flood was in order to punish the polytheists:

And indeed We sent Nuh (Noah) to his people (and he said): I have come to you as a plain warner. That you worship none but Allah, surely, I fear for you the torment of a painful Day. [...] And it was inspired to Nuh (Noah): None of your people will believe except those who have believed already. So be not sad because of what they used to do. And construct the ship under Our Eyes and with Our Inspiration, and address Me not on behalf of those who did wrong; they are surely to be drowned. And as he was constructing the ship, whenever the chiefs of his people passed by him, they made a mockery of him. He said: If you mock at us, so do we mock at you likewise for your mocking. And you will know who it is on whom will come a torment that will cover him with disgrace and on whom will fall a lasting torment. (So it was) till then there came Our Command and the oven gushed forth (water like fountains from the earth). We said: Embark therein, of each kind two (male and female), and your family, except him against whom the Word has already gone forth, and those who believe. And none believed with him, except a few. — Surah 11: 25-26; 36-40 Muhsin Khan (emphasis mine)

And they have said: ‘You shall not leave your gods, nor shall you leave Wadd, nor Suwa’, nor Yaghuth, nor Ya’uq, nor Nasr (names of the idols); And indeed they have led many astray. And (O Allah): ‘Grant no increase to the Zalimun (polytheists, wrong-doers, and disbelievers, etc.) save error. Because of their sins they were drowned, then were made to enter the Fire, and they found none to help them instead of Allah. — Surah 71:23-25 Muhsin Khan (emphasis mine)

if you disagree with the above could you then find me a verse from the qur'an which says that the flood wasn't called in order to punish the polytheists? notice how the muslim deity even says that those who have sinned will be drowned? so the qur'an doesn't agree with your revisionism and it is a fact that the flood was due to the sins of the polytheists and in order to punish these sinners. the problem then becomes that allah also drowned a multitude of innocent children whom have never engaged in polytheism and who are wholly pure according to islam. this is clearly a case of individuals being punished for the sins of others (something that muslims decry as wrong) and in fact bearing the sins of others for how can one be punished for another person's sin without first having this sin be imputed on them?

the qur'an quite clearly presents us with a deity who claims that he does not engage in vicarious punishment yet his very own actions testify to the contrary. he has in the past, and in fact regularly punishes individuals for the sins of others. now we should remember that muslims are quick to say that it is wholly wrong for an individual to be punished for the sins of another (and with certain caveats the christian can certainly agree to this) and as such quite ironically, muslims themselves acknowledge that their deity is immoral. you will note that i have not said anything of my own but have merely repeated what the general muslim opinion is (as can be seen whenever the topic of the atonement creeps up) and if you are offended by this then it certainly cannot be my fault given that this is simply the logical outworking of what muslims themselves say. i will note that in your post you asserted your mere opinion while i have relied on what the muslim deity has said and done. there is no question as to whose post is in keeping with the character of the muslim deity.
so let's please not claim that islam does not teach the inheritance of sin.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-09-2011, 08:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
I hope brother Woodrow steps in. He's good at dealing with your type and his hands seem in much better condition than my own.
certainly we can have as many participants within this thread as you'd like--it's for the best actually. however it doesn't change the fact that your argument as is cannot be salvaged.
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
05-09-2011, 08:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
greetings hamza, it's nice that you could join us. given that the other thread i participated in was closed and no reason given for the closure, i didn't think that we'd be involved in another debate so soon; and yet here we are. i'm tired at the moment so this will be quite short. please deal with the argument i have presented instead of amassing a mass of emotionism and loaded words for a rebuttal. in fact, there is almost no argument in the above except that you're basically saying that your idea of forgiveness sounds better. we're not arguing about what sounds better but rather what is better. if you want to prove your point the first thing you have to start attacking is the concept of whether sin is indeed a debt. once you even admit this position then you have lost all grounds for criticizing the christian doctrine so could we please begin with this?
Greetings Sol,

My first post in this thread was an introducion to the flawed concept of the blood atonement of sin to which i will certainly be going into more deail about so ensure that yo are wide awake when replying.

Obviously you as would imply that there is no argument offered yet you offer NOTHING at all to refute a single statement i wrote. Rather than dodge the statements why do you not refute them if you can?

It is not only that the Islamic concept of sin sounds better but cerainly it is a fact that it is consistant with the attributes of God and that of a merciful Lord and it is also consitant to what is in our scriptures as is ALL of the fundamental beliefs of Islam which is certainly NOT the case with the fundamental beliefs of Christianity including that of the blood atonement of sin.

The one great problem of the original sin is that it clashes with man's irresistible convictions of justice. These innate, God-given convictions affirm to us irresistibly that it is IMPOSSIBLE to hold a man responsible for a deed that he did not commit and that was committed thousands of years before he was born and came into existence. So the theologians who defend the theory of original sin have the impossible task of justifying God for doing what their own conscience affirms he could not be just in doing.

The theologians who work so hard to resolve this problem still find it impossible to escape their God-given convictions that the doctrine of original sin does, in fact, involve God in a monstrous INJUSTICE.

Charles Hodge both recognizes this injustice and evades it in the same sentence:

It may be difficult to reconcile the doctrine of innate evil dispositions with the justice and goodness of God, but that is a difficulty which does not pertain to this subject. A malignant being is an evil being, if endowed with reason, whether he was so made or so born, and a benevolent rational being is good in the universal judgment of men, whether he was so created or so born. We admit that it is repugnant to our moral judgments that God should create an evil being; or that any being should be born in a state of sin, unless his being so born is the consequence of a just judgment.

This, then how to reconcile the justice and goodness of God with the doctrine of original sin is the great, omnipresent problem of original sin, a problem that remains to haunt the advocate of original sin even after he has hurriedly dismissed it.

Sheldon also calls attention to the problem of the injustice of God involved in the doctrine of original sin. He says:

The same God whose penetrating glance burns away every artifice with which a man may enwrap himself, and reaches at once to the naked reality, is represented as swathing His judgment with a gigantic artifice, in that He holds countless millions guilty of a trespass which He knows was committed before their personal existence, and which they could no more prevent than they could hinder the fiat of creation. If this is justice, then justice is a word of unknown meaning.

Strong admits quite frankly that he is not completely satisfied with the theories of original sin. He says:

We must grant that no one, even of these later theories, is wholly satisfactory. We hope, however, to show that the last of them the Augustinian theory, the theory of Adam's natural headship, the theory that Adam and his descendants are naturally and organically one explains the largest number of facts, is least open to objections, and is most accordant with Scripture.

The fact is that the irresistible convictions of justice in the hearts of all men REJECT the teachings of the doctrine of original sin.

Let us look at If Eph. 2:3, "By nature the children of wrath," means born with a sinful nature and under the wrath of God because of that nature which the advocates of the doctrine of original sin teach then it follows that EVERY child who dies in infancy goes to hell where he must forever suffer the awful punishment and wrath of God.

So this text itself proves THAT BABIES WHO DIE GO TO HELL where they will suffer God's wrath in never-ending punishment.

What a just and kind God you believe in Sol.

If babies really are born "by nature the children of wrath," then they must go to hell if they die in such a state.

Let us also look at Psalm 51:5, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me," means that even unborn children in their mother's womb are sinners, then it follows that all the multiplied millions of children who have been aborted, along with all stillbirths, ARE IN HELL where they will suffer its torments throughout all eternity for "their part" in the sin of Adam.

Clearly the doctrine of original sin clashes with man's irresistible convictions of justice that, even when men like yourself believe and teach the doctrine, they cannot escape the fact that it is unjust and in the back of your mind there is no doubt that you know this and acknowledge it but instead would rather remain blind to it.
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
05-09-2011, 09:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
as far as a rebuttal goes:

23 Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 24 Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. [...] 27 “Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. 28 Father, glorify your name!” Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and will glorify it again.” 29 The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him. 30 Jesus said, “This voice was for your benefit, not mine. 31 Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. 32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” 33 He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die. — John 10:23-24, 27-33 NIV
It is clear from your response that you did not refute anything i have stated in my last post at all rather it is apparent that you are either tired or out of your depth here.

Let us also look at the story of the Pharisee and the tax collector, the latter, ‘standing far off, would not even look up to heaven, but was beating his breast and saying, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner!” I tell you, this man went down to his home justified’ (Luke 18. 13-14).

And yet again, there is his insistence that he came to bring sinners to a penitent acceptance of God’s mercy: ‘Go and learn what this means, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.” For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners’ (Matthew 9.13).

If you need anymore biblical verses proving my point then please say so and i will provide....

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
oh, and if you feel that individuals in islam don't inherit the sin of others then you clearly need to go back and read the story of noah's flood. here is my post again concerning this subject and i have yet to get a response from the muslims on this board:

so let's please not claim that islam does not teach the inheritance of sin.
So again we see you trying to decievingly misinterpret verses of the Qur'an to imply that which they do not. You were already exposed for doing that in the last thread and now you are trying to imply the verses talk about the people of noah being punished with the flood because of inheriting the sins of others when it is clear for all to see that the verses state that the polytheist brought the wrath of God and the punishment upon themselves for their own evil acts and they were destroyed because of their OWN sins NOT the sins of anyone else and the good were SAVED and that is why they were told embark upon the ark along with the other righteous people of Noah.

So the Qur'an is clear that we are ALL absolutely responsible for ONLY our own sins, which are incurred by our direct acts. Others cannot transfer their sins to us, in order to have theirs erased or even reduced. Nor can we inherit sins from our relatives or our ancestors. I can prove this to you using verses of the Qur'an just like i proved to you the bibles position on sin using biblical referances.

So according to Islam: No One will have to bear the Sins of Another!

Especially not babies and unborn babies who die in their infancy who are destined for HELL according to the Christian concept of the blood atonement of sin which is without a doubt cruel and unjust and goes against man's irresistible convictions of justice that, even when men like yourself believe and teach the doctrine, they cannot escape the fact that it is unjust and in the back of your mind there is no doubt that you know this and acknowledge it but instead would rather remain blind to it.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-09-2011, 09:27 PM
i'm just going to dismiss the above altogether. go back to my posts and then start quoting from my actual argument. furthermore, whatever gripe you may have with the doctrine of original sin really doesn't concern me and if you feel that a discussion of original sin is pertinent to this thread prove it. once again, i really don't want to debate things that aren't expressly related to my post at all.

can somebody also correct hamza's incorrect use of ephesians 2:3 and how the text itself clearly says that they were children of wrath because of the sins that they were actually committing? here is the passage with its actual context:

1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. --- ephesians 2:1-3 KJV

the above clearly is speaking about the sins that the individual has actually committed. please stop trying to use the bible to prove your failing position. but seriously, can somebody pick up where i left off as it regards this matter? i really don't want to get side-tracked here.
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
05-09-2011, 09:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
i'm just going to dismiss the above altogether. go back to my posts and then start quoting from my actual argument. furthermore, whatever gripe you may have with the doctrine of original sin really doesn't concern me and if you feel that a discussion of original sin is pertinent to this thread prove it. once again, i really don't want to debate things that aren't expressly related to my post at all.

can somebody also correct hamza's incorrect use of ephesians 2:3 and how the text itself clearly says that they were children of wrath because of the sins that they were actually committing? here is the passage with its actual context:

1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. --- ephesians 2:1-3 KJV

the above clearly is speaking about the sins that the individual has actually committed. please stop trying to use the bible to prove your failing position. but seriously, can somebody pick up where i left off as it regards this matter? i really don't want to get side-tracked here.
Sol if your tired as you have stated in your last post then we can speak tomorrow when i hope to get a better response to my posts.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-09-2011, 09:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
( a ) Let us also look at the story of the Pharisee and the tax collector, the latter, ‘standing far off, would not even look up to heaven, but was beating his breast and saying, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner!” I tell you, this man went down to his home justified’ (Luke 18. 13-14).

And yet again, there is his insistence that he came to bring sinners to a penitent acceptance of God’s mercy:( b ) ‘Go and learn what this means, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.” For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners’ (Matthew 9.13).
( a ) forgiveness comes from the blood of christ: "the bible is quite clear that all our burdens were laid on him and contrary to what you imply, no act of changing the past would have to have occurred. if sin is a debt then whenever the debt is paid rests entirely on the individual to whom the debt is owed. if i sincerely believe that in a week from now, a family member will pay your debt to me then i certainly can wait until the next week to receive my payment. let us not forget that with god, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day. but furthermore, throughout your entire post you simply ignore the concept of justice altogether. can you please show us how at all your conception of forgiveness squares with the notion of justice?"

clearly, the above is not at all in contradiction with what i have said. but once again we note that the bible clearly refutes what you are trying to say and that christ was very clear as it concerns his atoning blood.

( b ) hamza, i had already warned you about trying to use the bible to make your point. let's try again. christ is quoting from hosea 6:6 and the context of it is that god has just punished israel for her sins. what he is saying is that he is not filled with joy by punishing them. he truly does desire mercy and not sacrifice but that does not mean he will disregard punishing wrongs. once again you have been shown to be ignorant of the texts which you try to use.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
So again we see you trying to decievingly misinterpret verses of the Qur'an to imply that which they do not. You were already exposed for doing that in the last thread and now you are trying to imply the verses talk about the people of noah being punished with the flood because of inheriting the sins of others when it is clear for all to see that the verses state that the polytheist brought the wrath of God and the punishment upon themselves for their own evil acts and they were destroyed because of their OWN sins NOT the sins of anyone else and the good were SAVED and that is why they were told embark upon the ark along with the other righteous people of Noah.
in what thread might this be? in the one where you could not show us where in the christian creeds mary was said to be divine? you mean the one that was suddenly closed with no reason whatsoever given? yes, that certainly does sound like the christian position was proven wrong. yes, the texts are quite clear that the flood was called because of teh polytheists and those who would drown would be those who had done wrong. the question then becomes why countless babies and children also died in the flood if there was no such thing as inheritence of guilt within islam. you merely deny my argument but don't actually deal with it.

once more, this discussion does not have to do with my actual post. can you start dealing with my first two posts seeing as this is what this thread is about?
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-09-2011, 09:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Sol if your tired as you have stated in your last post then we can speak tomorrow when i hope to get a better response to my posts.
greetings, the responses were quite appropriate but if you mean to say that there are points in which you'd like me to be more detailed then certainly i can do so for you. so yes, i suppose that this evening or tomorrow will be alright. so, until then.
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
05-09-2011, 10:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
( a ) forgiveness comes from the blood of christ: "the bible is quite clear that all our burdens were laid on him and contrary to what you imply, no act of changing the past would have to have occurred. if sin is a debt then whenever the debt is paid rests entirely on the individual to whom the debt is owed. if i sincerely believe that in a week from now, a family member will pay your debt to me then i certainly can wait until the next week to receive my payment. let us not forget that with god, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day. but furthermore, throughout your entire post you simply ignore the concept of justice altogether. can you please show us how at all your conception of forgiveness squares with the notion of justice?"

clearly, the above is not at all in contradiction with what i have said. but once again we note that the bible clearly refutes what you are trying to say and that christ was very clear as it concerns his atoning blood.

It is clear that like many other fundamental Christian beliefs such as the trinity and the Theotokas , the doctrine of the Inherited Sin also finds absolutley NO support in the words of Jesus or of the prophets who had come before him. They taught that every man was accountable for his own actions and that the children will NOT be punished for the sin of their father. For instance, it is written in the Book of prophet Jeremiah:

"In those days they shall say no more, the fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But everyone shall die for his own iniquity, every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge." Jeremiah, 31:29-30.

The prophet Ezekiel also rejected the dogma of the Original Sin in almost the same words:

"The word of the Lord came unto me again, saying, what mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, the fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge. As I live, saith the Lord God, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine, as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine; the soul that sinneth, it shall die. But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, and hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbor's wife, neither hath come near to a menstruous woman, and hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with garment, he that hath not given forth on usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man and man, hath walked in My Statutes, and hath kept My Judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord God... The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father: neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all My Statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die." Ezekiel, is; 1-9, 20-21

That Jesus himself regarded children as innocent and pure, and not as born in sin, which is contrary to the Christian teaching that a unborn baby or any baby who dies in their infancy can BURN IN HELL FOREVER. Jesus said regarding children:

"Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of God. Verily, I say unto you whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein"

Islam condemns the dogma of the Original Sin and regards the children as pure and sinless at birth contrary to Christian teachings.

Sin, it says, is NOT inherited and certainly does not require God to lower himself so as to come to earth and slaughter himself in the hands of his own creations just to abolish the sins of his own creations. But clearly sin is something which each one acquires for himself by doing what he should NOT do and not doing what he should do.

It would be the height of injustice to condemn the ENTIRE human race for the sin committed thousands of years ago by the first parents of mankind.

Sin is a willful transgression of the Law of God or the law of right and wrong. The responsibility or blame for it must lie ONLY on the person who has committed it, and NOT on his children.

Man is born with a free will, with the inclination and the capacity both to do evil and also to fight against it and do good. It is only when, as a grown-up man, capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, he makes a wrong use of his freedom and falls a prey to temptation, that sin is born in him. That many men and women have resisted and conquered evil inclinations and lived their lives in harmony with the Will of God is clear from the sacred records of all nations. The Bible itself mentions Enoch, Noah, Jacob, John the Baptist, and many others as being perfect and upright and among those who feared God and eschewed evil.

How unreasonable and hardhearted a man can become by believing in the dogma of the Inherent Sin shown by the theological dictum of St. Augustine that all unbaptised infants are DOOMED TO BURN ETERNALLY IN THE FIRE OF HELL.


format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
in what thread might this be? in the one where you could not show us where in the christian creeds mary was said to be divine? you mean the one that was suddenly closed with no reason whatsoever given? yes, that certainly does sound like the christian position was proven wrong. yes, the texts are quite clear that the flood was called because of teh polytheists and those who would drown would be those who had done wrong. the question then becomes why countless babies and children also died in the flood if there was no such thing as inheritence of guilt within islam. you merely deny my argument but don't actually deal with it.
The one where all of your gross errors were exposed and refuted. The one where i showed you OVERWHELMING evidence of the Christian belief in the divinity of Mary and the one in which you failed everytime to prove a single point you raised just like you are failing now to prove even one of your points. Yes by your own words it was clearly establised for all to see that your position in being a Christian was proven WRONG.

Now going back to this thread you imply that countles babies would have died in the flood. I ask you to provide evidence where in the Qur'an does it state that countless babies died because of the sin they inherited because of the polytheists? I await your answer.......

I am also still waiting for you to prove to us of the belief of blood atonement of sin using the teachings of Jesus which you have still failed to do and in which i have already provided you with overwhelming evidence that the Bible, the Christianity deity and Jesus clearly teaches otherwise.
Reply

IAmZamzam
05-09-2011, 10:22 PM
Sol, what kind of a coward are you proclaiming triumph where I had to duck out entirely for medical reasons and then openly sidestepping the original sin issue when it's utterly smashed into oblivion by Hamza, saying it's "not relevant"? As it is the whole basis for the twisted notion of redemption that you're peddling, the very foundation, it couldn't possibly be more relevant! You're like a boxer who, minutes after bragging about winning a fight by forfeit because the other guy was in the emergency room during the scheduled time after accidentally crushing his hands beneath his own ladder, says in response to proof of a flaw in his very technique and conception of how the sport of boxing should be practiced, "That doesn't matter, I'm still the best in the business!" Do you think you're convincing anyone of anything this way?
Reply

Woodrow
05-09-2011, 10:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus

so let's please not claim that islam does not teach the inheritance of sin.
Peace Sol,

Like you I also am hard pressed for time at the moment. Please excuse my brevity. I did truncate your post to just the specific statement I am addressing at this moment. I did hope to have time to address the entire 59 ayyat that speak of Nuh(Noah) (Pbuh) along with the 28 ayyats of surah 71. But decided that would br both redundant and time consuming.

I am not qualified to give Tafsir about the Quran. But from what I read the Flood was sent as a punishment to the polytheists among the people of Nuh(Noah)(Pbuh). It does not seem to be a worldwide deluge that destroyed all life with a few exceptions. It was more in line with the destruction of the evil ones among the People of Lut(Lot)(Pbuh) If the whole world was destroyed, I can not say with certainty. but I can say the Quran only mentions the wrong doers among the People of Nuh(PBUH) as being destroyed.

At no point in any of the various destruction that Allaah(swt) sent to wrong doers, can I find any reference that any innocents were killed. Those destroyed brought upon the destruction by refusing to heed the warnings. They were responsible for their own death, not from anything they inherited.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-10-2011, 12:38 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
Sol, what kind of a coward are you proclaiming triumph where I had to duck out entirely for medical reasons and then openly sidestepping the original sin issue when it's utterly smashed into oblivion by Hamza, saying it's "not relevant"? As it is the whole basis for the twisted notion of redemption that you're peddling, the very foundation, it couldn't possibly be more relevant! You're like a boxer who, minutes after bragging about winning a fight by forfeit because the other guy was in the emergency room during the scheduled time after accidentally crushing his hands beneath his own ladder, says in response to proof of a flaw in his very technique and conception of how the sport of boxing should be practiced, "That doesn't matter, I'm still the best in the business!" Do you think you're convincing anyone of anything this way?
greetings yahya, for someone who keeps mentioning his ailing hands whenever the matter of continuing with our discussion comes up, those post of yours that you have graced us with would almost beg us to differ. anyway, you claim that i am side-stepping a relevant part of the argument and as such i would ask you how at all my posts are predicated on the concept of original sin? we should note that i have asked this before and have yet to receive a response on this question. can you begin to quote from my article and show how exactly the quoted portion only makes sense if we start with original sin as a foundation? notice how many times i have asked individuals in this thread to simply quote my posts that actually have to do with the this thread and then start attacking them? notice how there has yet to be such a post forthcoming?

once again, if you feel that my points are at all based on the doctrine of original sin, then please quote from my post and show how this is so. if however you fail to do this in your next post then i'd have to say that there you go again with making claims that you can't at all show to be the case.

now, if you thought your arguments to have been that great you would join me in encouraging the participants of this thread to get back to the main topic and yet strangely you have not done so but encouraged discussion that has nothing to do with the points i had brought forth to refute your claims. if you think that your argument and post are at all salvageable, will you then join me in asking for a return to such a discussion?

format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
I am not qualified to give Tafsir about the Quran. But from what I read the Flood was sent as a punishment to the polytheists among the people of Nuh(Noah)(Pbuh). It does not seem to be a worldwide deluge that destroyed all life with a few exceptions. It was more in line with the destruction of the evil ones among the People of Lut(Lot)(Pbuh) If the whole world was destroyed, I can not say with certainty. but I can say the Quran only mentions the wrong doers among the People of Nuh(PBUH) as being destroyed.

At no point in any of the various destruction that Allaah(swt) sent to wrong doers, can I find any reference that any innocents were killed. Those destroyed brought upon the destruction by refusing to heed the warnings. They were responsible for their own death, not from anything they inherited.
greetings woodrow, it is always a pleasure. it must be said that whether or not the flood was global according to islam would not at all hurt my position (i myself would have to go verify this point as far as islamic commentary is concerned). that said, here is why i believe your point not to be in keeping with the flood narrative. you claim that there is no basis to believe that innocent children drowned in the flood but can this at all be true? as i recall, islamic tradition enumerates the number of people who had been saved and if all babies and those children too young to have actually willfully engaged in polytheism were in fact spared, then islamic tradition would have mentioned this. your argument is not unlike saying that seeing as the qur'an doesn't specifically mention that these drowned individuals were clothed, we cannot assume that they weren't running around naked. you see where i'm getting with this? if a flood was called and adults themselves were unable to save their own lives, then we should not suppose that the little children would be able to save their own lives unless this was explicitly mentioned. it's only logical and as such my argument still stands.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
I am also still waiting for you to prove to us of the belief of blood atonement of sin using the teachings of Jesus which you have still failed to do and in which i have already provided you with overwhelming evidence that the Bible, the Christianity deity and Jesus clearly teaches otherwise.
i thought of quoting your entire post but then thought better of it. now as it regards the audience, look carefully for this will be a teaching moment. in the above it is claimed that that both christ and the bible do not teach concerning the blood atonement for forgiveness of sins. but wait a minute, did i not just quote christ's explicit words to show that he claimed that he was going to die for the sins of the world? hmm, let's see if i understand this correctly. so when christ says the following:

"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." --- Mark 10:45 NIV

"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." --- Matthew 26:28 NIV

23 Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 24 Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. [...] 27 “Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. 28 Father, glorify your name!” Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and will glorify it again.” 29 The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him. 30 Jesus said, “This voice was for your benefit, not mine. 31 Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. 32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” 33 He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die. — John 10:23-24, 27-33 NIV


we are somehow to suppose that what he actually meant was that he wasn't teaching that he would atone for our sins with his own blood. it would seem that the problem here isn't that the christian can't authenticate their doctrine from the bible but rather that the muslim is fully prepared to ignore those very portions of the bible which clearly contradict him. i'll be perfectly clear: that is dishonest and as it regards this practise, you have answered the question of your character for all of us.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Now going back to this thread you imply that countles babies would have died in the flood. I ask you to provide evidence where in the Qur'an does it state that countless babies died because of the sin they inherited because of the polytheists? I await your answer.......
in terms of logic, there is much to be desired. if the above were a proper argument then i could very ask you to tell me where it is said that noah was wearing clothes when he was preaching to the polytheists. in the absence of any such reference are we then to assume that he was going about preaching the words of god while completely naked? see how ridiculous an objection founded on such a premise becomes? the fact is that there is absolutely no reason to suppose that the children and adults did not drown as well for if they hadn't then the muslim deity would have informed us of this (lest we think that punished them for the sins of the polytheists---oh...wait).

as far as your jeremiah and ezekiel citation go, the fact of the matter is that the jews were claiming that their particular punishment was not due to any of their sins but to the sins of their fathers. in both instances god was informing them that they were being punished for their sins. is it that strange to suppose that god can punish the individual for his particular sin (even if original sin is posited a priori)? clearly it isn't. hamza, you once again talk concerning original sin and seeing as i don't want to be involved in debates which have no bearing on my argument at all. i could certainly defend the doctrine of original sin but it is not relevant to my argument. none of my points are based on this but if you think that they are, can you please start quoting from my post and showing how this is at all the case? once again: can we now begin to actually quote my posts which actually have to do with this thread? please start trying to salvage yahya's argument by quoting from my posts and showing how his words at all refuted me (of course you are certainly welcome to try to pick them apart yourselves).
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
05-10-2011, 03:11 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
i thought of quoting your entire post but then thought better of it. now as it regards the audience, look carefully for this will be a teaching moment. in the above it is claimed that that both christ and the bible do not teach concerning the blood atonement for forgiveness of sins. but wait a minute, did i not just quote christ's explicit words to show that he claimed that he was going to die for the sins of the world? hmm, let's see if i understand this correctly. so when christ says the following:

"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." --- Mark 10:45 NIV

"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." --- Matthew 26:28 NIV

23 Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 24 Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. [...] 27 “Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. 28 Father, glorify your name!” Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and will glorify it again.” 29 The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him. 30 Jesus said, “This voice was for your benefit, not mine. 31 Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. 32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” 33 He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die. — John 10:23-24, 27-33 NIV
Greetings again Sol,

There are three points i would like to touch upon here:

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." (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.

Why would God have his own begotten son slaughtered by his own creations in order to abolish the sin of his own creations? No matter which way you put it, this is clearly a very troubling concept to say the least.

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 it also has NO support of the words or teachings of Jesus. Jesus may be said to have suffered for the sins of men as you have quoted in a verse above 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. Where does the verse state that? Clearly it does NOT.

So therefore those verses that you quoted CANNOT be used to prove your point because they do not prove that Jesus taught or said anything about the fact that his blood was necessery for the atonement of the inherited sin of mankind. But the verses and proof i have provided explicitly proves that sin is to be forgiven by the mercy of God alone and NOT by God slaughtering his son by the hands of his own creations just to forgiven a sin that mankind never committed in the first place.

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.

So the three points are that 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 an absolute denial of the Justice and Mercy of God. As i have already mentioned in my previous posts Islam TOTALLY rejects this dogma and 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)

Clearly you are trying to divert away from this topic because you KNOW that the blood atonement is a concept which is consistant with nor is it backed up by ANY of the teachings of Jesus or the Christian deity.

All you have done is quote a verse out of context where it does not mention anything about the blood atonement of Christ being necessery for the inherited sin of mankind to be eradicated, whereas i have provided you with overwhelming evidence from your own Bible that the teaching of the blood atonement of Christ is NOT a teaching that was consistant with or taught by ANY prophet or the Bible but clearly it was in fact created after Jesus as was the concept of the trinity and the Theotokas.


format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus

in terms of logic, there is much to be desired. if the above were a proper argument then i could very ask you to tell me where it is said that noah was wearing clothes when he was preaching to the polytheists. in the absence of any such reference are we then to assume that he was going about preaching the words of god while completely naked? see how ridiculous an objection founded on such a premise becomes? the fact is that there is absolutely no reason to suppose that the children and adults did not drown as well for if they hadn't then the muslim deity would have informed us of this (lest we think that punished them for the sins of the polytheists---oh...wait).
You are correct that in terms of logic your argument that the verse implies that children died because of the inheritance of others has NO logic whatsoever nor have you any argument at all.

I have already asked you to provide evidence of where in the Qur'an does God state that a person was killed due to inheriting the sin of another person and you CANNOT provide a shred of evidence at all.

The Qur'an is clear that we are ALL absolutely responsible for ONLY our own sins, which are incurred by our direct acts. Others cannot transfer their sins to us, in order to have theirs erased or even reduced. Nor can we inherit sins from our relatives or our ancestors. No One will have to bear the Sins of Another!

You still have not answered my question Sol According to the concept of blood atonement of sin why are babies and unborn babies who die in their infancy destined for HELL? I still want an answer to this disturbing concept.

You have also failed once again to provide ANY evidence to back up your position regarding the teaching of the atonement of sin and have been overwhelmed by evidence proving the fact that the teaching of the atonement of sin was NEVER taught by ANY prophet nor was it ever taught by Jesus, the Christian deity or the Bible.

There is NO doubt that the doctrine of original sin clashes with man's irresistible convictions of justice that, even when men like yourself believe and teach the doctrine, they cannot escape the fact that it is unjust and in the back of your mind there is no doubt that you know this and acknowledge it but instead would rather remain blind to it.



Clearly there is a fundamental problem with this troubling concept and one which you clearly would like to divert away from.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-10-2011, 11:02 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Greetings again Sol,

There are three points i would like to touch upon here:

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." (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.

Why would God have his own begotten son slaughtered by his own creations in order to abolish the sin of his own creations? No matter which way you put it, this is clearly a very troubling concept to say the least.

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 it also has NO support of the words or teachings of Jesus. Jesus may be said to have suffered for the sins of men as you have quoted in a verse above 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. Where does the verse state that? Clearly it does NOT.

So therefore those verses that you quoted CANNOT be used to prove your point because they do not prove that Jesus taught or said anything about the fact that his blood was necessery for the atonement of the inherited sin of mankind. But the verses and proof i have provided explicitly proves that sin is to be forgiven by the mercy of God alone and NOT by God slaughtering his son by the hands of his own creations just to forgiven a sin that mankind never committed in the first place.

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.

So the three points are that 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 an absolute denial of the Justice and Mercy of God. As i have already mentioned in my previous posts Islam TOTALLY rejects this dogma and 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)

Clearly you are trying to divert away from this topic because you KNOW that the blood atonement is a concept which is consistant with nor is it backed up by ANY of the teachings of Jesus or the Christian deity.

All you have done is quote a verse out of context where it does not mention anything about the blood atonement of Christ being necessery for the inherited sin of mankind to be eradicated, whereas i have provided you with overwhelming evidence from your own Bible that the teaching of the blood atonement of Christ is NOT a teaching that was consistant with or taught by ANY prophet or the Bible but clearly it was in fact created after Jesus as was the concept of the trinity and the Theotokas.




You are correct that in terms of logic your argument that the verse implies that children died because of the inheritance of others has NO logic whatsoever nor have you any argument at all.

I have already asked you to provide evidence of where in the Qur'an does God state that a person was killed due to inheriting the sin of another person and you CANNOT provide a shred of evidence at all.

The Qur'an is clear that we are ALL absolutely responsible for ONLY our own sins, which are incurred by our direct acts. Others cannot transfer their sins to us, in order to have theirs erased or even reduced. Nor can we inherit sins from our relatives or our ancestors. No One will have to bear the Sins of Another!

You still have not answered my question Sol According to the concept of blood atonement of sin why are babies and unborn babies who die in their infancy destined for HELL? I still want an answer to this disturbing concept.

You have also failed once again to provide ANY evidence to back up your position regarding the teaching of the atonement of sin and have been overwhelmed by evidence proving the fact that the teaching of the atonement of sin was NEVER taught by ANY prophet nor was it ever taught by Jesus, the Christian deity or the Bible.

There is NO doubt that the doctrine of original sin clashes with man's irresistible convictions of justice that, even when men like yourself believe and teach the doctrine, they cannot escape the fact that it is unjust and in the back of your mind there is no doubt that you know this and acknowledge it but instead would rather remain blind to it.



Clearly there is a fundamental problem with this troubling concept and one which you clearly would like to divert away from.
alright, so i have been wondering why exactly you have been unwilling to actually engage my actual argument and so i decided to do a quick google search and lo and behold, you haven't really been debating me in the first place. instead you were copying other people's articles almost word for word and passing them off as your own. you did not have the common decency to include them in quotes so that we'd know that the words were never yours in the first place and i have noticed this before. this certainly is not the first time. case in point:

http://www.islambasics.com/view.php?bkID=175&chapter=23

if we compare the above link with what you have in your post we'll see that you've just been copying and pasting other people's arguments word for word. this is why you could not actually deal with my actual posts because you have been unable to actual find a website which responds to the line of argument that i have presented. i'm really not going to bother discussing with an individual who repeatedly passes off other people's words as his own. hamza, our discussion here is done because you have repeatedly been unwilling to actually deal with those posts of mine which actually deal with the purpose of this thread. given that this discussion is way above your comprehension level you have simply been copying and pasting other people's words but seeing as they haven't come across a line of argument such as mine it now becomes quite clear why your statements never actually had to do with the posts of mine that this discussion should have been centered on. so i repeat, this little discussion is over hamza, yes i'll continue my discussion with woodrow, yes i'll continue my discussion with yahya but certainly not with you seeing as you have proven yourself unfit for such a discussion in the first place. that said, if your co-religionists actually believe that the words which you copied, pasted and passed off as your own are actually good arguments then they can certainly pick up these points in their discussion with me but you and i are certainly done here (unless of course you now wish to actually engage my actual posts and try to save yahya's failing argument now that you have been exposed in this manner).

another christian is certainly welcome to pick up where i left off debating whoever it is that actually wrote the words contained in hamza's post.

now to the other participants (for what must seem like the hundredth time to me): can we actually begin quoting from my rebuttal to yahya's argument and show how my points were at all wrong? why is it that there seems to be such an aversion towards simply doing so?
Reply

Grace Seeker
05-10-2011, 03:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Greetingts Sol,

Let us look at essentially what the Christian blood atonement of sin actually is:

So Christians believe God transferred the sin of mankind upon (a person of) Himself and had Himself killed at the hands of a bunch of Jews and Romans in order to forgive the sin. On the other hand Muslims believe God simply forgives sin out of His Mercy without a need to have to send himself to the earth, lower himself and get himself slaughterewd at the hands of Jews and Romans.

The Muslim view clearly makes MUCH more sense once an individual considers the Attributes of God.

So Who brought the concept of sin into existence? God.
I'm going to stop you right there.

I don't believe that God brought the concept of sin into existence. Rather, people choose to be disobedient to God's will for their lives and thus introduced sin. God simply named it for what it was, in this case, essentially seeing one's self as ruler over one's life and therefore casting one's self in the position of God.
Sin is the opposite of Islam and is not something that God brings into existence. I find it hard to believe that a follower of Islam would even suggest such a thing.
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
05-10-2011, 04:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
alright, so i have been wondering why exactly you have been unwilling to actually engage my actual argument and so i decided to do a quick google search and lo and behold, you haven't really been debating me in the first place. instead you were copying other people's articles almost word for word and passing them off as your own. you did not have the common decency to include them in quotes so that we'd know that the words were never yours in the first place and i have noticed this before. this certainly is not the first time. case in point:

http://www.islambasics.com/view.php?bkID=175&chapter=23

if we compare the above link with what you have in your post we'll see that you've just been copying and pasting other people's arguments word for word. this is why you could not actually deal with my actual posts because you have been unable to actual find a website which responds to the line of argument that i have presented. i'm really not going to bother discussing with an individual who repeatedly passes off other people's words as his own. hamza, our discussion here is done because you have repeatedly been unwilling to actually deal with those posts of mine which actually deal with the purpose of this thread. given that this discussion is way above your comprehension level you have simply been copying and pasting other people's words but seeing as they haven't come across a line of argument such as mine it now becomes quite clear why your statements never actually had to do with the posts of mine that this discussion should have been centered on. so i repeat, this little discussion is over hamza, yes i'll continue my discussion with woodrow, yes i'll continue my discussion with yahya but certainly not with you seeing as you have proven yourself unfit for such a discussion in the first place. that said, if your co-religionists actually believe that the words which you copied, pasted and passed off as your own are actually good arguments then they can certainly pick up these points in their discussion with me but you and i are certainly done here (unless of course you now wish to actually engage my actual posts and try to save yahya's failing argument now that you have been exposed in this manner).

another christian is certainly welcome to pick up where i left off debating whoever it is that actually wrote the words contained in hamza's post.

now to the other participants (for what must seem like the hundredth time to me): can we actually begin quoting from my rebuttal to yahya's argument and show how my points were at all wrong? why is it that there seems to be such an aversion towards simply doing so?
Greetings Sol,

This is coming from a person who constantly copies and pastes his flawed arguments from anti-Islamic websites. When i do my research if i find the wording to be appropriate to the discussion then it does not need to be changed or simplified. That website was used for part of my post as was reseaarch from many websites in my including Christian websites. So it would be difficult to quote every single source for every single post, unlike yourself who is clearly dishonest about the anti-islamic websites he uses to try and prove his flawed arguments which have all been refuted.

Why is it that you want to run away from this discussion which is VERY relevant to the thread and the discussion on the concept of sin in Islam and Christianity?

It is clear for all to see Sol that you are wanting to run away from this discussion because you CANNOT provide a shred of evidence from the teachings of ANY Prophet, Jesus, the Christian deity or the Bible to prove the Christian concept of Christs blood atonement of sin.

I still await for you to answer the questions posed to you in my last post and i urge you not to run away from this discussion.

If you refuse to have this discussion with me then clearly you have conceded that you CANNOT provide ANY evidence to prove that the Christian concept of blood atonement of sin was a teaching of Jesus and the Bible.

You also have'nt answered WHY babies and the unborn who die in their infancy destined for HELL? I still want an answer to this disturbing concept.

There is NO doubt that the doctrine of original sin clashes with man's irresistible convictions of justice that, even when men like yourself believe and teach the doctrine, they cannot escape the fact that it is unjust, cruel, troubling and very disturbing indeed and most of all it is NOT backed up by the teachings of Jesus or the Bible.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-10-2011, 05:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
This is coming from a person who constantly copies and pastes his flawed arguments from anti-Islamic websites.
prove it. as i recall, i go so far as to even distinguish my very own words which are not native to this thread.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Why is it that you want to run away from this discussion which is VERY relevant to the thread and the discussion on the concept of sin in Islam and Christianity?
prove it. i have asked time and time again for you to go back to my post and quote those sections which rely on the premise of original sin. if you can show that this is the case then certainly we can talk about the matter. i simply have no need to talk about original sin when it doesn't affect my post at all.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
t is clear for all to see Sol that you are wanting to run away from this discussion because you CANNOT provide a shred of evidence from the teachings of ANY Prophet, Jesus, the Christian deity or the Bible to prove the Christian concept of Christs blood atonement of sin.
yes, when jesus says that "this is my blood which is shed for the remission of sins" he actually means "i'm not dying for your sins at all, lol". at this point, you have shown us what your character entails because even when we can clearly cite christ as speaking concerning his saving blood, you are more then willing to ignore this and then have the audacity to claim that such a thing is not found in the bible.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
You also have'nt answered WHY babies and the unborn who die in their infancy destined for HELL? I still want an answer to this disturbing concept.
they do not go to hell but more importantly, this has nothing to do with my post. you're trying to draw me away from what this discussion actually entails. if you want to continue this talk of original sin go back to my post and prove how my argument relies on original sin. i don't see why i need to make my argument even longer when i can simply refute the islamic concept of forgiveness without any need of talking about original sin. go back to my first two posts and start taking me to task as it concerns them. i realize that this will be very hard to do seeing as they don't really fit anything that you can copy and paste from your islamic websites but surely you can use your own intelligence to make a logical argument. once again, go back to my posts and show everyone here how i haven't refuted yahya's argument, how my post makes no sense and also, how my argument relies on the premise of original sin in order to be proven correct.

seriously, can we now start attacking my rebuttal towards yahya?
Reply

YusufNoor
05-10-2011, 05:56 PM
[QUOTE=Grace Seeker;1436489]I'm going to stop you right there.

I don't believe that God brought the concept of sin into existence. Rather, people choose to be disobedient to God's will for their lives and thus introduced sin. God simply named it for what it was, in this case, essentially seeing one's self as ruler over one's life and therefore casting one's self in the position of God.
Sin is the opposite of Islam and is not something that God brings into existence. I find it hard to believe that a follower of Islam would even suggest such a thing.[/QUOTE

I don't believe that God brought the concept of sin into existence.
John 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
sin exists - according to your book, Jesus created it.

Rather, people choose to be disobedient to God's will for their lives and thus introduced sin. God simply named it for what it was, in this case, essentially seeing one's self as ruler over one's life and therefore casting one's self in the position of God.
even if you reject my first reply. God must know everything. God created man knowing he would sin, so God knowingly created the agent of sin, ergo God created sin.

Sin is the opposite of Islam and is not something that God brings into existence. I find it hard to believe that a follower of Islam would even suggest such a thing
in Islam God created EVERYTHING, THEREFORE God created the things with evil or the ability to be evil. God created man KNOWING full well man would sin. the GREAT GIFT we got from sinning was the ability to repent and turn back to Allah! proper repentance gets us Allah's forgiveness. Shaytan did not get this gift, he rather chose to believe that God was wrong.

you say God did not possess the ability to forgive until he killed himself. it just sounds too loopy!
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
05-10-2011, 06:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
prove it. as i recall, i go so far as to even distinguish my very own words which are not native to this thread.


prove it. i have asked time and time again for you to go back to my post and quote those sections which rely on the premise of original sin. if you can show that this is the case then certainly we can talk about the matter. i simply have no need to talk about original sin when it doesn't affect my post at all.


yes, when jesus says that "this is my blood which is shed for the remission of sins" he actually means "i'm not dying for your sins at all, lol". at this point, you have shown us what your character entails because even when we can clearly cite christ as speaking concerning his saving blood, you are more then willing to ignore this and then have the audacity to claim that such a thing is not found in the bible.


they do not go to hell but more importantly, this has nothing to do with my post. you're trying to draw me away from what this discussion actually entails. if you want to continue this talk of original sin go back to my post and prove how my argument relies on original sin. i don't see why i need to make my argument even longer when i can simply refute the islamic concept of forgiveness without any need of talking about original sin. go back to my first two posts and start taking me to task as it concerns them. i realize that this will be very hard to do seeing as they don't really fit anything that you can copy and paste from your islamic websites but surely you can use your own intelligence to make a logical argument. once again, go back to my posts and show everyone here how i haven't refuted yahya's argument, how my post makes no sense and also, how my argument relies on the premise of original sin in order to be proven correct.

seriously, can we now start attacking my rebuttal towards yahya?
Greetings again Sol,

I think you are either tired again today or that you are way out of your depth here because you have not been able to disaprove a single point that has been brought forth with regards to the concept of blood atonement NOT being a teaching of Jesus or the Bible but you have continueosly tried to run away from from this discussion when it is VERY relevant to this thread which is about the central flaw of Christianity and this doctrine is without a doubt one of the many central flaws of Christianity.

Our discussion in this thread thus far has been about the Islamic concept of sin which was clearly explained to you in more than one way as well as the troubling and disturbiung Christian doctrine of the blood atonement of Christ in which you have consistantly been unable to provide a shred of evidence that it is in anyway supported by the teachings of any prophet, Jesus or the Bible.

You also have not refuted WHY according to the Christian doctrine of the blood atonement means that unborn babies who die are destined TO BURN IN HELL?

So again Sol do not run away from the discussion but answer the points brought forth in my previous post regarding the disturbing and troubled Christian concept of the blood atonement of Christ.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-10-2011, 06:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor
John 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
sin exists - according to your book, Jesus created it.
sin is not a created thing, it only exists as a concept until it is actualized. think about it, sin is something we should not do and in fact when we sin we create more sin. if you claim that god created sin then you are claiming that he sinned in doing so for just as we are being good when we create good (such as helping out others) we are sinning when we are creating sin. please, let's not go down that road where we start claiming that god created sin.

format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor
even if you reject my first reply. God must know everything. God created man knowing he would sin, so God knowingly created the agent of sin, ergo God created sin.
that doesn't make any sense. is this really what muslims believe or is this your own opinion? i do not want to make a blanket statement concerning islam if this is just your own opinion. god did not create sin. having the capacity for something and actualizing it are two different things. sin is not even a thing in itself but rather the absence of something else. it is the absence of good and not a living entity unto itself. it exists only when you have actualized it (that is, when you have done something contrary to the good). as such, sin was not 'created' by god but rather by the first sinner.

format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor
n Islam God created EVERYTHING, THEREFORE God created the things with evil or the ability to be evil. God created man KNOWING full well man would sin. the GREAT GIFT we got from sinning was the ability to repent and turn back to Allah!
wait, so the muslim deity gave you the ability to sin so that he could forgive you? anyway, i'll let grace seeker handle the rest but on a different note, i'm glad that you've at least acknowledged that the bible teaches christ to be god. interestingly enough, i've noticed that a lot of members on this board like to forget this whenever the discussion calls for it.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-10-2011, 06:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
I think you are either tired again today or that you are way out of your depth here because you have not been able to disaprove a single point that has been brought forth with regards to the concept of blood atonement NOT being a teaching of Jesus or the Bible but you have continueosly tried to run away from from this discussion when it is VERY relevant to this thread which is about the central flaw of Christianity and this is without a doubt a central flaw of the Christian doctrine which is NOT supported by the teachings of Jesus or the Bible.
i certainly am not tired hamza, but thank you very much for the inquiry.

once again, i certainly am willing to continue participating within this thread but i have no interest in debating things which will neither help nor hinder my argument at all. if you feel that these topics are relevant, can you go back to my post and quote the relevant sections to show how my argument is founded on the subject of original sin? it's very simple hamza. yahya wrote a post, i have written a rebuttal and now we are waiting for someone to pick up the mantle that your co-religionist dropped. i'm sure that both yahya and myself would very much like a showing of how i did not refute his claims. seriously, instead of continuing on with my argument, you'd like me to focus on something else entirely. now, if you want me to oblige you in such a manner, can you please show us how my argument at all needs any of what you have claimed above in order to work? start attacking my actual rebuttals toward yahya please.
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
05-10-2011, 06:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
i certainly am not tired hamza, but thank you very much for the inquiry.

once again, i certainly am willing to continue participating within this thread but i have no interest in debating things which will neither help nor hinder my argument at all. if you feel that these topics are relevant, can you go back to my post and quote the relevant sections to show how my argument is founded on the subject of original sin? it's very simple hamza. yahya wrote a post, i have written a rebuttal and now we are waiting for someone to pick up the mantle that your co-religionist dropped. i'm sure that both yahya and myself would very much like a showing of how i did not refute his claims. seriously, instead of continuing on with my argument, you'd like me to focus on something else entirely. now, if you want me to oblige you in such a manner, can you please show us how my argument at all needs any of what you have claimed above in order to work? start attacking my actual rebuttals toward yahya please.
Ok then it is clear for all to see that you have conceded in the fact that the troubled and disturbing concept of the blood atonement of Christ is NOT in anyway supported by the teachings of ANY prophet, or by Jesus, or the Christian deity, or the Bible and you have also conceded that this belief also results in that unborn babies who die are destined to burn in Hell forever.

Now i am happy to move on. Without quoting vast previous posts because this is now a discussion between me and you, can you succintly in a paragraph tell me what you would like to discuss...
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-10-2011, 06:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Ok then it is clear for all that to see that you have conceded with the fact that the troubled and disturbing concept of the blood atonement of Christ is NOT in anyway supported by any prophet, by Jesus, the Christian deity or the Bible and the fact that this belief also results in that unborn babies who die are destined to burn in Hell forever.
as long as you're willing to ignore the words:

"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." --- Matthew 26:28 NIV

then sure, you can believe that christ doesn't teach in his blood atonement.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Now i am happy to move on. Without quoting vast previous posts because this is now a discussion between me and you, can you succintly in a paragraph tell me what you would like to discuss...
hamza, i presented an argument to refute what yahya had said concerning the christian conception of forgiveness and actually showed how the muslim conception is defective. what i would like from you is the same thing that i have been asking since my very first post. can you start quoting from my rebuttals towards yahya in order to show how my post is actually wrong and how the christian concept of forgiveness which i have espoused therein is contrary to logic. once again, please get to quoting my posts and then attacking them.
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
05-10-2011, 07:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
as long as you're willing to ignore the words:

"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." --- Matthew 26:28 NIV

then sure, you can believe that christ doesn't teach in his blood atonement.
Yes you are correct he did NOT teach in his blood atonement at all. In this verse it is clear that Jesus - in order to take them out of darkness into light,- incurred the wrath of the evildoers and was tortured by them; but it does NOT say or imply that his death was an atonement for the sins of others and that only those who believe in his blood would be forgiven. Again as i asked you in my previous post - Where does the verse state that? Clearly it does NOT.

So therefore those verses that you quoted CANNOT be used to prove your point at all for they do NOT say nor do they imply that Jesus taught or said anything about the fact that his blood was necessery for the atonement of the inherited sin of mankind. But the verses and the vast amount of proof i have provided from the Bible itself confirms without s shadow of a doubt that sin can ONLY to be forgiven by the mercy of God alone and NOT by God slaughtering his son by the hands of his own creations just to forgiven a sin that mankind never committed in the first place.

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.


format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
hamza, i presented an argument to refute what yahya had said concerning the christian conception of forgiveness and actually showed how the muslim conception is defective. what i would like from you is the same thing that i have been asking since my very first post. can you start quoting from my rebuttals towards yahya in order to show how my post is actually wrong and how the christian concept of forgiveness which i have espoused therein is contrary to logic. once again, please get to quoting my posts and then attacking them.
Sol i am not about to go through pages and pages of your interactions with Yahya. I said to you in my last post that this is now a discussion between me and you and not you and Yahya. It was you who was so eager to divert the topic in discussion and now i have agreed to do so.

Therefore start a point for discussion and we will let things flow from there.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-10-2011, 07:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Yes you are correct he did NOT teach in his blood atonement at all. In this verse it is clear that Jesus - in order to take them out of darkness into light,- incurred the wrath of the evildoers and was tortured by them; but it does NOT say or imply that his death was an atonement for the sins of others and that only those who believe in his blood would be forgiven. Again as i asked you in my previous post - Where does the verse state that? Clearly it does NOT.

So therefore those verses that you quoted CANNOT be used to prove your point at all for they do NOT say nor do they imply that Jesus taught or said anything about the fact that his blood was necessery for the atonement of the inherited sin of mankind. But the verses and the vast amount of proof i have provided from the Bible itself confirms without s shadow of a doubt that sin can ONLY to be forgiven by the mercy of God alone and NOT by God slaughtering his son by the hands of his own creations just to forgiven a sin that mankind never committed in the first place.
greetings hamza, the fact that you do not believe in the death of christ really makes me take the above with a grain of salt but let us actually look to see if your understanding is at all correct. do you even understand what christ meant by the word covenant and why he claimed that his blood was the blood of the new covenant. for this we have to go back to see how the mosaic covenant was ushered in:

3 When Moses went and told the people all the LORD’s words and laws, they responded with one voice, “Everything the LORD has said we will do.” 4 Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said.

He got up early the next morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain and set up twelve stone pillars representing the twelve tribes of Israel. 5 Then he sent young Israelite men, and they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed young bulls as fellowship offeringsa to the LORD. 6 Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and the other half he sprinkled on the altar. 7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, “We will do everything the LORD has said; we will obey.”

8 Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.” --- Exodus 24:3-8 NIV


notice that christ is recalling the above image to his disciples. just as the previous covenant was sealed in blood, so will the new covenant be sealed in his blood. this is why john the baptist calls christ the lamb of god that takes away the sins of the world (john 1:29) for just as god had said in the old testament:

For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. --- Leviticus 17:11 NIV

in the same way will christ pay the final sacrifice with his own blood. hence why in isaiah 53 describes him like a lamb led to the slaughter (isaiah 53:7) and outrightly calls him a guilt offering (isaiah 53:10)---the very offering offered by the jews to gain forgiveness of sin. the above is why christ repeatedly predicts his death and resurrection and goes so far as to say that it is absolutely necessary:

23 Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 24 Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. [...] 27 “Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. 28 Father, glorify your name!” Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and will glorify it again.” 29 The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him. 30 Jesus said, “This voice was for your benefit, not mine. 31 Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. 32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” 33 He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die. — John 12:23-24, 27-33 NIV

notice what the crowd says after jesus claims that he's going to die for the world. they answer him with: The crowd spoke up, "We have heard from the Law that the Christ will remain forever, so how can you say, 'The Son of Man must be lifted up'? --- John 12:34 NIV

so his audience clearly understood him as predicting his death and as we have seen earlier, he spoke of his death as one which would reconcile the world to god. so your revisionism certainly does not make sense of the words of christ. and of course following the commandments would save the person because the very words of god spoke of the death of christ before it occured.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Sol i am not about to go through pages and pages of your interactions with Yahya. I said to you in my last post that this is now a discussion between me and you and not you and Yahya. It was you who was so eager to divert the topic in discussion and now i have agreed to do so.

Therefore start a point for discussion and we will let things flow from there.
certainly not pages and pages but rather only my post #95. this certainly is a discussion between you and me and i have shown how the islamic conception of forgiveness is faulty while having vindicated the christian conception. if you disagree with this, it is now your job to show how my post is at all wrong. look, i had asked you how the concept of original sin was at all relevant to what i had posted. in fact i repeatedly asked you to show this and you were unable to. time after time i simply asked you to quote my words and show how they all functioned under the premise of original sin and yet you were unable to do so. as such, if my post was not predicated on the matter of original sin at all, why then would i spend my time debating it when it wouldn't do anything for the posts that i had written. that said, you can however start a thread on the matter of original sin if you'd like to discuss this subject so badly.

i find it odd that until i had posted my refutation, pretty much all of the posts within this thread had to do with the article and now the muslim position is one which any talk of the article is being averted. what could have happened?
Reply

IAmZamzam
05-10-2011, 08:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by SolInvictus
greetings yahya, for someone who keeps mentioning his ailing hands whenever the matter of continuing with our discussion comes up, those post of yours that you have graced us with would almost beg us to differ. anyway, you claim that i am side-stepping a relevant part of the argument and as such i would ask you how at all my posts are predicated on the concept of original sin? we should note that i have asked this before and have yet to receive a response on this question. can you begin to quote from my article and show how exactly the quoted portion only makes sense if we start with original sin as a foundation? notice how many times i have asked individuals in this thread to simply quote my posts that actually have to do with the this thread and then start attacking them? notice how there has yet to be such a post forthcoming?

once again, if you feel that my points are at all based on the doctrine of original sin, then please quote from my post and show how this is so. if however you fail to do this in your next post then i'd have to say that there you go again with making claims that you can't at all show to be the case.

now, if you thought your arguments to have been that great you would join me in encouraging the participants of this thread to get back to the main topic and yet strangely you have not done so but encouraged discussion that has nothing to do with the points i had brought forth to refute your claims. if you think that your argument and post are at all salvageable, will you then join me in asking for a return to such a discussion?
Sol is now resorting to cowardly tactic #3, and probably the most common and famous tactic of a cowardly and dishonest debater: twisting the other person's words and attacking the straw man in the hopes that the readers won't notice. But I'm going to show them so they have no choice but to notice. I said that original sin was the foundation of the doctrine in question, and to sidestep this he pretends (quite possibly on purpose) that I was saying it was the foundation of his arguments on the topic:

format_quote Originally Posted by Me
As it is the whole basis for the twisted notion of redemption that you're peddling, the very foundation, it couldn't possibly be more relevant!
format_quote Originally Posted by Him, in response
Anyway, you claim that i am side-stepping a relevant part of the argument and as such i would ask you how at all my posts are predicated on the concept of original sin? we should note that i have asked this before and have yet to receive a response on this question. can you begin to quote from my article and show how exactly the quoted portion only makes sense if we start with original sin as a foundation?...Once again, if you feel that my points are at all based on the doctrine of original sin, then please quote from my post and show how this is so. if however you fail to do this in your next post then i'd have to say that there you go again with making claims that you can't at all show to be the case.
You’re already busted on this one. If you continue taunting me with claims of victory just because I’m not physiologically up to the task of writing two-then-three-then-four page posts and insinuating that I’m malingering, I just might have to call your bluff and bust you on the rest anyway, fingers be danged. You really are tempting me to injure myself out of indignation: is that something you want to be doing? Until then, by all means yes, the rest of you guys should focus, as Sol has foolishly suggested himself, on returning to the main subject on Christianity's defiance of both justice and reason with the crucifixion, as Hamza seems to have done the side-task of exposing the original sin's doctrine's doing the same very well.
Reply

IAmZamzam
05-10-2011, 08:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
i'm sure that both yahya and myself would very much like a showing of how i did not refute his claims.
I beg your pardon?? Is that how arrogant you are, that you think you can speak for me, and say that I'm desperate to see someone come rescue me from you?? Temptation level rising....

Show of hands: if any non-Christian here at the board--any at all, especially among the non-Muslim parties--thinks that Sol's "refutation" of my "claims" was effective in the least and necessitates a counter-argument lest my position end up looking bad in the end, let them make a post saying so. Anyone...?
Reply

gmcbroom
05-10-2011, 08:32 PM
This is all very confusing. Are we discussing The central flaw of Christianity from a muslim standpoint or a christian one? When Hamnza uses the Koran to justify his position he is doing what he's taught from islamic thought is their taught the OT/NT scriptures were corrupted. As for christians trying trying to discuss the central flaw of christianity thats kind of a an oxymoron isn't it? As to be christian we have to believe in christianity and to help in that belief we use the OT and the NT and the teachings of the fathers. Christians wouldn't use the Koran as the Christian canon doesn't include it.

As for the concept of Sin christians and muslims have different views of it. Sin is intragal to christianity for if there was no Sin there would be no need to save us as we'd all be perfect and in the garden. As a christian I only know the christian view, of it I only know the muslim view is different because they say so.

Many may say that Sin doesn't exist. Yet, Sin is the easiest thing to prove. How? Well, just look at skinning a cat. There's just something wrong in doing it. But the more a person does it, the easier it becomes. The same could be said for adultery, lying, murder, stealing. It's ok to doubt me as I'm just a christian what do I know. Just ask any murderer, thief, adulterer, or liar. They'll tell you how the first time they did it was the hardest, and then it got easier. For christians at least, this is called Sin.

Note I'm not saying its not abhorrent or fair, just that it is. As for Original Sin. Christians believe in it and muslims don't, I know this.
No one likes to think of babies being condemned to hell it just feels wrong, and perhaps their not but that's under God's jurisidiction not ours. Yet, you could argue that babies are man at his most egostical. How? Easy, all they do is want, want, want; they don't listen to reason. If you argue with a baby you'll lose because their way is the only way. Babies from a psycological point of view are pure Id. So while we don't want to think of babies condemned to hell, if they aren't baptized they may go there. This is why some Christians practice infant baptism. Those that don't usually don't understand the consequences of it. Even though it's in the bible to perform infant baptism.

So Voila Sin. I didn't say we'd like it (in fact its ok if you dislike it) or its consequesnces but clearly its provable.

Peace be with you
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-10-2011, 08:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
I beg your pardon?? Is that how arrogant you are, that you think you can speak for me, and say that I'm desperate to see someone come rescue me from you?? Temptation level rising....
read my words again. i certainly do believe that i have refuted your claims but in the above i'm merely stressing the fact that this argument ought to return to a defense and/or rebuttal of the article that started this thread. are you seriously going to disagree with this?

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
You’re already busted on this one. If you continue taunting me with claims of victory just because I’m not physiologically up to the task of writing two-then-three-then-four page posts and insinuating that I’m malingering, I just might have to call your bluff and bust you on the rest anyway, fingers be danged. You really are tempting me to injure myself out of indignation: is that something you want to be doing? Until then, by all means yes, the rest of you guys should focus, as Sol has foolishly suggested himself, on returning to the main subject on Christianity's defiance of both justice and reason with the crucifixion, as Hamza seems to have done the side-task of exposing the original sin's doctrine's doing the same very well.
your claim was that the matter of original sin was relevant to my post. i disagreed yet gave you the option (as with any other participant in this thread) to actually quote from my post and show how my logic is predicated on the matter of original sin. so far neither you nor anyone else has done so. what i'm asking for is pretty simple. if my logic is predicated on the subject of original sin, why is it that you simply cannot quote for us the sections which only make sense when such a logic is appealed to. you keep wasting your precious health writing diatribe after diatribe when all you really need to show are the quotes from my post which are predicated on original sin. once again you're simply claiming things that you have not backed up. however, i certainly am glad that you have joined me in calling for a returned focus of my rebuttal towards you. this will certainly be entertaining.

(as it comes to original sin being the foundation of the doctrine for the atonement, i would disagree. you maintain that jews did not believe in original sin and yet they still went through with blood atonement so even if you now try to dodge the matter in such a manner you are still shown to be incorrect.)
Reply

Ramadhan
05-11-2011, 02:58 AM
Oh... this is priceless... I think I'm going to use this quote often, is this christianity at its most salient?


format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
No one likes to think of babies being condemned to hell it just feels wrong, and perhaps their not but that's under God's jurisidiction not ours. Yet, you could argue that babies are man at his most egostical. How? Easy, all they do is want, want, want; they don't listen to reason. If you argue with a baby you'll lose because their way is the only way. Babies from a psycological point of view are pure Id. So while we don't want to think of babies condemned to hell, if they aren't baptized they may go there. This is why some Christians practice infant baptism. Those that don't usually don't understand the consequences of it. Even though it's in the bible to perform infant baptism.
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
05-11-2011, 03:41 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
greetings hamza, the fact that you do not believe in the death of christ really makes me take the above with a grain of salt but let us actually look to see if your understanding is at all correct. do you even understand what christ meant by the word covenant and why he claimed that his blood was the blood of the new covenant. for this we have to go back to see how the mosaic covenant was ushered in:

3 When Moses went and told the people all the LORD’s words and laws, they responded with one voice, “Everything the LORD has said we will do.” 4 Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said.

He got up early the next morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain and set up twelve stone pillars representing the twelve tribes of Israel. 5 Then he sent young Israelite men, and they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed young bulls as fellowship offeringsa to the LORD. 6 Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and the other half he sprinkled on the altar. 7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, “We will do everything the LORD has said; we will obey.”

8 Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.” --- Exodus 24:3-8 NIV

notice that christ is recalling the above image to his disciples. just as the previous covenant was sealed in blood, so will the new covenant be sealed in his blood. this is why john the baptist calls christ the lamb of god that takes away the sins of the world (john 1:29) for just as god had said in the old testament:

For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. --- Leviticus 17:11 NIV

in the same way will christ pay the final sacrifice with his own blood. hence why in isaiah 53 describes him like a lamb led to the slaughter (isaiah 53:7) and outrightly calls him a guilt offering (isaiah 53:10)---the very offering offered by the jews to gain forgiveness of sin. the above is why christ repeatedly predicts his death and resurrection and goes so far as to say that it is absolutely necessary:

23 Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 24 Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. [...] 27 “Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. 28 Father, glorify your name!” Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and will glorify it again.” 29 The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him. 30 Jesus said, “This voice was for your benefit, not mine. 31 Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. 32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” 33 He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die. — John 12:23-24, 27-33 NIV

notice what the crowd says after jesus claims that he's going to die for the world. they answer him with: The crowd spoke up, "We have heard from the Law that the Christ will remain forever, so how can you say, 'The Son of Man must be lifted up'? --- John 12:34 NIV

so his audience clearly understood him as predicting his death and as we have seen earlier, he spoke of his death as one which would reconcile the world to god. so your revisionism certainly does not make sense of the words of christ. and of course following the commandments would save the person because the very words of god spoke of the death of christ before it occured.
Greetings Sol,

The Bible CLEARLY rejects the doctrine of ‘atonement’. We are responsible for our own sins:

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deuteronomy 24:16)

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. (Ezekiel 18:20)

But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge. (Jeremiah 31:30)

Give them according to their deeds, and according to the wickedness of their endeavours: give them after the work of their hands; render to them their desert. (Psalms 28:4)

According to [their] deeds, accordingly he will repay, fury to his adversaries, recompence to his enemies; to the islands he will repay recompence. (Isaiah 59:18)

For many nations and great kings shall serve themselves of them also: and I will recompense them according to their deeds, and according to the works of their own hands. (Jeremiah 25:14)

For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. (Matthew 16:27)

7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams,
with ten thousand rivers of oil?
Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression,
the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?


8 He has showed you, O man, what is good.
And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God. (Micah 6:7-8)

You claim Jesus wanted to die for the world? Wrong he clearly 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." (Mark 14:36)


Francis David by W.C Gannett correctly states concering the troubling and disturbing concept of blood atonement:

“The church`s God son who is supposed to have been born of the substance of God from the beginning of eternity is nowhere mentioned in the scriptures nor the God son who would be second person of the trinity descended from heaven and become flesh this is only human invention and superstition as such should be discarded.”

So again Sol NOWHERE is it explicitley mentioned ANYWHERE in the teachings of Jesus or the Bible of the blood atonement of Christ being necessery for the abolition of the "stain" of the original sin upon mankind.

Arthur Weigall rightfully puts the blood atonement of sin as:

“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 modern 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”.

Just like the trinity and theotokas the blood atonement doctrine is a blasphemy against the justice of God. A very troubling, disturbing and cruel concept unfounded by the teachings of ANY prophet or Jesus not is it mentioned in the teachings of the Christian deity or the Bible.

How could the sacrifice of an innocent man wash off the sins of others? God Almighty is never unjust even in least degree, how this injustice and unkindness can ever be attributed to Him is unthinkable.

God Almighty is Absolute and Merciful enough to forgive the sins, even without sacrifices.


Ulfat Aziz- Us- Samad puts this dogma very well:

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… 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.

I would like to conclude with Tom Harpers statement:

Perhaps I am lacking in piety or some basic instinct, but I know I am not alone in finding the idea of Jesus’ death as atonement for the sins of all humanity on one level bewildering and on the other morally repugnant. Jesus never to my knowledge said anything to indicate that forgiveness from God could only be granted after or because of the cross.

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
certainly not pages and pages but rather only my post #95. this certainly is a discussion between you and me and i have shown how the islamic conception of forgiveness is faulty while having vindicated the christian conception. if you disagree with this, it is now your job to show how my post is at all wrong. look, i had asked you how the concept of original sin was at all relevant to what i had posted. in fact i repeatedly asked you to show this and you were unable to. time after time i simply asked you to quote my words and show how they all functioned under the premise of original sin and yet you were unable to do so. as such, if my post was not predicated on the matter of original sin at all, why then would i spend my time debating it when it wouldn't do anything for the posts that i had written. that said, you can however start a thread on the matter of original sin if you'd like to discuss this subject so badly.

i find it odd that until i had posted my refutation, pretty much all of the posts within this thread had to do with the article and now the muslim position is one which any talk of the article is being averted. what could have happened?
I am not interested in any previous discussions or dialogues you have had as I have already mentioned this discussion is between you and me and is one where i want to start it from the beginning and build up the discussion from there.

I have already asked you more than once to start a point of discussion from where we can build our discussion upon but seeing as you are unwilling to do so then let me begin our discussion from here.

Firstly you state that your argument does not predicate towards the concept of the original sin. Then what does your argument actually predicate towards? Surely you are trying to prove your position using the Christian concept of sin then why are you implying that you are not? Why am i getting the impression that you want to avoid going towards a discussion on the Christian concept of sin?

Before we actually start our discussion i need you to first state your position in regards to the Christian concept of sin and then prove the Christian concept of sin using the teachings of Jesus and proof from the biblical scriptures. I will then do the same for the Islamic concept of sin and will prove it using the Qur'an and the actual words of God. From there we can build up our discussion.
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
05-11-2011, 03:57 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
No one likes to think of babies being condemned to hell it just feels wrong, and perhaps their not but that's under God's jurisidiction not ours. Yet, you could argue that babies are man at his most egostical. How? Easy, all they do is want, want, want; they don't listen to reason. If you argue with a baby you'll lose because their way is the only way. Babies from a psycological point of view are pure Id. So while we don't want to think of babies condemned to hell, if they aren't baptized they may go there. This is why some Christians practice infant baptism. Those that don't usually don't understand the consequences of it. Even though it's in the bible to perform infant baptism.
Greetings Gmcbroom,

I admire your honesty in being firm in your beliefs as a Christian in that ALL infants, babies and unborn babies who were not baptized being destined to burn in Hell FOREVER.

However my admiration of your honesty on this matter cannot be extended to Sol who has been consistantly dishonest about his beliefs and the fact that unborn babies, infants and children who are not baptized will inevitably burn in Hell forever.

Therefore it is clear that either he refuses to accept this belief or rejects the blood atonement of the original sin altogether.
Reply

YusufNoor
05-11-2011, 04:24 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar

This is a conundrum... Jesus (p) was a baby too, right?

Also, what do christians mean when they swear or pray to "baby Jesus"? Was the baby already a God?

Is this a flaw in christianity?
well, according to gmcbroom they would have been praying to a baby that was going to hell! cuz according to the "gospels," he didn't get baptized till he was 30!

i think their god was very confused! he didn't know about sin, he's got people praying to people going to hell! what's next? their god suicides himself?

makes perfect sense...



if you're on medication!
Reply

Ramadhan
05-11-2011, 04:55 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor
well, according to gmcbroom they would have been praying to a baby that was going to hell! cuz according to the "gospels," he didn't get baptized till he was 30!
Why did Jesus need to be baptized? Wasn't he, according to christians, already perfect and free from all sins?
makes no sense...

format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor
makes perfect sense... if you're on medication!
oh well.. I guess you are right
Reply

IAmZamzam
05-11-2011, 07:42 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by SolInvictus
Your claim was that the matter of original sin was relevant to my post. i disagreed yet gave you the option (as with any other participant in this thread) to actually quote from my post and show how my logic is predicated on the matter of original sin. so far neither you nor anyone else has done so. what i'm asking for is pretty simple. if my logic is predicated on the subject of original sin, why is it that you simply cannot quote for us the sections which only make sense when such a logic is appealed to. you keep wasting your precious health writing diatribe after diatribe when all you really need to show are the quotes from my post which are predicated on original sin. once again you're simply claiming things that you have not backed up. however, i certainly am glad that you have joined me in calling for a returned focus of my rebuttal towards you. this will certainly be entertaining.
Amazing. Your response to my exposition of your straw man attack is simply to repeat it. Wow. My claim was not that the matter of original sin was "relevant to your post" but that it was the foundation of the atonement doctrine and since that's a faulty foundation the whole thing comes tumbling down. Who do you think you're fooling? Other than yourself?

As it comes to original sin being the foundation of the doctrine for the atonement, i would disagree. you maintain that jews did not believe in original sin and yet they still went through with blood atonement so even if you now try to dodge the matter in such a manner you are still shown to be incorrect.)
Either you're getting bolder still with your straw man attacks or you're getting me mixed up with Hamza. When did I say anything about that??
Reply

Grace Seeker
05-11-2011, 01:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor
you say God did not possess the ability to forgive until he killed himself. it just sounds too loopy!
Actually we don't say this. God lives outside of time, so applying temporal phrase like "until" to him is what is loopy.
Reply

Ramadhan
05-11-2011, 05:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Actually we don't say this. God lives outside of time, so applying temporal phrase like "until" to him is what is loopy.
But dear pastor, wasn't Jesus a historical figure, which means he was inside time, and hence God was inside time, well at least part of him.
oh dear, this is getting loopy.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-11-2011, 06:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Greetings Sol,

The Bible CLEARLY rejects the doctrine of ‘atonement’. We are responsible for our own sins:
greetings hamza, let's get straight to the point. clearly you don't understand the doctrine of the atonement, personal responsibility is not antithetical to it. for the jews quite clearly believed in blood atonement (unless of course in your bid to prove your inaccurate picture of what the bible actually teaches you will now deny that the jews ever conducted animal sacrifices?). if you claim that personal responsibility could not be had within the system of the atonement, can you please get to explaining this? the fact of the matter is that i have given you a passage in which atonement by blood is expressly taught and yet you merely ignore this and turn the question over to that of personal responsibility. now it is either that you don't understand the matter of atonement through blood or you are being willfully deceiving. could you show us how personal responsibility could not coexist with blood atonement? rather, could you ask your sources for this seeing as i'm not really debating with you in the first place? in hope of elaborating on this point, it must be said that even in the system of the atonement, god reserves the right to hold the individual accountable for their own sin and in fact what we find in the bible is the regular punishment of the individual for their own sins while the concept of blood atonement is also espoused. if your point were indeed correct then this could not be the case. furthermore, we have the very words of christ in which he claims that his death is for the forgiveness of sin and as such your point fails (but i'm still very much interested in how you can misunderstand the concept of blood atonement as denying personal responsibility while the bible is full of personal responsibility and the practise of blood atonement).

as to the individuals whom you quote in hopes of somehow proving your point, i would say that you have accomplished very little. i certainly could also quote various muslim individuals (so-called moderates and reformists) whom have a gripe with certain fundamentals of muslim teaching and yet you would not find this as adding any weight to my points. the hypocrisy is astounding.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
format_quote Originally Posted by Me
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
Wow. My claim was not that the matter of original sin was "relevant to your post" but that it was the foundation of the atonement doctrine and since that's a faulty foundation the whole thing comes tumbling down.
As it comes to original sin being the foundation of the doctrine for the atonement, i would disagree. you maintain that jews did not believe in original sin and yet they still went through with blood atonement so even if you now try to dodge the matter in such a manner you are still shown to be incorrect.)
Either you're getting bolder still with your straw man attacks or you're getting me mixed up with Hamza. When did I say anything about that??
greetings yahya, your failure to grasp the argument has been duly noted. you claim that original sin is the basis for blood atonement and i have denied this. if your position was at all true, then the biblical jews who both muslims on this board here (and if this doesn't include you then i suppose that i was wrong) and present-day jews claim never believed in original sin in the first place could never themselves have engaged in blood atonement. yet both present-day jews and the bible are quite clear that they practised this very thing! so no, original sin is not the foundation of blood atonement, rather it is viewing sin as a debt which makes allowance for this (note: 'makes allowance' and not forms a basis. on that matter, original sin can't even said that it makes allowance for this either. it may perhaps reinforce the point but blood atonement cannot find its logical source in original sin). i'm sure i already said this in my rebuttal to your original post, have you not read my post carefully enough? anyway, once again you've shown us how little of the judeo-christian doctrine you really understand and if it is the case that you disagree with this then can you in your next post show us how blood atonement is predicated on the premise of original sin? if you fail to do so then once again you'll be guilty of claiming things which you do not back up (seriously, how many times is it now?). anyway, i'll be waiting for you to prove this claim of yours.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Firstly you state that your argument does not predicate towards the concept of the original sin. Then what does your argument actually predicate towards? Surely you are trying to prove your position using the Christian concept of sin then why are you implying that you are not? Why am i getting the impression that you want to avoid going towards a discussion on the Christian concept of sin?

Before we actually start our discussion i need you to first state your position in regards to the Christian concept of sin and then prove the Christian concept of sin using the teachings of Jesus and proof from the biblical scriptures. I will then do the same for the Islamic concept of sin and will prove it using the Qur'an and the actual words of God. From there we can build up our discussion.
hamza, have you at all been reading anything i've said. i had directed you to my post #95 and you have been avoiding it like the plague. now you ask me for my conception of sin which i expressly highlighted in my post #95? seriously, go read the post seeing as i have preemptively already answered your query. now as it comes to what we should discuss let me say something completely wild here: how about my post #95? you'll note that in coming to the discussion, i answered yahya's post. woodrow and yahya then both wrote responses to my post. i then wrote responses to their post. do you see the pattern here? in coming to this discussion and in wanting to engage me in a discussion it is on you to respond to my claims--seriously, the concept is not native to myself. it's common sense. now, will you respond to my post number 95 or not? in fact, you don't even have to touch anything that was expressly directed towards yahya. all you need to do is extract my basic argument concerning forgiveness (i.e. the payment of debt, the act of sinning against god being an infinite wrong etc.) and how the islamic conception is thus rendered substandard. it's very simple really.
Reply

JPR
05-11-2011, 06:51 PM
Sol and Trumble are my heros of this message board. Special mention to Woodrow for being one of the most civilized poster / admin.

Don't sweat it guys, most muslims never read the Bible or only use parts/fragments out of context to prove their points yet are outraged if someone dares to use a verse from the Qu'ran that contradicts their point of view.

Maybe a quick idea for you Sol: break your points in smaller posts and just ask to be answered to one point, then maybe people will stop picking only the points to which they have answers.

I read everything that was posted from both sides and even though you might all say I'm biased, Sol's arguments are way more solid and actually touch on the subject as well as refute most muslims claims and his arguments against muslim's concept of God as explained by most people on the forum has not even come close to being answered satisfactly and has mostly been ignored or given very weak counter-arguments.

I am very disappointed by the argumentation coming from the muslim brothers as it brings nothing new to the table but more of the same *yawn* opinioning about what makes or makes no sense. Instead, try starting from the point that God is justice and cannot abide sin and evil. Starting from there, try to be consistent like Sol has been and explain how His justice cannot be escaped. Christianity is consistent through and through, now explain it using the Qu'ran.

Most of the argumentation I saw was something like "You claim that because God created everything, he created sin". I posit to you that it isn't true, it's the ABSENCE of God that is evil and results in sin, not Him creating it. God gave us the choice to either be with Him, or not (sinning / doing evil).

I'm not going any further into this thread and I won't reply to any post because I'm not trying to prove any point, I just wanted to put some ideas out there and maybe encourage the muslim brothers to really answer Sol without resorting to opinions (I clearly don't care about what so and so's opinions) or any misquotes of the Bible (which apparently is flawed anyways according to muslims, which is funny how muslims misquotes what they claim is already misquoted (-1--1=0?)).

Anyways, peace out!
Reply

gmcbroom
05-11-2011, 07:26 PM
Naidamar,

I'll admit I didn't know what salient meant util I looked it up. But if you mean prominent then thank you for the compliment. If you mean jumping out then I don't see how that equates but thanks.

As for The baby Jesus question the answer is yes he was already God. The are a few New Testament scripture that point to it.

First as the most obvious is of course John Chapter 1 (1-5) where there was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God.

Then of course there is the Annunciation where Gabriel appears to Mary. Luke Chapter 1 -(28) Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.

also in Luke where an angel of the Lord appears to some sheperds to proclaim the good news. Chapter 2 -(11) "For today in the city of David a savior has been born for you who is Messiah and Lord.

And for the Jesus needing baptism, well in essense he didn't. and John the baptist knew this when he saw him. So much so that he tried to prevent him. Matthew Chapter 3 (14-15) "John tried to prevent him , saying,"I need to be baptized by you, and yet you are coming to me?" Jesus said to him in reply,"Allow it for now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness."

So if your a christian these all point to Jesus being God and recognized as such both as an infant and as an adult. Now some can and do argue that the baptism of Jesus is when he became God. Yet, they fail to see the other the above scriptures I referenced.

I trust the Jesus was God since the beginning as the Word. Now maybe he wasn't fully conscious of it until the Heavens opened up at the Baptism. However, he is God none the less.

I believe he sanctified all the waters of the earth when he was baptised. Thats why christians use water to baptise. However, that's just my humble opinion.

Peace be with you.
Reply

YusufNoor
05-11-2011, 07:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JPR
Sol and Trumble are my heros of this message board. Special mention to Woodrow for being one of the most civilized poster / admin.

Don't sweat it guys, most muslims never read the Bible or only use parts/fragments out of context to prove their points yet are outraged if someone dares to use a verse from the Qu'ran that contradicts their point of view.

some of us have a great deal of knowledge about "the Bible," but i must agree with you that because we DON'T KNOW who wrote so much of it that we surely differ on context

Maybe a quick idea for you Sol: break your points in smaller posts and just ask to be answered to one point, then maybe people will stop picking only the points to which they have answers.

I read everything that was posted from both sides and even though you might all say I'm biased, Sol's arguments are way more solid and actually touch on the subject as well as refute most muslims claims and his arguments against muslim's concept of God as explained by most people on the forum has not even come close to being answered satisfactly and has mostly been ignored or given very weak counter-arguments.

I am very disappointed by the argumentation coming from the muslim brothers as it brings nothing new to the table but more of the same *yawn* opinioning about what makes or makes no sense. Instead, try starting from the point that God is justice and cannot abide sin and evil. Starting from there, try to be consistent like Sol has been and explain how His justice cannot be escaped. Christianity is consistent through and through, now explain it using the Qu'ran.

Most of the argumentation I saw was something like "You claim that because God created everything, he created sin". I posit to you that it isn't true, it's the ABSENCE of God that is evil and results in sin, not Him creating it. God gave us the choice to either be with Him, or not (sinning / doing evil).

it's funny, your book claims Jesus created EVERYTHING, and you disagree with you book. we also disagree with many things in your book.

I'm not going any further into this thread and I won't reply to any post because I'm not trying to prove any point,

thanks in advance for not wasting our time then

I just wanted to put some ideas out there and maybe encourage the muslim brothers to really answer Sol without resorting to opinions (I clearly don't care about what so and so's opinions) or any misquotes of the Bible (which apparently is flawed anyways according to muslims, which is funny how muslims misquotes what they claim is already misquoted (-1--1=0?)).

sorta like 1 + 1 + 1 = 1? i can see how you'd be easily confused

Anyways, peace out!
it's always kind of odd when a Christan comes here and A) has a problem with what Muslims think about some part of Christianity [you came here, we're not at your site]; B) doesn't want to hear any of our opinions! :p [um...you came here, we're not at your site];
C) cry that Muslims "misquote the Bible" and then try to imply or straight out claim that they know what the Qur'an says better than we do!

IF one of DID know the Qur'an or Islam better than we do, you could teach at a Mosque! i don't think that happens ANYWHERE, UNLESS said Christian realizes that Islam IS the Truth. but then, they aren't Christians anymore are they? SOME of us here ARE in that position!

we have more FORMER Christians than we have former Muslims. THAT should tell you something!

cheers
Reply

M.I.A.
05-11-2011, 08:04 PM
so in my mind, a central flaw of christianity is that it differs from islam in that it says jesus pbuh is the begotten son of god swt.

i am probably really stupid because i googled it,

does the bible say jesus is the son of god?

and then i picked this page.. because i thought i needed an unbiased opinion.

http://www.********************/Who/...monogenes.html

and then i thought i was even more stupid, because from what i could make out of it.. christianity is not as far from islam at i thought.

feel free to lough at me if i really am stupid but it did well to remove some ignorance,
sorry for being off topic but i had to share.. be harsh.

*the link is offensive but somebody really needs to read it mods please ask me for link, PM, read link and decide

now i really do feel stupid :omg:

just to summarise, from what i can make out.. the author goes some way to saying that its just a bad translation of the word and use of monogenes (in the bible). i did not expect that would be the answer from such a site.. for people who did not get the joke in the post..which i have bolded just in case.

yup...still feeling stupid.
Reply

gmcbroom
05-11-2011, 09:09 PM
YusufNoor,
Your right of course it is about opinions. Christians do have a problem with the muslims misrepresenting the trinity and then the same muslims using their trinity misrepresentation as justification of why their right when saying the trinity is flawed. Yet, the trinity to Christians is actually different than what the muslims believe.

In short its ok if you deny christianity. But, if your going to do it then atleast be knowledgable on what your denying. The fact that you have only the Koran saying its wrong as why its wrong and the trinitarian view represented in the Koran isn't even what Christians actually believe the trinity to be just makes the muslim denial more tragic. Note: Christians are not denying whats said in the Koran. We're denying what the Koranic view is concerning christianity. Because if the Koran is from God and the view from the Koran is flawed concerning christianity, that would mean the Koran is a fraud. That's where the problem lies in a nut shell. Its like the whole concept of abrogation. If an angel of God told Mohammed what to write and then later changed his mind concerning an earlier subject that already written concerning the same subject. Simply saying it was abrogated doesn't sound quite right. God wouldn't make that sort of error, humans do though all the time even today. This is the crux of the Christian argument. Especially after being told that there would be no more revelations and that if anyone whether angel or person were to say there was then that person isn't from God. You see the dilemia.

Peace be with you
Reply

Grace Seeker
05-11-2011, 09:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
<font color="red">The Bible CLEARLY rejects the doctrine of ‘atonement’. We are responsible for our own sins:
You understand I believe that there is a distinction in Christianity between an individual's sins and the larger concept of a SIN nature that all humanity is afflicted with. However, your response to gmcbroom post seems to have conflated the two ideas.
Reply

Grace Seeker
05-11-2011, 10:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar

Why did Jesus need to be baptized? Wasn't he, according to christians, already perfect and free from all sins?
makes no sense...



oh well.. I guess you are right
When you begin to post these as actual questions, rather than attempts at mockery, perhaps someone will address it. Until then....
Reply

Grace Seeker
05-11-2011, 10:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor
we have more FORMER Christians than we have former Muslims. THAT should tell you something!

cheers
Yes, as you have repeatedly said, it tells me we are on your site, not ours.
Reply

M.I.A.
05-11-2011, 10:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
YusufNoor,
Your right of course it is about opinions. Christians do have a problem with the muslims misrepresenting the trinity and then the same muslims using their trinity misrepresentation as justification of why their right when saying the trinity is flawed. Yet, the trinity to Christians is actually different than what the muslims believe.

In short its ok if you deny christianity. But, if your going to do it then atleast be knowledgable on what your denying. The fact that you have only the Koran saying its wrong as why its wrong and the trinitarian view represented in the Koran isn't even what Christians actually believe the trinity to be just makes the muslim denial more tragic. Note: Christians are not denying whats said in the Koran. We're denying what the Koranic view is concerning christianity. Because if the Koran is from God and the view from the Koran is flawed concerning christianity, that would mean the Koran is a fraud. That's where the problem lies in a nut shell. Its like the whole concept of abrogation. If an angel of God told Mohammed what to write and then later changed his mind concerning an earlier subject that already written concerning the same subject. Simply saying it was abrogated doesn't sound quite right. God wouldn't make that sort of error, humans do though all the time even today. This is the crux of the Christian argument. Especially after being told that there would be no more revelations and that if anyone whether angel or person were to say there was then that person isn't from God. You see the dilemia.

Peace be with you
its a simple case of when you call out to god, what is it exactly you say and where you draw your inspiration from. lol i guess that your way of thinking leads only to separation.
Reply

Amigo
05-12-2011, 12:30 AM
Dear friends

For the original post.

The justice illustrated by the example is indeed silly.
The reason is because it gives a picture of a senseless justice interesed in vengeance.
A better illustration is of someone sacrificing himself to save someone who have fallen into a deep pit. The one who is saving is not falling into the pit for those who diserve it, he is jumping into the pit to save those who have fallen into it.

God is not satisfied by Jesus death, He is satisfied by the salvation of man. This is the satisfaction of God's justice.
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
05-12-2011, 01:12 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
greetings hamza, let's get straight to the point. clearly you don't understand the doctrine of the atonement, personal responsibility is not antithetical to it. for the jews quite clearly believed in blood atonement (unless of course in your bid to prove your inaccurate picture of what the bible actually teaches you will now deny that the jews ever conducted animal sacrifices?). if you claim that personal responsibility could not be had within the system of the atonement, can you please get to explaining this? the fact of the matter is that i have given you a passage in which atonement by blood is expressly taught and yet you merely ignore this and turn the question over to that of personal responsibility. now it is either that you don't understand the matter of atonement through blood or you are being willfully deceiving. could you show us how personal responsibility could not coexist with blood atonement? rather, could you ask your sources for this seeing as i'm not really debating with you in the first place? in hope of elaborating on this point, it must be said that even in the system of the atonement, god reserves the right to hold the individual accountable for their own sin and in fact what we find in the bible is the regular punishment of the individual for their own sins while the concept of blood atonement is also espoused. if your point were indeed correct then this could not be the case. furthermore, we have the very words of christ in which he claims that his death is for the forgiveness of sin and as such your point fails (but i'm still very much interested in how you can misunderstand the concept of blood atonement as denying personal responsibility while the bible is full of personal responsibility and the practise of blood atonement).

Greetings Sol,

Let me also get straight to the point as i have been doing throughout our discussions in this thread - THE BLOOD ATONEMENT OF CHRIST IS NOT TAUGHT BY ANY PROPHET, JESUS OR THE BIBLE!

How is is possible that one of the most fundamental teachings of Christianity was not explicitly taught by Jesus or ANYWHERE in the Bible?

Sol the fundamentals of Islam are clearly backed up by the Qur'an and Sunnah and are consitant with what is contained within them but WHY is it that the 3 most fundamental concepts in Christianity being the trinity, the theotokos and the blood atonement of Christ are NOT taught by ANY prophet, nor are they mentioned ANYWHERE in the Bible nor are they taught by Jesus Christ himself nor did he EVER even mention them!

Did the Bible and Jesus forget to mention such fundamental concepts?

Would Jesus or the Bible leave their people so confused about such fundamental concepts which are central to the foundations of Christianity? Or was it that these concepts were only created hundreds of years after Jesus created by theologians? Clearly the latter seems to be more consistant with historical referances as well as the fact that the concepts are NOT actually taught by any prophet, Jesus or in the bible.


The Bible says in 1 Corinthians 14:33 that:

“... God is NOT the author of confusion ...”

This verse PROVES that God would NEVER confuse his people or keep such fundamental concepts a mystery only to be created by theologians hundreds of years after Jesus.

Therefore it is clear as can be seen throughout this thread that i have proven to you consistantly by providing you with vast evidences from the Bible and teachings of Jesus that the teaching of the blood atonement is NOT consistant with any of the teachings of the Prophets, Jesus or in the Bible and all you have provided is a single verse that Jesus - in order to take them out of darkness into light,- incurred the wrath of the evildoers and was tortured by them; but it does NOT say or imply that his death was an atonement for the sins of others and that only those who believe in his blood would be forgiven.

Again as i asked you in several of my previous posts - Where does this verse explicitly state that the death of Jesus was necessery for the inherited sins of mankind to be wiped away?

Clearly it does NOT and it never will no matter how hard you try. You cannot create something that is not there. The verses are clear and they do not say what you want them to say.

So therefore the one verse you keep using to try and prove your position has failed EVERYTIME as has been proven consistantly and therefore it CANNOT be used to prove your point at all for the verse does NOT state nor does it even imply that Jesus taught or said anything about the fact that his blood was necessery for the atonement of the "inherited sin of mankind".


But the verse along with the vast amount of proof i have provided from the Bible CONFIRMS without a shadow of a doubt that sin can ONLY to be forgiven by the mercy of God alone and NOT by God slaughtering his son by the hands of his own creations just to forgiven a sin that mankind never committed in the first place.



In regards to sin being a personal responsibility then Allah the Almighty explicitly emphasizes that one’s own sin is his sole responsibility, and should not be borne by another. The Holy Qur’an states:

“Say: ‘Shall I seek for (my) Cherisher other than Allah, when He is the Cherisher of all things (that exist)? Every soul draws the need of its acts on none but itself. No bearer of burdens call bear the burden of another. Your goal in the end is towards God: He will tell you the truth of the things wherein you disputed.” (Qur’an 6:164)

You talk about personal responsibility co-existing with the atonement of Christ then tell us Sol how is it possible that an unborn baby that was not baptized before it's death is destined to Hell FOREVER just because it had a "default stain of sin" upon it from the first man on earth? What did the unborn baby do to deserve having such a "stain" upon it that had caused it to be destined to burn in Hell forever?

Surely every soul is responsible for their OWN sin then what did the unborn baby do to deserve such a cruel destiny when it had not done ANYTHING to deserve it? It had not even been given a chance to be born let alone having to suffer a cruel destiny of eternal torture just because its father thousands of years before committed a sin which it "inherited by default". In what way was it responsible for this "default stain of sin which it inherited"?


If we are all responsible for our own sins then WHY does an unborn baby have to suffer for a sin it was NOT responsible for?

You cannot move away from the argument of the original sin no matter how hard you try because your argument will ALWAYS fall into that of the blood atonement and original sin which are clearly the most disturbing and troubling concepts that one can possibly imagine and BOTH ARE NOT TAUGHT BY JESUS OR THE BIBLE so NO one can accuse me of attacking the Bible or the teachings of Jesus but i am only attacking the theologians who created this concept hundreds of years after Jesus!

According to the Bible:

“The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” (Deuteronomy 24:16)

Therefore my position is that Jesus and the Bible ONLY teach personal responsibility for our own sins and do NOT even mention ANYTHING about the blood atonement of Christ being necessery for the atonement of the inherited sin of mankind, which i have consistantly proved to you time and time again throughout this thread.


So the Bible along with the Qur'an teaches that we are responsible for our OWN sins and it certainly does NOT teach ANYTHING about Christ's blood being necessery for the atonement of the original sin which has been inherited by the whole of mankind and that baptizing is the ONLY way to get rid of such a sin.


I have already proven this to you with VAST evidences from the Bible and the teachings of Christ and you have NOT provided a single shred of evidence from the teachings of Christ or the Bible to prove your position which has failed miserabley once again and anyone reading this will be able to see this for sure.

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
as to the individuals whom you quote in hopes of somehow proving your point, i would say that you have accomplished very little. i certainly could also quote various muslim individuals (so-called moderates and reformists) whom have a gripe with certain fundamentals of muslim teaching and yet you would not find this as adding any weight to my points. the hypocrisy is astounding.

I only quoted those statements because they summed up the fact that the teachings of the blood atonement are truly troubling, disturbing and cruel and have absolutley NO basis in any of the teachings of Jesus or the Bible. Therefore the statements are not attacking any teaching of the Bible or Christ but they are in fact attacking the very theologians and heretics who created the concept of the blood atonement of Christ in the first place.


format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
The bible describes sin as a debt whose method of payment and price is death (Romans 6:23, Hebrews 9:22) and God, since he is infinitely holy and just, requires that sin be punished; that all debts be paid. Now the nature of a debt is as such that he who has no debt can pay the debt of another. This is because a debt (in a manner of speaking) is extraneous to the individual and hence the individual is not levied for something that is absolutely inherent to his self but rather he is levied for a property that is wholly contingent to his being. In just the same way, while everyone is born with sin, sin itself is not absolutely inherent to the human being and thus is not a non-contingent property that the human would possess in every possible world (ie. we can imagine a possible world where humans do not sin such as heaven or pre-fall Eden). Therefore, given that sin is an extrinsic quality, it is possible and perfectly logical for a third party to pay the debt of sin belonging to another. Hence the feasibility of animal sacrifices in the Old Testament (Leviticus 5:11, Leviticus 17:11).

The above is the first part of your argument in post 95 in which the crux of your argument being that "sin is a debt whose only method of payment is death".

This is CLEARLY pointing towards the fact that the death of Christ is necessery for the atonement of the original sin.

So firstly before we can start discussing this topic and then go on to the rest of your argument in post 95, can you please tell us all:

WHERE in the teachings of Jesus and the Bible does it state that the death of Christ was "necessery" in order for the "inherited debt" of mankind to be wiped away?

This is because we are not wanting your own opinions on this matter but proof from the teachings of Christ and the biblical scriptures that the death of Christ was necessery in order for the atonement of the original sin and the inherited debt of mankind to be wiped away.

Where does Jesus and the Bible teach of this debt? and how it can be wiped away? Where does it teach that this "inherited sin can ONLY be wiped away by the sacrifice of God himself who slaughtered himself in order to forgive the sin of his very own creations? After you have provided me proof of your position then we can take things from there.
Reply

Grace Seeker
05-12-2011, 02:02 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Greetings Sol,

Let me also get straight to the point as i have been doing throughout our discussions in this thread. THE BLOOD ATONEMENT OF CHRIST IS NOT TAUGHT BY ANY PROPHET, JESUS OR THE BIBLE!

How is is possible that one of the most fundamental teachings of Christianity was not explicitly taught by Jesus or ANYWHERE in the Bible?
You present as fact, what is actually a fallacy.

"God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith." (Romans 3:25)

"This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins." (1 John 4:10)

That Jesus is called "the Lamb of God" (John 1:29) specfically refers to his role as the perfect Passover lamb whose blood causes the spirit of death to bypass all under its protection, and we are told that as this lamb he "takes away the sin of the world" (again John 1:29). This act sets us right with God, which is exactly what atonement is all about.

So, not only is blood atonement repeatedly taught in the Old Testament, but it is then specifically understood to be applied to interpret the significance of Jesus' death in the New Testament: "For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross" (Colossians 1:19-20). And this interpretation was provided by none other than Christ himself when he instituted the sacrament declaring, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Matthew 28:28).
Reply

Grace Seeker
05-12-2011, 03:02 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Therefore my position is that Jesus and the Bible ONLY teach personal responsibility for our own sins and do NOT even mention ANYTHING about the blood atonement of Christ being necessery for the atonement of the inherited sin of mankind, which i have consistantly proved to you time and time again throughout this thread.
And because such an erroneous view, despite correction, continues to be your position only proves that you neither listen nor understand what you are talking about.

"Sin entered the world through one man [Adam], and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned [in Adam] (Romans 5:12)— death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not [personally] sin by breaking a command (Romans 5:14). The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation (Romans 5:16a); [so that] by the trespass of the one man, death reigned (Romans 5:17a), [for] through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners (Romans 5:19a).


"While we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son" (Romans 5:10). This reconciliation is by means of being "justified by his blood" (Roman 5:9). "Since the children have flesh and blood, he [Jesus] too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death — that is, the devil — and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death" (Hebrews 2:14-15).

"For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world." (1 Peter 1:18-20a)
"Through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering." (Romans 8:2-3)
"For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God." (Romans 6:9-10)

Yes, there is personal responsibility for sins. But only the self-blinded would fail to see that the Bible teaches that there is also a corporate dimension to sin. The old covenants recorded in the Tanakh allow for an atonement for the sins of the people (again not just individually, but also corporately) by the sacrifice of animals. However, it is something that needs to be repeated because sin itself is not done away with: "those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (Hebrews 10:3-4).
But in Christ a new covenant with God has been made. The need for continual sacrifices is no more, for rather than dealing with individual sins, Christ's sacrifice deals with sin itself, not the acts, but the disposition of the heart focused on the self will and redirects it back to God, thus making reconciliation between God and humanity possible. This is all spelled out in the following passage for those with eyes to see:
Hebrews 10

5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:

“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7 Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, my God.’”

8 First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law. 9 Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:

16 “This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.”

17 Then he adds:

“Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more.”

18 And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.
Reply

gmcbroom
05-12-2011, 03:18 AM
Hamza, I believe Grace Seeker gave you your answer concerning corporate sin and individual sin. You can either accept it or reject it. The only problem I see is you don't seem to like Paul. Why? I have no idea.
Reply

Woodrow
05-12-2011, 06:11 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
The only problem I see is you don't seem to like Paul. Why? I have no idea.
That can be said of nearly all of us. We see the Christians of today as being far from Christianity and instead of following the Injil given to Jesus(as) they follow Paul and are Paulists and not Christians.
Reply

Ramadhan
05-12-2011, 06:17 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
When you begin to post these as actual questions, rather than attempts at mockery, perhaps someone will address it. Until then....

I understand that the issue of whether baby Jesus is God is too difficult for you to reconcile.
Reply

Ramadhan
05-12-2011, 06:34 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
As for The baby Jesus question the answer is yes he was already God. The are a few New Testament scripture that point to it.
So baby Jesus created the universe and everything in it, is that what you are saying?

format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
First as the most obvious is of course John Chapter 1 (1-5) where there was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God.
Excuse me, I didn't read any part where it says "baby" in your sentence, even if we pretend that the sentence is authentic saying of Jesus (pbuh), which is stretching facts by a lot, since there is no way Jesus (p) spoke in modern english, and most certainly he spoke first century aramaic or ancient hebrew to his disciples.
The rest of your post follows these premise.

Now my question is: I understand that some catholics worship baby Jesus, but why is it that not all catholics worship baby Jesus if he was god?
I've seen plenty christians (catholics, protestants, etc) worship and pray to crucified Jesus, but why do you guys not worship and pray to baby Jesus?
Isn't this ageism towards God?
Why do you prefer to worship adult God and neglect baby God?
Reply

M.I.A.
05-12-2011, 10:18 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
And because such an erroneous view, despite correction, continues to be your position only proves that you neither listen nor understand what you are talking about.

"Sin entered the world through one man [Adam], and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned [in Adam] (Romans 5:12)— death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not [personally] sin by breaking a command (Romans 5:14). The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation (Romans 5:16a); [so that] by the trespass of the one man, death reigned (Romans 5:17a), [for] through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners (Romans 5:19a).


"While we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son" (Romans 5:10). This reconciliation is by means of being "justified by his blood" (Roman 5:9). "Since the children have flesh and blood, he [Jesus] too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death — that is, the devil — and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death" (Hebrews 2:14-15).

"For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world." (1 Peter 1:18-20a)
"Through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering." (Romans 8:2-3)
"For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God." (Romans 6:9-10)

Yes, there is personal responsibility for sins. But only the self-blinded would fail to see that the Bible teaches that there is also a corporate dimension to sin. The old covenants recorded in the Tanakh allow for an atonement for the sins of the people (again not just individually, but also corporately) by the sacrifice of animals. However, it is something that needs to be repeated because sin itself is not done away with: "those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (Hebrews 10:3-4).
But in Christ a new covenant with God has been made. The need for continual sacrifices is no more, for rather than dealing with individual sins, Christ's sacrifice deals with sin itself, not the acts, but the disposition of the heart focused on the self will and redirects it back to God, thus making reconciliation between God and humanity possible. This is all spelled out in the following passage for those with eyes to see:
there is a question here, on the day of judgement does not a trumpet get blown and we all die?
also we differ that you think that death began with Adam pbuh.. quite unfair in my opinion as the dinosaurs were long dead (scientifically speaking) islamically speaking, there was creation before mankind and some of them are still open to death.

i think your concept of sin stems from the belief that the kingdom will be established on earth, is that not how you reached your view?
i cannot imagine the wonders of heaven but if this is it... we really are gonna need to cut back on fossil fuel use.
Reply

Grace Seeker
05-12-2011, 10:53 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar

So baby Jesus created the universe and everything in it, is that what you are saying?



Excuse me, I didn't read any part where it says “baby” in your sentence, even if we pretend that the sentence is authentic saying of Jesus (pbuh), which is stretching facts by a lot, since there is no way Jesus (p) spoke in modern english, and most certainly he spoke first century aramaic or ancient hebrew to his disciples.
The rest of your post follows these premise.

Now my question is: I understand that some catholics worship baby Jesus, but why is it that not all catholics worship baby Jesus if he was god?
I've seen plenty christians (catholics, protestants, etc) worship and pray to crucified Jesus, but why do you guys not worship and pray to baby Jesus?
Isn't this ageism towards God?
Why do you prefer to worship adult God and neglect baby God?


Are you being obtuse on purpose? Honestly, I think so. But I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and walk through this. But as I am doing this, and am treating this as a serious question, I expect you to take it seriously. Smart aleck remarks such as have recently appeared in this thread simply show a side of your behavior that is completely contrary to the teachings of Islam's declaration to respect the people of the Book. If such is our treatment, there really is no reason for us to respect the mocker and render him any answer whatsoever, even if he has makes a valid point or has a sincere question in the future, for he is proven to behave without charity or justice toward others and instead demonstrates an inability or even an unwillingness to listen when people have tried to respond to him:
Have you not turned your attention to one who disputed with Abraham about his Guardian-Lord, because God had granted him power? Abraham said, "My Guardian Lord is one who gives life and death." [The king] replied, "I give life and death. " Said Abraham, "But it is God that causes the sun to rise from the East, can you then cause it to rise from the West? Thus the rejecter of faith was confounded, for God does not grant guidance to unjust people.
Let us begin with the nature of God in his eternal state. This would be to seek to understand God's nature outside of time and space, completely unrelated to any aspect of creation. In this state, which would include the conditions before the creation of the world, before the creation of time, before the creation of anything, God exists. But even then, God exists (in the Christian view, no need to argue that you believe or the Qur'an teachers otherwise, for you have asked clarification with regard to understand Christian teachings) as a tri-personal being: Father, Son, and Spirit. Using technical language the three persons exist in a perichoresis in which while they are distinguishable from one another, they are inseperable and are one being. So we speak of just one God, not three. Thus when one says that God is eternal, one is saying that God the Father is eternal and uncreated, God the Son is eternal and uncreated, and God the Spirit is eternal and uncreated. But internal to their relationship with one another there is a generation of the Son by the Father and the Spirit proceeds from this relationship between the two of them.

I know that may be a hard concept for several reasons. One has to do with the term "monogenes," frequently translated as "only begotten." As I have explained multiple times in other threads, I personally don't like the "begetting" language because it causes people to think in terms of animal biology. In reality, we are not speaking of anything to do with biology or anatomy or any other sort of procreation. The biblical term which was translated into English as "only begotten Son" about 400 years ago had a completely different concept behind it and would best be translated today as "unique Son." But it has been used so much and for so long, I fear we are stuck with it, even though it can make it difficult to grasp the nature of what is being said. So, quite naturally, we turn to the very properly translated "Father" and "Son" language to help understand what is trying to be communicated. Now, in my life, when I think of a human father generating a human, I quite naturally begin to think in terms of the father having existed in history prior to the son. And that would be true. However, remember, we are not speaking of humans who live within history and for whom the arrow of time is relevant. When we Christians speak of Jesus being the only begotten Son of God, we are NOT speaking of anything that has to do with the virgin birth. In fact, we are not even speaking of anything that has to do with the earthly or physical person we come to know as Jesus. We are speaking of his pre-incarnate self, prior to his conception and being placed in Mary's womb. So, we certainly aren't thinking of a little baby who would eventually appear in the course of time. For we are thinking about something that happened before Nature was created at all, before time began.

Just as there never was a time when the Father was not, so there never was a time when the Son was not. This really is not unreasonable at all. If God's nature is immutable and never changes, and if Jesus did indeed teach his disciples that in praying to God that among the ways it was appropriate to address God including calling him "abba," or Father. Then Jesus is communicating to us something about the nature of God. But for God to be called "Father" it implies that he is a father. And, by definition, one cannot be a father and childless at the same time. So, if God is a father, and his nature is immutable, then he has always been a father since before the beginning of time. And if in speaking of God there has always been the Father to speak of, it is appropriate to conceive that there must always have been the Son. So, the Father is not before the Son, for both Father and Son are co-eternal, meaning that the Son is himself eternal even though the physical earthly body of Jesus would not be created until nature itself had been created and he would be born occupying a particular point in historical time.

As to the generation of the Son from the Father, this is not an act of creation. Again, because creation implies a beginning point, and the Son being eternal in nature has neither beginning nor end. In fact, Scripture affirms that Christ is himself the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end -- meaning that these beginning and ending points of creation are found within him, rather than he being found within it. So, that too speaks to the Son being outside of time. And passages that speak of the Christ being the "firstborn of all creation" need to be read in the context of understanding the usage of the term "firstborn" in the Jewish culture which did not necessarily actually mean the first child (nor even the first son) to pass through the birth canal, rather the term "firstborn" referred to the one who was to receive the inheritance of the father. This is most certainly true of the Christ.



So, if not procreation or an aspect of time, how then is generation to be understood?
I would like you, for the moment, to get a picture of something in your mind. I would like you to think of two books lying on a table, one on top of the other. Obviously the bottom book is keeping the top book up -- supporting it. It is because of the underneath book that the top book is resting, say, two inches above the surface of the table instead of touching the table. Let's call the underneath book A and the top one B. The position of A is causing the position of B. That is if A was not present, B would no longer exist in the space 2 inches above the table that B presently occupies. Now, imagine that these two books have always been in exactly the positions in which they now are. In such a case, B's position would have always been the result of A's position. But all the same, A's position would not have existed before B's position. IN other words, the result of B's position does not timewise come after the cause, that A exists in its supportive position.

So, while A's position may be the cause generating, as it were, B's position. There is no temporal relationship necessary for A to generate B.

But, perhaps an even better way to conceive of this is to reflect on my request to have you imagine two books. I don't know what your books looked like, but I suspect you actually had a picture in your mind. Quite obviously, then, your act of imaging was the cause generating the resultant mental picture. But that does not mean that your first did the imagining and then got the picture. The moment you did it, the picture was there. Your will was keeping the picture before you all the time. Yet the act of the will and the picture began at exactly the same moment and ended at the same moment. If there were a Being who had always existed and had been imagining one thing, his act would always have been producing a mental picture, but the picture would be just as eternal as the act.

In the same way we must think of the Son always, so to speak, streaming forth from the Father, like light from a lamp or thoughts from a mind. He, the Son, is the self-expression of the Father--the Word the Father has to say. And there never was a time when the Father was not saying it. And since this whole time we have been talking about God, when the Bible speaks of the Word it declares that the Word is with God and the Word was God. And further, in perfect concert with Genesis 1, it declares that all things are created through this eternal divine Word (John 1:1-3). Note: we are not referring to the historical Jesus at all, but to the pre-incarnate Son who in time (meaning entering into time and nature) becomes flesh and dwells among humanity. This Son comes from the Father and is himself God (John 1:14 & 18).

How does God the Son enter into created nature? He incarnates himself. That word means that he puts on flesh. He makes himself into a human. His human body is not begotten. It is created in the same way that all other aspects of creation are created by God (I believe probably spoken into being), only it is created within Mary's womb.

Now remember I spoke earlier of the perichoresis of God's tri-personal being. The literal meaning of the term is “dancing around”. I find that it creates a helpful picture in my mind of a dance in which the partners are distinct individuals but the dance itself can only exist as long as they partners are one. The moment they quit being partners and become individuals, the dance is no more. While not a perfect analogy for the interpenetrating relations that exist within God’s own internal being, I do believe it helpful reminds us that we far too often speak of the persons as if they can be separated from one another, when in fact they exist within one another precisely because they are one and not three.
C.S. Lewis, when writing about the nature of God wrote something along these lines as well:
All sorts of people are fond of repeating All sorts of people are fond of repeating the Christian statement that ‘God is love’. But they seem not to notice that the words ‘God is love’ have no real meaning unless God contains at least two Persons. Love is something that one person has for another person. If God was a single person, then before the world was made, He was not love…. [Christians] believe that the living, dynamic activity of love has been going on in God for ever and has created everything else. And that, by the way, is perhaps the most important difference between Christianity and all other religions: that in Christianity God is not a static thing … but a dynamic, pulsating activity, a life, almost a kind of drama. Almost, if you will not think me irreverent, a kind of dance.

The union between the Father and Son is such a live concrete thing that this union itself is also a Person. I know this is almost inconceivable, but look at it thus. You know that among human beings, when they get together in a family, or a club, or a trade union, people talk about the "spirit" of that family, or club, or trade union. They talk about its "spirit" because the individual members, when they are together, do really develop particular ways of talking and behaving which they would not have if they were apart. It is as if a sort of communal personality came into existence. Of course, it is not a real person: it is only rather like a person. But that is just one of the differences between God and us. What grows out of the joint life of the Father and Son is a real Person, is in fact the Third of the three Persons who are God.

And now, what does it all matter? It matters more than anything else in the world. The whole dance, or drama, or pattern of this three-Personal life is to be played out in each one of us: or (putting it the other way round) each one of us has got to enter that pattern, take his place in that dance. There is no other way to the happiness for which we were made. Good things as well as bad, you know, are caught by a kind of infection. If you want to get warm you must stand near the fire: if you want to be wet you must get into the water. If you want joy, power, peace, eternal life, you must get close to, or even into, the thing that has them. They are not a sort of prizes which God could, if He chose, just hand out to anyone. They are a great fountain of energy and beauty spurting up at the very centre of reality. If you are dose to it, the spray will wet you: if you are not, you will remain dry. Once a man is united to God, how could he not live forever? Once a man is separated from God, what can he do but wither and die?
And so it is that God in Christ speaks and, even more importantly, acts in ways that serve to unite humankind with God. By incarnating himself God becomes one of us. By being baptized by John he identifies himself with sinful humanity --even though he himself never sinned—and joins in announcing John’s message of a need to live out the ethic of God’s divine kingdom even on earth. In so doing, Jesus proclaims that one does not have to wait any longer for the hoped for parousia, but that we could experience God’s future coming kingdom in the here and now. By dying on the cross he does what no human before him had done, he lives to completion a life perfectly submitted to the will of the Father. And because he is the divinely anointed (i.e. the Messiah) representative of God among humanity, he not takes on completes the human task of living the life we were created for, he offers to let us share in his life. Thus, just as he is in the Father and the Father is in him, he makes possible that we too can be one with them. This means that incredibly we become (in the words of scripture) “new creations” in Christ. By letting God have his way in our life and being submissive to the Father’s will just as Christ was, we come to share in the life of Christ. If we do, we shall then be sharing a life which was begotten, not made, which always has existed and always will exist Christ is the Son of God. If we share in this kind of life we also shall be sons of God. We shall love the Father as the Son does and the Holy Spirit will arise in us. God the Son came to this world and became a man in order to spread to other men the kind of life He has—by what Lewis calls "good infection." Every Christian is to become a little Christ. The whole purpose of becoming a Christian is simply nothing else.

And when we Christians worship, be we Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, or Coptic, we worship God revealed to us in the person of Jesus Christ. We worship Father, Son, AND Holy Spirit. And with respect to Jesus, it isn’t just on the cross or any other particular setting that we worship him. We worship him as Lord of heaven and earth, reigning from the right hand of the Father. The use of the cross/crucifix is just a mnemonic device to remind us of that particular event in Jesus’ life. But that is not the only event we remember. We do in fact also use other tableaus to help remind us of the events of his life including those you asked about such as his birth – also his resurrection, his ascension, and his anticipated return among others. But we don’t worship any of those events or tableaus, including the crucifixion; we simply worship Jesus’ divine essence.



And before someone asks that oft repeated question about where was God when Jesus was on the cross and dead in the tomb, let me address that as well. He was in those places AND he was in heaven, AND he was preaching to the dead in the grave, AND he was creating the world, AND he was bringing in the eschaton, and he was sitting right beside you just as he is now pricking your conscience to awaken to his presence.

Remember, God exists outside of human history, outside of time and space and all of nature. All of these things exist within him and he holds them together. The problem our human minds have is that we try to conceive of him being in all these places and doing all of these things in the same moment. But that is once again thinking in human terms, rather than divine ones.

Our life comes to us one moment at a time. God’s does not. He experiences all moments as present. God is not hurried along in the Time-stream of this universe. He has infinite attention to spare for each one of us.

So we are actually asking amiss when we ask questions such as “How did the whole universe keep going while He was a baby, or while He was asleep?” “How could He at the same time be God who knows everything and also a man asking his disciples ‘Who touched me?’ " Or, “Who ran the universe while God was in the tomb?”

You will notice that the sting lay in the time words: "While He was a baby"—"How could He at the same time”—“While God was." In other words in asking the question we assume that Christ's life as God was in time, and that His life as the man Jesus in Palestine was a shorter period taken out of that time—just as my time doing any given activity is a period of time taken out of my total life. We picture God living through a period when His human life was still in the future: then coming to a period when it was present: then going on to a period when He could look back on it as something in the past. But these ideas correspond to nothing congruent with the factual nature of God’s eternal being. We cannot fit Christ's earthly life in Palestine into any fixed sort of time-relationship with His life as God the Son who exists beyond all space and time.

Though from our point of view, Jesus’ earthly life fills a particular period in the history of our world, we cannot therefore conclude it is also a period in the history of God's own existence. In truth, God has no history. He is too completely and utterly real to have one. For, of course, to have a history means losing part of your reality (because it had already slipped away into the past) and not yet having another part (because it is still in the future): in fact having nothing but the tiny little present, which has gone before you can speak about it. God forbid we should think God was like that. Even we are promised that our lives shall not always be rationed out that way.
Reply

Grace Seeker
05-12-2011, 11:07 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.
there is a question here, on the day of judgement does not a trumpet get blown and we all die?
No. On that day the dead in Christ are raised to new life, and those who are alive are joined with Christ and all the saints of heaven. But we don't die on that occassion.
format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.
also we differ that you think that death began with Adam pbuh.. quite unfair in my opinion as the dinosaurs were long dead (scientifically speaking) islamically speaking, there was creation before mankind and some of them are still open to death.
The Bible speaks of God creating the world in 6 days and then resting on the 7th. I suspect that a majority of Christians don't take that to be a literal verbatium of the historical events. Many would agree that there were millions of years of evolution that God used to accomplish what is described in Hebrew poetry as occuring in a week's time. But they would not think of that as disharmony between the Bible and science, but rather that the Bible was not trying to teach a science lesson and was asserting matters of faith, that God is the creator who brought order out of chaos, sees what he has created a good, and has a purpose for this world and our place in it.
format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.
i think your concept of sin stems from the belief that the kingdom will be established on earth, is that not how you reached your view?
No. I do believe that the kingdom will one day be established on earth, but my view on sin is not related to that future. It is based on what has taken place in the past.
format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.
i cannot imagine the wonders of heaven but if this is it... we really are gonna need to cut back on fossil fuel use.
Actually, the scriptures declare: "The city [New Jerusalem] does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it. On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there" (Revelation 21:23-25). So, I don't think there is going to be the need for fossil fuels or any other sort of energy source outside of God himself.
Reply

Ramadhan
05-12-2011, 12:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Are you being obtuse on purpose? Honestly, I think so. But I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and walk through this...etc..etc..
Funnily, and expected of course, knowing how fundies always obfuscate the matter when it comes to identity of God, for all the words that you wrote there, you didn't give me not one single answer to my simple questions. Actually from what I read, you re-define a lot of the meanings of words and you turn logic upside down.

Ok, let me ask you again in simple sentences:

1. Was baby Jesus already God?

2. Why do you not worship baby Jesus if it was already God? I've seen plenty of half naked crucified Jesus, the Last Supper Jesus in your churches, but never baby Jesus being worshiped.
Reply

M.I.A.
05-12-2011, 12:39 PM
i can understand the trinity but to say that god is and always was a tri-personal being makes me question it on another level.
i cant believe that, im sorry..
its like using the monogenes argument to remove doubt about the worldly definition of trinity and then imposing misinterpretation on another level.

if i can ask a question,

is the preincarnate self of jesus pbuh the same as the character of the man jesus pbuh?

if yes, then are we not all our preincarnate self's?

it would show the majesty of the power of god.. the creator of all things.
it would allow god to remain external to the system.
it would further reduce the human concept of time to exactly that, something imposed upon creation.

and most noteworthy, it would reinforce the teachings of the quran as exactly the truth.
better to have achieved sincerity and faithfulness to god before you realise who you are.

maybe that last line applies to all the prophets pbut.

..some of whom have been rejected
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
05-12-2011, 01:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
You present as fact, what is actually a fallacy.

"God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith." (Romans 3:25)

"This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins." (1 John 4:10)

That Jesus is called "the Lamb of God" (John 1:29) specfically refers to his role as the perfect Passover lamb whose blood causes the spirit of death to bypass all under its protection, and we are told that as this lamb he "takes away the sin of the world" (again John 1:29). This act sets us right with God, which is exactly what atonement is all about.

So, not only is blood atonement repeatedly taught in the Old Testament, but it is then specifically understood to be applied to interpret the significance of Jesus' death in the New Testament: "For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross" (Colossians 1:19-20). And this interpretation was provided by none other than Christ himself when he instituted the sacrament declaring, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Matthew 28:28).
Greetings Grace Seeker,

I am glad you joined the discussion seeing as Sol was clearly out of his depth and really needed some help in order to prove his position in accordance with the teachings of God and Christ as he kept failing to do so and his frustration was quite apparent.

Looking at both of your posts what is apparent for ALL to see is that you have NOT proved your position in the slightest but actually weakened it further.

You have NOT quoted a single word or teaching from ANY previous Prophet, the Christian deity, Jesus or God but what you have done to desperatley try and prove your weak position is to quote the one person who actually brought in this false concept in the first place - PAUL.

It is Paul who had CLEARLY abrogated and contradicted MANY of the teachings of Jesus and the laws of Moses.

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 as you have proven by your posts.

Jesus CLEARLY contradicts Paul. Not only that, the Old Testament ALSO 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."

It is Paul who 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 (Peace be upon them all).

The great theologian Soren Kierkegaard says regarding Paul: "In the teachings of Christ, religion is completely present tense: Jesus is the prototype and our task is to imitate him, become a disciple. But then through Paul came a basic alteration. Paul draws attention away from imitating Christ and fixes attention on the death of Christ The Atoner. What Martin Luther. in his reformation, failed to realize is that even before Catholicism, Christianity had become degenerate at the hands of Paul. Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely turning it upside down. making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ"

Paul is claiming that this ideology is supported by the scriptures, and in this case he is making reference to the Hebrew Scriptures, or The Tanach. However, one will find that this idea of an innocent man, in this case Jesus, having to pay for the sins of others is NOWHERE to be found in the Hebrew Bible. In actuality, it is the exact opposite that is found in the Hebrew Scriptures;



“The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. “But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statuses and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him; in his righteousness that he hath done, he shall live.” Ezekiel 18:20-22

Without question, this passage runs in direct contrast with what we find in the teachings of Paul, and it also proves that Paul’s claim that his teachings are in accordance with the scriptures is TOTALLY FALSE.

The spilling of innocent blood for the redemption of mankind is a belief that has its roots in paganism and was adopted into Christianity by none other than Paul himself which was then solidified as dogma at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.

Blood atonement was NEVER a teaching of Jesus, nor did he EVER make mention of it.


the Bible is quite clear on the issue of sins being forgiven at the spilling of blood;


“To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifice unto Me?, saith the Lord. I am full of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks or of lamb or of he-goats.” Isaiah 1:11



The Bible itself actually makes it quite clear that forgiveness from sins comes from one’s sincerity in seeking forgiveness from Almighty God and from obedience to Him;


“Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? Offer unto God thanksgiving; and pay thy vows unto the most High” Psalms 50:13-14

“I desired not sacrifices; I commanded not your fathers, when I stretched forth my hand to bring them out of Egypt, to offer burnt -- offerings to me, but only to obey my voice.” Jeremiah 7:21-22

And as for the innocent being made to pay for the sins of others, the Bible is also quite clear in that respect as well;


“And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said unto the people, ‘Ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up unto the LORD; peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin.’ And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, ‘Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. Yet now, if Thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of Thy book which Thou hast written.’ And the LORD said unto Moses, ‘Whosoever hath sinned against Me, him will I blot out of My book.’” Exodus 32:30-33


And from the words of Jesus himself one can also conclude that his true teachings where in perfect harmony with these mentioned passages;


“For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.” Matthew 5:20


“For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” Matthew 6:14-15


SO MANY examples can be used from the Bible that one is hard pressed in understanding how a Christian can claim to adhere to the Bible, and yet follow a totally opposite course. Here is yet further examples of what the Bible says;


“The fathers shall not be put to death for the children; neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” Deuteronomy 24:16


“But the children of the murderers he put not to death; according to that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, as the Lord commanded, saying, ‘The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall die for his own sin.’” 2 Kings 14:6


“But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.” Jeremiah 31:30


Again, the Bible states clearly how salvation can be achieved;


“If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” 2 Chronicles 7:14


“Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.” Isaiah 55:7


Therefore what you have just done is further weakened Sol's position instead of trying to help him and you have proven now WITHOUT doubt that the teaching of the blood atonement of Christ is not found ANYWHERE in the teachings of ANY Prophet of God, nor did Jesus EVER teach it and nor did God even utter a single word regarding it.


I have also proven with proof from the teachings of Jesus himself that Jesus taught repentance, forgiveness and love to the Children of Israel only, and certainly NOT of blood atonement and original sin.
Reply

JPR
05-12-2011, 02:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar

Funnily, and expected of course, knowing how fundies always obfuscate the matter when it comes to identity of God, for all the words that you wrote there, you didn't give me not one single answer to my simple questions. Actually from what I read, you re-define a lot of the meanings of words and you turn logic upside down.

Ok, let me ask you again in simple sentences:

1. Was baby Jesus already God?

2. Why do you not worship baby Jesus if it was already God? I've seen plenty of half naked crucified Jesus, the Last Supper Jesus in your churches, but never baby Jesus being worshiped.
Grace Seeker is now in my top 5 poster. Tick in the box for that.

Now, for your benefit Grace, I don't think he read any of your post otherwise he would see that his two questions have already been answered, he's just being silly, or in denial. Your post was superbly detailed expressed in an easy manner to understand. Now if people don't have the intellectual courtesy of acknowledging that what you wrote was at least well written and brought some valid points and interesting food for thought, then I say they are in denial and not willing to argue with you but instead only want to push their own opinion with no regard to the opposing view, which makes for a rather boring monologue instead of a constructive dialogue.

I tip my hat off to you sir, well done!

I will take two minutes of my time to answer question #1 and #2 from Naidamar using your own material which I hope won't cause you any copyrighted kind of grief:

1. Was baby Jesus already God? (I put in Bold, Italics AND Underlined the relevant parts just so you wouldn't miss them)

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Remember, God exists outside of human history, outside of time and space and all of nature. All of these things exist within him and he holds them together. The problem our human minds have is that we try to conceive of him being in all these places and doing all of these things in the same moment. But that is once again thinking in human terms, rather than divine ones. Our life comes to us one moment at a time. God’s does not. He experiences all moments as present. God is not hurried along in the Time-stream of this universe. He has infinite attention to spare for each one of us. So we are actually asking amiss when we ask questions such as “How did the whole universe keep going while He was a baby, or while He was asleep?” “How could He at the same time be God who knows everything and also a man asking his disciples ‘Who touched me?’ " Or, “Who ran the universe while God was in the tomb?”

You will notice that the sting lay in the time words: "While He was a baby"—"How could He at the same time”—“While God was." In other words in asking the question we assume that Christ's life as God was in time, and that His life as the man Jesus in Palestine was a shorter period taken out of that time—just as my time doing any given activity is a period of time taken out of my total life. We picture God living through a period when His human life was still in the future: then coming to a period when it was present: then going on to a period when He could look back on it as something in the past. But these ideas correspond to nothing congruent with the factual nature of God’s eternal being. We cannot fit Christ's earthly life in Palestine into any fixed sort of time-relationship with His life as God the Son who exists beyond all space and time.
2. Why do you not worship baby Jesus if it was already God? I've seen plenty of half naked crucified Jesus, the Last Supper Jesus in your churches, but never baby Jesus being worshiped.

Just the same you remember the highlights of Muhammad's life. What more important point in Jesus' life, mostly ours for that matter, than the crucifixion? No cross, no christianism, no cross, no salvation, no cross, no new covenant, no cross, New Testament. I would even say that the single most important point in the whole human history (aside from creation itself) is the crucifixion of Jesus. You can also watch Tallageda Nights with Will Farrell, he prays to little baby Jesus and although it's a comedy and not to be taken seriously in any theological sense whatsoever, it's just a good movie to watch.

Peace out!
Reply

Ramadhan
05-12-2011, 03:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JPR
1. Was baby Jesus already God? (I put in Bold, Italics AND Underlined the relevant parts just so you wouldn't miss them)
umm no.. Grace was talking about a lot of things, but those words did not answer my question. Surely it would be a simple "yes" or "no".

format_quote Originally Posted by JPR
Just the same you remember the highlights of Muhammad's life
Wrong. We do not worship Muhammad SAW. You, however, worship adult Jesus, but as far as I know do not worship baby Jesus, hence my questions.
You claimed in the other thread that you studied Islam before deciding on christianity, this statement alone by you shows that you do not even have the basic knowledge about Islam.

So, my two simple questions have not been answered.
Reply

JPR
05-12-2011, 03:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar

umm no.. Grace was talking about a lot of things, but those words did not answer my question. Surely it would be a simple "yes" or "no".



Wrong. We do not worship Muhammad SAW. You, however, worship adult Jesus, but as far as I know do not worship baby Jesus, hence my questions.
You claimed in the other thread that you studied Islam before deciding on christianity, this statement alone by you shows that you do not even have the basic knowledge about Islam.

So, my two simple questions have not been answered.

Wow, Grace was right in asking the question "are you being obtuse?". The question was answered but apparently you really can't understand a full and detailed answer which I even highlighted the most relevant point.

It's a lost cause.

Peace out

P.S.: I know you don't worship Muhammad but you do know the highlights of his life. Stop putting words in my mouth as you seem to like it. We worship God, not Jesus, but we do acknowledge the works and life of Jesus. Stop making assumptions.
Reply

gmcbroom
05-12-2011, 04:01 PM
Naidamar,

Another way that points to it is when God, speaks to Moses through the burning bush he says I AM the God of his father, the God of Abraham, The God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. There is no past tense for God.


Grace Seeker did a job in answering your 2 questions at least from a christian standpoint its understandable. The fact the you can't understand it just illustrates a sad point that MIA made earlier. That my way leads to seperation and indeed it does. For to accept Christianity is to reject Islam. It is in essence death for depending on where you live rejecting Islam is a death sentence. Yet, Jesus promises us life even saying its better to lose ones life for his sake. Oh he'll raise ALL on the last day even you for we are all sinners to face the judgement.

Peace be with you

I have marriage prep to go to I got engaged over the weekend. :) so I'll check in later.
Reply

IAmZamzam
05-12-2011, 04:30 PM
Believe it or not, Sol, I'm not even terribly interested on whether or not original sin is the foundation for anything. I just don't like to have words put in my mouth.

Let's say that you're right and it's the thinking of sin like it's a debt that is the foundation instead (although why without original sin this debt is automatically there is another question entirely). I have explained every which way what's wrong with thinking of sin like a debt in the first place and I really don't know what else there is to say on the matter. People are allowed to pay other people's literal, monetary debts for them because for people money is a necessity. The only reason why a multi-billionaire would demand that five dollars owed by someone be paid, even if it's by someone else who doesn't have anything to do with it, is simple greed. Justice does not work the same way because justice demands that everyone be responsible for his own actions and no one else's, and that therefore either the one owed must pay the "debt" or, if the debtor excuses him of the burden (which he has every right to do and therefore no injustice is taking place), no one pay anything. There's a reason why people being given the death penalty aren't allowed to let their fathers volunteer to be executed in their place: it's not ethical. There is simply no way for one person being punished for what another person did to ever be right in any universe. I'm sure that you're aware of this and that if you were not blinded by closed-minded adherence to Christian dogma then you would not have any reason to disagree. I have never had any hope of you letting yourself see, of course; the only reason I ever argue with evangelists is to present the truth so as to counteract their lies so that there will theoretically be less chance of impartial readers being misled, and I think I have done that. I asked for any non-Christians to voice any disagreement; no one has spoken up. I predict that they will not in the future, either. Neither my fingers nor my mind is up to the task of going around in circles with you for twenty more thread pages; experience teaches that to be the only possible outcome whenever this debate occurs, which has happened so many times I was sick of it before we started this time. It's always the same. I think that brother Hamza and I have effectively been convincing enough so that casual readers of the thread will be able to see it, and therefore my work here is done. I am not in a mood to repeat myself and spend endless hours correcting misquotes and misrepresentations. You were caught in one lie (which you were foolish enough to repeat even after I exposed it, as though nothing had happened) and that should be enough. Good day and goodbye.
Reply

YusufNoor
05-12-2011, 04:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JPR
Wow, Grace was right in asking the question "are you being obtuse?". The question was answered but apparently you really can't understand a full and detailed answer which I even highlighted the most relevant point.

It's a lost cause.

Peace out

P.S.: I know you don't worship Muhammad but you do know the highlights of his life. Stop putting words in my mouth as you seem to like it. We worship God, not Jesus, but we do acknowledge the works and life of Jesus. Stop making assumptions.
We worship God, not Jesus, but we do acknowledge the works and life of Jesus.
^o)

ya, i don't think Grace Seeker will agree with that point. 90% plus of Christians DO worship Jesus. and actually worship him as a god, or one of the gods.

folks should understand that the reason we don't seem to understand your explanations is because they make absolutely no sense to us. you have "bought into it" so to speak so you can shrug off anything that doesn't "make sense" as a mystery or whatever. or that "god" is beyond understanding.

for us, it makes no sense what so ever. it violates Tawheed, which is shirk and therefore is THE major sin. our natural disposition is to avoid it like the plague, while you want to relish in it like an elephant who has reached a watering-hole after a 2 week trek.

you DESIRE it, we are repulsed by it. we KNOW it's wrong, there's NO doubt about it.

so while it may APPEAR to you that we are being thick-headed, we are simply ASTOUNDED that you keep trying to make sense of something that TRULY AND SURELY LEADS TO THE HELLFIRE!

it's a little like watching lemmings stroll off the cliff...
Reply

Ramadhan
05-12-2011, 04:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
Another way that points to it is when God, speaks to Moses through the burning bush he says I AM the God of his father, the God of Abraham, The God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. There is no past tense for God.
So it was baby Jesus who spoke to Moses?

format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
race Seeker did a job in answering your 2 questions at least from a christian standpoint its understandable.
Please point out to me where in those long winded sentences that GS answered my question: is baby Jesus God? (yes or no)

format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
Oh he'll raise ALL on the last day even you for we are all sinners to face the judgement.
Oh I believe that we will all be raised during the Judgement day, all right. Except it will be God that will raise us, not a man, even if he's jesus.

format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
I have marriage prep to go to I got engaged over the weekend.
Congrats!

By the way, I hope you watched those youtubes I sent you in the other thread about christian apostates.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-12-2011, 05:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Let me also get straight to the point as i have been doing throughout our discussions in this thread - THE BLOOD ATONEMENT OF CHRIST IS NOT TAUGHT BY ANY PROPHET, JESUS OR THE BIBLE!

How is is possible that one of the most fundamental teachings of Christianity was not explicitly taught by Jesus or ANYWHERE in the Bible?
oh dear, hamza. the above clearly shows what kind of character you possess. after having been repeatedly shown explicit statements by graceseeker and myself where the bible says that christ died for the forgiveness of sin all you can do is ignore these and repeat yourself ad nauseum. what exactly do you find difficult to understand from the following?:

40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence. 44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” 45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” --- Luke 24:40-49 NIV

what exactly is vague concerning the above, i really don't know. christ himself is saying that all the prophets preached concerning his death and resurrection and that forgiveness of sin was to be gained from his saving-blood. seriously, who are you kidding with your attempt at obfuscating what is clearly spelt out in the bible. no one here other than yourself is buying this failing argument of yours and the more you say that you have clearly shown that the bible and christ do not speak of his atonement the more people can see that you are a dishonest individual.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
The Bible says in 1 Corinthians 14:33 that:

“... God is NOT the author of confusion ...”

This verse PROVES that God would NEVER confuse his people or keep such fundamental concepts a mystery only to be created by theologians hundreds of years after Jesus.
there you go again trying to make the bible say something it doesn't. can you provide us with the context for the above verse? the verse speaks concerning confusion in how a church service functions. once again your lies and b astardizatio of scripture is brought to light. furthermore, i'm glad that you are quoting from the words of paul to prove your point seeing as you thus implicitly admit to teh truth of his position. now let's see what paul says concerning the matter of christ's saving-blood:

"God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith." --- Romans 3:25

now will you suddenly claim that the above does not speak of christ's atonement and saving blood? hamza, your character has been exposed and members in this very thread have called you out on it.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
So therefore the one verse you keep using to try and prove your position has failed EVERYTIME as has been proven consistantly and therefore it CANNOT be used to prove your point at all for the verse does NOT state nor does it even imply that Jesus taught or said anything about the fact that his blood was necessery for the atonement of the "inherited sin of mankind".
inherited sin of mankind deals with original sin. how did you bring it back into the discussion? it seems that you do not know the difference between the atonement and original sin?

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
The above is the first part of your argument in post 95 in which the crux of your argument being that "sin is a debt whose only method of payment is death".

This is CLEARLY pointing towards the fact that the death of Christ is necessery for the atonement of the original sin.
arguments such as the above are why you have repeatedly failed to make a point in this discussion. how does the atonement predicate original sin. seriously, we'd like to get this answer from you. yahya has made the very same mistake so perhaps it'd be easier for the both of you if you could discuss this amongst yourself so that you could come up with a credible response. seriously we'll wait for your response on this one because surely it'll be entertaining to see the lengths that you'll go to in order to salvage such a failing argument. death is necessary for the atonement of sin. even the jews believed this and yet both muslims and present-day jews claim that they didn't believe in original sin. so then, if they believed in atonement through blood and yet not in original sin, then original sin cannot be the basis for the atonement.

edit: given yahya's latest response it would seem that you'll have to do this by yourself. take your time.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
WHERE in the teachings of Jesus and the Bible does it state that the death of Christ was "necessery" in order for the "inherited debt" of mankind to be wiped away?
scripture is quite clear that christ's death was necessary for the forgiveness of sin. but more importantly, where have i said that christ's death was necessary for the inherited debt of mankind to be paid. inherited debt once again refers to original sin and i had expressly asked you to prove how my post relied on the premise of original sin and you have repeatedly been unable to do so. once again you're simply making up claims out of thin air.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Where does Jesus and the Bible teach of this debt? and how it can be wiped away? Where does it teach that this "inherited sin can ONLY be wiped away by the sacrifice of God himself who slaughtered himself in order to forgive the sin of his very own creations? After you have provided me proof of your position then we can take things from there.
once again where do i speak concerning inherited debt? it is quite clear that at this time you aren't even dealing with my words at all but merely pretending ignorance so that you won't have to deal with my argument. please attack my argument that sinning results in debt instead of engaging in this vain attempt at ignorance so that you won't have to deal with my argument. what is it concerning my post that you're trying to avoid answering it so badly?

now, as it relates to all your old testament quotes (mainly in your response to graceseeker), can you tell us when the jews ceased with animal sacrifices? the fact that this practise continued to the very time of christ proves that personal responsibility is not set against the practise of atonement by blood. history quite simply disproves your argument (unless you would now claim that the jews never engaged in animal sacrifices either).
Reply

Grace Seeker
05-12-2011, 05:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar

Funnily, and expected of course, knowing how fundies always obfuscate the matter when it comes to identity of God, for all the words that you wrote there, you didn't give me not one single answer to my simple questions. Actually from what I read, you re-define a lot of the meanings of words and you turn logic upside down.

Ok, let me ask you again in simple sentences:

1. Was baby Jesus already God?

2. Why do you not worship baby Jesus if it was already God? I've seen plenty of half naked crucified Jesus, the Last Supper Jesus in your churches, but never baby Jesus being worshiped.
I did answer those questions in the above.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-12-2011, 05:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
Believe it or not, Sol, I'm not even terribly interested on whether or not original sin is the foundation for anything. I just don't like to have words put in my mouth.
greetings yahya. funny how you now move away from proving that the atonement is predicated on original sin when you were clearly saying this a few moments ago until i asked you to prove this. once again you have been shown to be completely ignorant of the christian doctrine and you even implicitly admit this by not showing how your view was at all correct.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
Let's say that you're right and it's the thinking of sin like it's a debt that is the foundation instead (although why without original sin this debt is automatically there is another question entirely).
where have i claimed that the debt is already there. please quote my words instead of making things up out of thin air. my claim has consistently been that sinning results in debt. please, let's stick to what i have actually said instead of what has only been said in your imagination. if however what you say is true, please prove this---quote my words.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
I have explained every which way what's wrong with thinking of sin like a debt in the first place and I really don't know what else there is to say on the matter.
yes, when you agreed with the fact that "sin results in a debt of sorts" you were really saying that sin did not result in a debt. right. who are you fooling yahya? if you really did explain this then please quote this post of yours where you denied that sin functioned as a debt. the only thing you denied was that it functioned as a monetary debt and yet where did i claim that it functioned as a monetary debt? my definition of debt was fairly all-encompassing so please start to actually refute it before you make claims that you are wholly unable to prove.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
People are allowed to pay other people's literal, monetary debts for them because for people money is a necessity. The only reason why a multi-billionaire would demand that five dollars owed by someone be paid, even if it's by someone else who doesn't have anything to do with it, is simple greed.
huh, are you saying that if it came down to standing before a court over this matter then the court would not have the man's money be returned to him? so justice is not consistent? justice is justice irrespective of whether or not one could do without what has been taken from them. even if i were to steal from you even a single dollar, it would be unjust not to return this amount. no, it's not greed but rather principles. your example is as ridiculous as the belief which propagated it.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
Justice does not work the same way because justice demands that everyone be responsible for his own actions and no one else's, and that therefore either the one owed must pay the "debt" or, if the debtor excuses him of the burden (which he has every right to do and therefore no injustice is taking place), no one pay anything. There's a reason why people being given the death penalty aren't allowed to let their fathers volunteer to be executed in their place: it's not ethical. There is simply no way for one person being punished for what another person did to ever be right in any universe.
please actually start attacking my claims instead of giving your opinion. you might want to start off with my definition of debt, and my conception of justice and move on from there. why have you consistently refused to quote my argument and show how it is in fact faulty? as it regards the father dying for the son example, i had already refuted such thinking when i enlightened you as to the distinction within sin and what christ actually paid for. you have not given a response to this refutation and in the above simply pretend that my refutation doesn't exist.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
Neither my fingers nor my mind is up to the task of going around in circles with you for twenty more thread pages; experience teaches that to be the only possible outcome whenever this debate occurs, which has happened so many times I was sick of it before we started this time. It's always the same. I think that brother Hamza and I have effectively been convincing enough so that casual readers of the thread will be able to see it, and therefore my work here is done. I am not in a mood to repeat myself and spend endless hours correcting misquotes and misrepresentations. You were caught in one lie (which you were foolish enough to repeat even after I exposed it, as though nothing had happened) and that should be enough. Good day and goodbye.
it's sad to see you leave us so soon yahya. i had really hoped to see you salvage your argument and back up your successive claims which did little other than to show that you did not grasp the matter that you were attacking. i must say that i'm glad that you actually started this discussion because it gave me the opportunity to engage in a discussion that i probably would not have started myself. in so doing, i not only refuted your post but actually showed how your conception of justice and forgiveness is incredibly faulty and no one has yet to even touch these points.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
You were caught in one lie (which you were foolish enough to repeat even after I exposed it, as though nothing had happened) and that should be enough. Good day and goodbye.
quote my post please. once again i'm simply asking you to back up your claims. i've noticed that whenever i ask for proof from you, you suddenly drop the matter entirely (as we have once again seen on the subject of whether the atonement is predicated on original sin). what is it about proof that is so antithetical to your character?
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-12-2011, 05:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JPR
Maybe a quick idea for you Sol: break your points in smaller posts and just ask to be answered to one point, then maybe people will stop picking only the points to which they have answers.
i was thinking about this but decided against it. it's more of a pain than anything else and the fact that there seems to be an unspoken agreement to not actually engage my argument only furthers the fact that i have indeed refuted the article. it certainly is of no concern to me whether i prove my interlocutors wrong through an actual engagement of my argument, or i prove them wrong by their own aversion to my argument---either way, the results are the same.

that said, thanks for the encouragement and advice.
Reply

Grace Seeker
05-12-2011, 06:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.
i can understand the trinity but to say that god is and always was a tri-personal being makes me question it on another level.
i cant believe that, im sorry..
its like using the monogenes argument to remove doubt about the worldly definition of trinity and then imposing misinterpretation on another level.

if i can ask a question,

is the preincarnate self of jesus pbuh the same as the character of the man jesus pbuh?

if yes, then are we not all our preincarnate self's?

it would show the majesty of the power of god.. the creator of all things.
it would allow god to remain external to the system.
it would further reduce the human concept of time to exactly that, something imposed upon creation.

and most noteworthy, it would reinforce the teachings of the quran as exactly the truth.
better to have achieved sincerity and faithfulness to god before you realise who you are.

maybe that last line applies to all the prophets pbut.

..some of whom have been rejected
The pre-incarnate Son is the person who becomes incarnate (God in the flesh) in Jesus. I don't understand what you mean by character, so I can't answer that part of the question. I can say that we believe that Jesus was both fully God and fully human, possessing both natures.

I also don't understand what you mean when you say, "if yes, then are we not all our preincarnate self's?" I think you may be thinking in Islamic terms of each person having already been created in God's world before being placed in our world. If this is behind your question, then I would have to remind you that generally Christianity doesn't conceive of the world that way (though I know a few do). We don't believe that humans exist in a pre-incarnate state. Although God may have foreknowledge of us and therefore see our entire life before we are ever conceived, we believe our life actually begins at the time of conception. This is one of the things that makes Jesus unique, that he (or at least his divine nature) did have an eternally begotten (see previous post) pre-incarnate existence which was joined to a time-bound and created human nature when he was incarnated in Mary's womb. But such things are not true of us who have only a human nature.
Reply

Grace Seeker
05-12-2011, 06:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Greetings Grace Seeker,

I am glad you joined the discussion seeing as Sol was clearly out of his depth and really needed some help in order to prove his position in accordance with the teachings of God and Christ as he kept failing to do so and his frustration was quite apparent.

Looking at both of your posts what is apparent for ALL to see is that you have NOT proved your position in the slightest but actually weakened it further.
WRONG!!
What is actually apparent for ALL to see is that you enjoy moving the goalposts.

I did indeed answer this post:
format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Greetings Sol,

Let me also get straight to the point as i have been doing throughout our discussions in this thread - THE BLOOD ATONEMENT OF CHRIST IS NOT TAUGHT BY ANY PROPHET, JESUS OR THE BIBLE!

How is is possible that one of the most fundamental teachings of Christianity was not explicitly taught by Jesus or ANYWHERE in the Bible?
</p>
Now you want to make it this:
You have NOT quoted a single word or teaching from ANY previous Prophet, the Christian deity, Jesus or God but what you have done to desperatley try and prove your weak position is to quote the one person who actually brought in this false concept in the first place - PAUL.
It's a fun game I'm sure, but you can play it by yourself.

Oh, and btw, for those who actually read, you will notice that I posted the following non-Pauline passages:"This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins." (1 John 4:10)

That Jesus is called "the Lamb of God" (John 1:29) specfically refers to his role as the perfect Passover lamb whose blood causes the spirit of death to bypass all under its protection, and we are told that as this lamb he "takes away the sin of the world" (again John 1:29). This act sets us right with God, which is exactly what atonement is all about.

"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Matthew 28:28).

"Since the children have flesh and blood, he [Jesus] too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death — that is, the devil — and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death" (Hebrews 2:14-15).

"For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world." (1 Peter 1:18-20a)

Yes, there is personal responsibility for sins. But only the self-blinded would fail to see that the Bible teaches that there is also a corporate dimension to sin. The old covenants recorded in the Tanakh allow for an atonement for the sins of the people (again not just individually, but also corporately) by the sacrifice of animals. However, it is something that needs to be repeated because sin itself is not done away with: "those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (Hebrews 10:3-4).

Indeed, over half of my quotes and my most extensive quote came from non-Pauline material. Plus, though you claim otherwise, I also did quote Jesus himself. Thus the facts are that whether out of ignorance or intent, I'll leave that for others to decide, your statement as to what I provided is a fabrication, a fallacy, an untruth. So, let me provide you with another non-Pauline quote that I think applies here: "Cover not truth with falesehood, nor conceal the truth when you know." I won't cite the reference, for you should know it even if you fail to practice it.
Reply

IAmZamzam
05-12-2011, 06:34 PM
Cover not truth with falesehood, nor conceal the truth when you know." I won't cite the reference, for you should know it even if you fail to practice it.
I can hardly think of a more blatant and offensive example I've ever seen in my life of the pot calling the kettle black. In fact, I wonder if deep down inside you aren't very well aware of how evasive and deceptive you are and are simply projecting. He specified (at least on one occasion, anyway) "previous prophets" and to get around the fact that he's right you make believe that he said "any other prophets, even if they came afterward, just like Sol Invictus had no choice but to continually pretend, even after I had already exposed him for it, that I was talking about an entirely different subject than I was. Your hypocrisy is staggering and infuriating. Is there no depth to which an evangelist will not stoop?!

Everyone consider: if Christianity were the real truth or even anything other than embarrassingly false, there would not be such universal deception in its promotion. Its evangelists and missionaries and apologists would not need to constantly lie, fabricate, and misrepresent. But they always do, as I have repeatedly demonstrated you guys have here, and off the top of my head I can think of no other religion in the world where dishonesty is so ubiquitous and universal in its promotion, except maybe Scientology. I find it difficult to come to any other conclusion than that the religion is so evidently false that such immorality is literally absolutely necessary.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-12-2011, 06:39 PM
but graceseeker, arguing with hamza is almost futile. he is particularly adept at ignoring anything that quite clearly contradicts him. this is why even though one may quote the words of christ and give passages from the rest of the bible, he still has the audacity to claim that christ never tought such a thing nor that such a thing even came from the bible (which leads one to wonder where we have gotten our citations from--or rather, might hamza have procured his own jefferson bible?). once having done the above, he starts quoting passages which have to deal with personal responsibility as if the atonement is against such a thing. he also fails to realize that the very books he quotes from espouse animal sacrifices! ezekiel, jeremiah, david etc. they all performed blood atonement and this would not at all make sense if what he claimed was true. clearly, this is not even a matter of not being able to authenticate our beliefs through the bible but rather that hamza in his deceit is quite willing to ignore any passage where the god of israel, where christ and where the bible as a whole espouse blood atonement because it is necessary for his point to ignore everything that refutes it.
Reply

Grace Seeker
05-12-2011, 06:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
greetings yahya. funny how you now move away from proving that the atonement is predicated on original sin when you were clearly saying this a few moments ago until i asked you to prove this. once again you have been shown to be completely ignorant of the christian doctrine and you even implicitly admit this by not showing how your view was at all correct.
Sol, you might be surprised, but I'm with Yahya to the extent that I don't believe the atonement is predicated on original sin. That's about as far as I'm willing to go with him because I do believe in original sin, and I do believe that the atonement reconciles us with God from the consequences of it, and I do believe this destroying of the power of sin to be the biggest benefit of the atonement. But as to what predicated it, I believe that is found in the all-encompassing nature of God to love his creation. And thus, even apart from the reality of a sin nature, God would have acted to save us and make at one with himself any single individual who might have slipped into sin, even apart from there being a sin nature.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-12-2011, 06:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Sol, you might be surprised, but I'm with Yahya to the extent that I don't believe the atonement is predicated on original sin.
hmm, i think that there's been a slight misunderstanding here. yahya claimed that the atonement was predicated on original sin and i denied this and proved how it wasn't. i then asked him to prove his position (that the atonement is predicated on original sin) and he has consistently failed to do so.

i do indeed believe that the atonement destroys the sin nature but not that it is predicated on original sin (i did say that it might emphasize the point of the atonement but you can't get from original sin to the atonement). sinning (and the debt thereof) forms the basis for the atonement. original sin might very well add credence to this but simply positing original sin, you could not get to teh atonement. in order to get to the atonement sin must be seen as a debt and that sin ends in death. the debt of sin and it leading to death is not predicated on original sin for any sin does this. it is only from sin being a debt which is paid through blood that one can get to the atonement. hope that clarifies what i'm saying.

edit: but i am quite glad that you possess enough decency to be there to correct me should it be the case that i am simply wrong or am willfully misrepresenting christianity. it's quite nice to know that even were i to wish so, i could not get away with lying seeing as other christians are quite ready to hold me accountable to the truth of christianity.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-12-2011, 06:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
just like Sol Invictus had no choice but to continually pretend, even after I had already exposed him for it, that I was talking about an entirely different subject than I was.
proof please (and by this i mean my whole post). why is it that you keep bringing this up but consistently fail to quote this post where i supposedly lied?
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
05-12-2011, 06:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
WRONG!!
What is actually apparent for ALL to see is that you enjoy moving the goalposts.

I did indeed answer this post:</p>
Now you want to make it this:It's a fun game I'm sure, but you can play it by yourself.

Oh, and btw, for those who actually read, you will notice that I posted the following non-Pauline passages:"This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins." (1 John 4:10)

That Jesus is called "the Lamb of God" (John 1:29) specfically refers to his role as the perfect Passover lamb whose blood causes the spirit of death to bypass all under its protection, and we are told that as this lamb he "takes away the sin of the world" (again John 1:29). This act sets us right with God, which is exactly what atonement is all about.

"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Matthew 28:28).

"Since the children have flesh and blood, he [Jesus] too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death — that is, the devil — and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death" (Hebrews 2:14-15).

"For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world." (1 Peter 1:18-20a)

Yes, there is personal responsibility for sins. But only the self-blinded would fail to see that the Bible teaches that there is also a corporate dimension to sin. The old covenants recorded in the Tanakh allow for an atonement for the sins of the people (again not just individually, but also corporately) by the sacrifice of animals. However, it is something that needs to be repeated because sin itself is not done away with: "those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (Hebrews 10:3-4).

Indeed, over half of my quotes and my most extensive quote came from non-Pauline material. Plus, though you claim otherwise, I also did quote Jesus himself. Thus the facts are that whether out of ignorance or intent, I'll leave that for others to decide, your statement as to what I provided is a fabrication, a fallacy, an untruth. So, let me provide you with another non-Pauline quote that I think applies here: "Cover not truth with falesehood, nor conceal the truth when you know." I won't cite the reference, for you should know it even if you fail to practice it.
Greetings Grace Seeker,

What is clear for ALL to see is that when you take out all the passages from Paul who is actually the creator of the paganistic concept of the blood atonement then there is NOTHING in the verses you have quoted which even in the slightest proves your position at all but what you continue to do is ONLY strengthen my position and argument that NO Prophet of God, Nor the Christian deity, Nor Jesus or ANYWHERE in the Bible is the concept of blood atonement explicitly taught!

All you have continue to do is quote vague verses (NONE from the actual words of God or Jesus) and try to assert that the verses talk refer to the blood atonement. All you continue to do is deceptively try to change and twist its meanings to what you want the verses to refer to.

But tell us Grace Seeker HOW can a concept so fundamental to Christianity NOT be taught ANYWHERE in the central Christian doctrine? Why would such a fundamental concept be so shrouded in mystery and hidden until well after the departure of Jesus from this earth?

All you have been able to do is provide passages which prove NOTHING at all to do with the concept of blood atonement but verses which only strengthen my own position which is the fact that the concept of the blood atonement of Christ was created after Jesus and is NOT a concept which was EVER taught by Jesus or God.


So Grace Seeker please act upon your own advice and please STOP twisting and changing the words and meanings of the verses in the Bible to what you want them to refer to because this concept was NEVER taught by Jesus or God and you know that but are still trying to prove otherwise and in doing so have lost all credibility in this forum.

So please Grace Seeker practise what you preach: "Cover NOT the truth with falsehood, nor conceal the truth when you know."
Reply

Grace Seeker
05-12-2011, 06:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
I can hardly think of a more blatant and offensive example I've ever seen in my life of the pot calling the kettle black. In fact, I wonder if deep down inside you aren't very well aware of how evasive and deceptive you are and are simply projecting. He specified (at least on one occasion, anyway) &quot;previous prophets&quot; and to get around the fact that he's right you make believe that he said &quot;any other prophets, even if they came afterward, just like Sol Invictus had no choice but to continually pretend, even after I had already exposed him for it, that I was talking about an entirely different subject than I was. Your hypocrisy is staggering and infuriating. Is there no depth to which an evangelist will not stoop?!

Everyone consider: if Christianity were the real truth or even anything other than embarrassingly false, there would not be such universal deception in its promotion. Its evangelists and missionaries and apologists would not need to constantly lie, fabricate, and misrepresent. But they always do, as I have repeatedly demonstrated you guys have here, and off the top of my head I can think of no other religion in the world where dishonesty is so ubiquitous and universal in its promotion, except maybe Scientology. I find it difficult to come to any other conclusion than that the religion is so evidently false that such immorality is literally absolutely necessary.
I can appreciate that you may feel like I overstepped in what I said. I even respect you for defending one whom I assume you consider a friend -- at least an internet friend. But I am not apologetic. I truly feel as if Hamza moved the goalposts. He may have intended to ask that the "proof" of the concept of blood atonement came from prophets who preceeded Jesus. But in those post to which I responded what he asked for was from "ANYWHERE in the Bible." His words and his emphasis; not mine. So to then object to my lists on the grounds that it contain Pauline material is to raise unwarranted objections.

Futher, he goes on to assert "what you have done to desperatley try and prove your weak position is to quote the one person who actually brought in this false concept in the first place - PAUL." Well, I did quote Paul, but his statement is only a half truth. For Paul was not "the one person" I quoted, but one among many. And whatever you may think of me, it doesn't make that which I have said of Hamza any less true. He did indeed speak falsely. The record is plain for all to see.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-12-2011, 06:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
But tell us Grace Seeker HOW can a concept so fundamental to Christianity NOT be taught ANYWHERE in the central Christian doctrine? Why would such a fundamental concept be so shrouded in mystery and hidden until well after the departure of Jesus from this earth?
yes, quite clearly christ did not speak concerning his saving-blood at all:
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence. 44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” 45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” --- Luke 24:40-49 NIV
and it's quite ironic that you would now disparage paul when you had used his corinthians passage to try and prove your argument not so long ago. inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
05-12-2011, 07:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus

i do indeed believe that the atonement destroys the sin nature but not that it is predicated on original sin (i did say that it might emphasize the point of the atonement but you can't get from original sin to the atonement). sinning (and the debt thereof) forms the basis for the atonement. original sin might very well add credence to this but simply positing original sin, you could not get to teh atonement. in order to get to the atonement sin must be seen as a debt and that sin ends in death. the debt of sin and it leading to death is not predicated on original sin for any sin does this. it is only from sin being a debt which is paid through blood that one can get to the atonement. hope that clarifies what i'm saying.
Greetings Sol,

Now prove your position that "sin is a debt which leads to death whose ONLY atonement is paid by blood" by giving us the explicit teachings and words of Jesus or God and NOT the words of those after Jesus or other than God. Do NOT provide the vague verses you have provided which prove NOTHING but only strengthen the fact that this teaching is NOT taught ANYWHERE by any Prophet, Jesus or God.

Surely if this teaching is so fundamental and central to Christianity then its teaching must be EXPLICITLY taught by Jesus or God and NOT by those after Jesus.

I await your answer regarding this. If Grace Seeker wants to help you then he should do as you clearly seem to be out of your depth here.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-12-2011, 07:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Now prove your position that "sin is a debt which leads to death whose ONLY atonement is paid by blood" by giving us the explicit teachings and words of Jesus or God and NOT the words of those after Jesus or other than God. Do NOT provide the vague verses you have provided which prove NOTHING but only strengthen the fact that this teaching is NOT taught ANYWHERE by any Prophet, Jesus or God.
there we go with explicit statements etc. "when i tell you that you owe me such and such a thing" will you then exclaim "no way, i'm not indebted to you at all because you have not said the words 'you are indebted to me'"? such argumentation is simply pathetic.

go back and try to disprove my argument concerning debt motifs.
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
05-12-2011, 07:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I can appreciate that you may feel like I overstepped in what I said. I even respect you for defending one whom I assume you consider a friend -- at least an internet friend. But I am not apologetic. I truly feel as if Hamza moved the goalposts. He may have intended to ask that the "proof" of the concept of blood atonement came from prophets who preceeded Jesus. But in those post to which I responded what he asked for was from "ANYWHERE in the Bible." His words and his emphasis; not mine. So to then object to my lists on the grounds that it contain Pauline material is to raise unwarranted objections.

Futher, he goes on to assert "what you have done to desperatley try and prove your weak position is to quote the one person who actually brought in this false concept in the first place - PAUL." Well, I did quote Paul, but his statement is only a half truth. For Paul was not "the one person" I quoted, but one among many. And whatever you may think of me, it doesn't make that which I have said of Hamza any less true. He did indeed speak falsely. The record is plain for all to see.
It is also plain to see for all that read this thread that you have clearly NOT done what you have said you have done and that is to provide a shred of evidence to prove your position regarding the blood atonement.

I asked you to provide proof and evidence from the teachings of Jesus, God and the Bible where the teaching of the blood atonement is explicitly taught and all you have done is to provide vague verses in which you deceptively change and twist their meanings to try and prove your position.

So clearly you have quoted NOTHING which proves your position at all but ONLY makes you lose all credibility in this forum. In your desperation when you KNOW that there are no EXPLICIT teachings of the blood atonement in the Bible you then sneakily quote the one person whom who abrogated, contradicted and changed the teachings of Jesus and Moses which are NOT supported ANYWHERE in the teachings of ANY Prophet, Jesus or God - PAUL.

So Grace Seeker i ask of you to stop being so deceptive and instead have an honest debate because rather than help Sol who needed your help here because he was out of his depth, you have actually done the opposite and weakened his position further and by being deceptive lost all your credibility in this forum.

So once again Grace Seeker please: "Cover NOT the truth with falsehood, nor conceal the truth when you know."
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
05-12-2011, 07:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
there we go with explicit statements etc. "when i tell you that you owe me such and such a thing" will you then exclaim "no way, i'm not indebted to you at all because you have not said the words 'you are indebted to me'"? such argumentation is simply pathetic.

go back and try to disprove my argument concerning debt motifs.
Let us not get frustrated now as that only shows that you have a weak argument. I will let Grace Seeker help you out here. I apologise for putting pressure on you.
Reply

Grace Seeker
05-12-2011, 07:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Greetings Grace Seeker,

What is clear for ALL to see is that when you take out all the passages from Paul who is actually the creator of the paganistic concept of the blood atonement then there is NOTHING in the verses you have quoted which even in the slightest proves your position at all but what you continue to do is ONLY strengthen my position and argument that NO Prophet of God, Nor the Christian deity, Nor Jesus or ANYWHERE in the Bible is the concept of blood atonement explicitly taught!

All you have continue to do is quote vague verses (NONE from the actual words of God or Jesus) and try to assert that the verses talk refer to the blood atonement. All you continue to do is deceptively try to change and twist its meanings to what you want the verses to refer to.
This is quite a different thing than what you said above. What I heard you saying above was not that you disagreed with me or found the material provided unconvincing, but that I had not even provided any thing except Pauline material. And that simply isn't true. What I hear you saying in this post is that you don't find the non-Pauline material convincing and that only the Pauline material (in your opinion) makes any argument for blood atonement. I might disagree with your opinion, but I can respect that it is yours opinion. If this is then is meant as a clarification of what you originaly meant by your post above, I can accept it as apology.
But tell us Grace Seeker HOW can a concept so fundamental to Christianity NOT be taught ANYWHERE in the central Christian doctrine? Why would such a fundamental concept be so shrouded in mystery and hidden until well after the departure of Jesus from this earth?
Much of the Christian faith consists of looking back on God's past activity and seeking to understand what he is doing/has done. I disagree that there is no teaching ANYWHERE about this concept, the reality is that you have been shown where God told the nation of Israel to make blood sacrifices and these were understood as being done as an atonement: "For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life" (Leviticus 17:11). But of course the specific Christian understanding of how this relates to the life of Christ would not appear until after the crucifixion, for only after the event might they reflect back on it.

Still, there were foreshadowings of not just the fact that Jesus was going to die (Matthew 16:21 & 20:28), but that it was on behalf of others and would result in the taking away of their sins (again Matthew 20:28, 27:28, & John 1:29). But if you don't see it there, then you aren't going to see it anywhere else either, thus I suspect there is no helping you.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-12-2011, 07:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Let us not get frustrated now as that only shows that you have a weak argument. I will let Grace Seeker help you out here. I apologise for putting pressure on you.
hamza, why do you hate logic so much? prove how my statement that "the bible describes sin as a debt" is at all wrong.
Reply

IAmZamzam
05-12-2011, 07:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
proof please (and by this i mean my whole post). why is it that you keep bringing this up but consistently fail to quote this post where i supposedly lied?
Every time I think you can never conceivably stoop lower and astound and appall me even more, you always prove such optimism wrong. It's like you're inhumanly good at topping yourself. Are you really so bold and overconfident as to think that anyone who has even so much as skimmed through this thread did not already see the post you just deliberately lied about existing?! Or that they would somehow forget it?! And you even act like you've asked me to quote it before, several times! I'm actually offended not only at your dishonesty but also at how insulting you're being to the people reading this thread. What do you take them for?! But just for the sake of (I admit out of spite at this point) exposing your lies yet again, here it is again, from the bottom of page 11:

"Greetings yahya, for someone who keeps mentioning his ailing hands whenever the matter of continuing with our discussion comes up, those post of yours that you have graced us with would almost beg us to differ. anyway, you claim that i am side-stepping a relevant part of the argument and as such i would ask you how at all my posts are predicated on the concept of original sin? we should note that i have asked this before and have yet to receive a response on this question. can you begin to quote from my article and show how exactly the quoted portion only makes sense if we start with original sin as a foundation? notice how many times i have asked individuals in this thread to simply quote my posts that actually have to do with the this thread and then start attacking them? notice how there has yet to be such a post forthcoming?"

once again, if you feel that my points are at all based on the doctrine of original sin, then please quote from my post and show how this is so. if however you fail to do this in your next post then i'd have to say that there you go again with making claims that you can't at all show to be the case.

now, if you thought your arguments to have been that great you would join me in encouraging the participants of this thread to get back to the main topic and yet strangely you have not done so but encouraged discussion that has nothing to do with the points i had brought forth to refute your claims. if you think that your argument and post are at all salvageable, will you then join me in asking for a return to such a discussion?"

Originally Posted by Me: "As it is the whole basis for the twisted notion of redemption that you're peddling, the very foundation, it couldn't possibly be more relevant!"

Originally Posted by Him, in response: "Anyway, you claim that i am side-stepping a relevant part of the argument and as such i would ask you how at all my posts are predicated on the concept of original sin? we should note that i have asked this before and have yet to receive a response on this question. can you begin to quote from my article and show how exactly the quoted portion only makes sense if we start with original sin as a foundation?...Once again, if you feel that my points are at all based on the doctrine of original sin, then please quote from my post and show how this is so. if however you fail to do this in your next post then i'd have to say that there you go again with making claims that you can't at all show to be the case."
Now here is my post at the bottom of page 12, read it and weep:

"Your claim was that the matter of original sin was relevant to my post. i disagreed yet gave you the option (as with any other participant in this thread) to actually quote from my post and show how my logic is predicated on the matter of original sin. so far neither you nor anyone else has done so. what i'm asking for is pretty simple. if my logic is predicated on the subject of original sin, why is it that you simply cannot quote for us the sections which only make sense when such a logic is appealed to. you keep wasting your precious health writing diatribe after diatribe when all you really need to show are the quotes from my post which are predicated on original sin. once again you're simply claiming things that you have not backed up. however, i certainly am glad that you have joined me in calling for a returned focus of my rebuttal towards you. this will certainly be entertaining."

Amazing. Your response to my exposition of your straw man attack is simply to repeat it. Wow. My claim was not that the matter of original sin was "relevant to your post" but that it was the foundation of the atonement doctrine and since that's a faulty foundation the whole thing comes tumbling down. Who do you think you're fooling? Other than yourself?
Not only did you both (a) rely on everyone reading this thread to have the memory of a dead gnat, and (b) start pretending out of nowhere that this isn't the first time you have asked me to provide the quote I just gave a page or two before, but also you immediately proceeded to go and do the whole thing all over again with brother Hamza! He asked for examples from PREVIOUS prophets, you ignored this and provided only quotes from CONTEMPORARY AND/OR SUBSEQUENT WRITERS, and then (at least at first) you tried to ignore it altogether and continue acting like you'd been asking him for his evidence of biblical prophets, period, repeatedly and he was the one dodging you! Is this the only trick you've got? The only thing worse than evil is unimaginative and stupidly redundant evil, and it seems as though you can't even be bothered to think of any new tactic beyond the solitary one of misquoting someone and then making up an imaginary repeated challenge to them that they just keep on avoiding. Honestly, if you're going to be a liar then at least don't modify it by also being a one-trick pony. You're like a magician who knows only one magic trick--say sawing a woman in half--and keeps doing it over and over and over again before the same crowd even after everyone in the crowd chimed in that the woman is obviously curled up inside and the feet sticking out of the box are fake, and when finally called upon to acknowledge them you pretend that they were offering a different explanation, and for pulling a rabbit out of your hat, which you haven't done. And then goes right back to sawing.

I mean, holy jeez, you've even admitted to selectively quoting hamza!

format_quote Originally Posted by SolInvictus
I truly feel as if Hamza moved the goalposts. He may have intended to ask that the "proof" of the concept of blood atonement came from prophets who preceeded Jesus. But in those post to which I responded what he asked for was from "ANYWHERE in the Bible." His words and his emphasis; not mine.
You're incredible.
Reply

Grace Seeker
05-12-2011, 07:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
hmm, i think that there's been a slight misunderstanding here. yahya claimed that the atonement was predicated on original sin and i denied this and proved how it wasn't. i then asked him to prove his position (that the atonement is predicated on original sin) and he has consistently failed to do so.

i do indeed believe that the atonement destroys the sin nature but not that it is predicated on original sin (i did say that it might emphasize the point of the atonement but you can't get from original sin to the atonement). sinning (and the debt thereof) forms the basis for the atonement. original sin might very well add credence to this but simply positing original sin, you could not get to teh atonement. in order to get to the atonement sin must be seen as a debt and that sin ends in death. the debt of sin and it leading to death is not predicated on original sin for any sin does this. it is only from sin being a debt which is paid through blood that one can get to the atonement. hope that clarifies what i'm saying.
Yes, this does clarify. Apparently I misunderstood who was saying what. Seems you have really said the same thing as I have in response to something that mis-states the true position of Christianity.

If you are going to continue to discuss the atonement, you might be interested in reading some of the earlier pre-Anselm presentations of it, for the whole idea of a satisfaction theory is a construct that is only about 1000 years old. Biblically based, but not much articulated until the 11th century. Paul himself ariculates more of a Christus Victor argument in 1 Corinthians 15 which that was the dominate understanding of atonement for the first several centuries of the Church. And for Luke, it may even be that Jesus' sacrificial death was less about securing atonement than about the establishing of a new covenant that incorporated all the nations of the earth into what God was now doing.

I can recommend a couple of books if you're inclined to read in this area.



edit: but i am quite glad that you possess enough decency to be there to correct me should it be the case that i am simply wrong or am willfully misrepresenting christianity. it's quite nice to know that even were i to wish so, i could not get away with lying seeing as other christians are quite ready to hold me accountable to the truth of christianity.
I think we all try to do that with one another.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-12-2011, 07:41 PM
this will be a teaching moment i'm sure yahya. notice that i had asked you to quote my full post and lo and behold, you decided not to. let's see what i had actually said in full:

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
your claim was that the matter of original sin was relevant to my post. i disagreed yet gave you the option (as with any other participant in this thread) to actually quote from my post and show how my logic is predicated on the matter of original sin. so far neither you nor anyone else has done so. what i'm asking for is pretty simple. if my logic is predicated on the subject of original sin, why is it that you simply cannot quote for us the sections which only make sense when such a logic is appealed to. you keep wasting your precious health writing diatribe after diatribe when all you really need to show are the quotes from my post which are predicated on original sin. once again you're simply claiming things that you have not backed up. however, i certainly am glad that you have joined me in calling for a returned focus of my rebuttal towards you. this will certainly be entertaining.

(as it comes to original sin being the foundation of the doctrine for the atonement, i would disagree. you maintain that jews did not believe in original sin and yet they still went through with blood atonement so even if you now try to dodge the matter in such a manner you are still shown to be incorrect.)
notice that i refuted both ways in which one could possibly understand the question. in your post above you simply display the one which didn't have to do with your particular question and pretend that the other one didn't exist. better luck next time i suppose.


format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
He asked for examples from PREVIOUS prophets, you ignored this and provided only quotes from CONTEMPORARY AND/OR SUBSEQUENT WRITERS, and after I pointed it out your next post ignored it altogether and continued acting like you'd been asking him for his evidence of biblical prophets period repeatedly and he was the one dodging you!
yes because isaiah is a contemporary prophet or subsequent prophet to christ:

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
in the same way will christ pay the final sacrifice with his own blood. hence why in isaiah 53 describes him like a lamb led to the slaughter (isaiah 53:7) and outrightly calls him a guilt offering (isaiah 53:10)---the very offering offered by the jews to gain forgiveness of sin. the above is why christ repeatedly predicts his death and resurrection and goes so far as to say that it is absolutely necessary:
so once again you have been refuted yahya.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-12-2011, 07:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
Originally Posted by SolInvictus
I truly feel as if Hamza moved the goalposts. He may have intended to ask that the "proof" of the concept of blood atonement came from prophets who preceeded Jesus. But in those post to which I responded what he asked for was from "ANYWHERE in the Bible." His words and his emphasis; not mine.
You're incredible.
yahya, how low will you sink? what you have tried to pass off as my words aren't even mine. really, in your bid to find something--anything---wrong with my argument you would now stoop to passing off other people's words as my own. dear lord, the state of muslim apologetics certainly is a disaster.
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
05-12-2011, 07:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
This is quite a different thing than what you said above. What I heard you saying above was not that you disagreed with me or found the material provided unconvincing, but that I had not even provided any thing except Pauline material. And that simply isn't true. What I hear you saying in this post is that you don't find the non-Pauline material convincing and that only the Pauline material (in your opinion) makes any argument for blood atonement. I might disagree with your opinion, but I can respect that it is yours opinion. If this is then is meant as a clarification of what you originaly meant by your post above, I can accept it as apology.Much of the Christian faith consists of looking back on God's past activity and seeking to understand what he is doing/has done. I disagree that there is no teaching ANYWHERE about this concept, the reality is that you have been shown where God told the nation of Israel to make blood sacrifices and these were understood as being done as an atonement: "For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life" (Leviticus 17:11). But of course the specific Christian understanding of how this relates to the life of Christ would not appear until after the crucifixion, for only after the event might they reflect back on it.
Grace Seeker you should know by now that the teachings of Paul have absolutely no weight or credibility in the eyes of Muslims as well as many Christian scholars, researchers and some Christian denominations as well as many Christians themselves who can easily differentiate between the true teachings of monotheism of Jesus and Moses and that of Greek mythological influence of Paul.

We as Muslims believe in the teachings of Jesus in accordance with the teachings of the Qur'an which is an extension of the revelations of the past and the final message of God. The message of Jesus is NO different from that of any other Prophet of God but these teachings were clearly changed, abrogated, edited and taken away from by Paul but I guess that is another thread.

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Still, there were foreshadowings of not just the fact that Jesus was going to die (Matthew 16:21 & 20:28), but that it was on behalf of others and would result in the taking away of their sins (again Matthew 20:28, 27:28, & John 1:29). But if you don't see it there, then you aren't going to see it anywhere else either, thus I suspect there is no helping you.
There is NOTHING to see there at all. I have already proven to you that the teaching of the blood atonement CANNOT be found ANYWHERE in the explicit teachings of God, Jesus or the Bible.

This is contrary to what is found in the Torah where God says: “ ...every man shall be put to death for his own sin” (Deut. 24:16)

but these teachings can be explicitly found by those who created, expanded upon and taught this concept after the departure of Jesus - Paul.

God says: “... the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son” (Ez.18:20-22). Personal responsibility is also stressed in the Quran where God says: “... no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another... man can have nothing but what he strives for” (Quran 53:38,39).

The doctrine of original sin gave Paul the means to justify pagan influence in his scheme of salvation. His teachings are NOT consistant with the teachings of ANY Prophet of God, nor are they consistant with the teachings of Moses or Jesus but clearly he brought in his influence of Greek mythology into his concepts


“O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion, nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, was no more than a Messenger of God... for God is One God; glory be to Him: far exalted is He above having a son. To him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of Affairs.” (Quran 4:171)
Reply

ProudMuslimSis
05-12-2011, 08:00 PM
We have to be responsible for what we do as we are responsible for what we type on this forum...and, we have to own up to our mistakes and learn from them.
We can't just contact the webmaster for an automatic erase every time we mess up, so we tend to be more careful of our actions.

The whole idea of putting all the burden on Jesus seems to reduce our growth potential as human beings.
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
05-12-2011, 08:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
hamza, why do you hate logic so much? prove how my statement that "the bible describes sin as a debt" is at all wrong.
Sol why is it that whenever i ask you for direct solid evidence in explicit words from the teachings of ANY previous Prophet, Jesus or God of the blood atonement of Christ that you are clearly unable to do so EVERYTIME?

If you are out of your depth here which is quite clearly the case and if i am putting too much pressure on you then i apologise and i will leave you be for a day or so until you are ready to actually respond to my posts. Until then i await a direct response from you....
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
05-12-2011, 08:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ProudMuslimSis
We have to be responsible for what we do as we are responsible for what we type on this forum...and, we have to own up to our mistakes and learn from them.
We can't just contact the webmaster for an automatic erase every time we mess up, so we tend to be more careful of our actions.

The whole idea of putting all the burden on Jesus seems to reduce our growth potential as human beings.
Not only that but the evidence is overwhelming that the concept of salvation in Christianity – its Doctrine of Vicarious Atonement – came NOT from God but from man via pagan rituals and beliefs.

Paul effectively shifted the center of worship away from God by saying that Jesus was the divine agent of their salvation (Gal. 2:20).

In so doing, however, Paul set aside all teachings of God's prophets, and even the concept of monotheism itself, since God in Christianity needs Jesus for His divine "helper".

Thus did Islam seek to restore the true meaning to monotheism, for in the Qur'an God asks:

"Who can be better in religion than one who submits his whole self to God, does good, and follows the way of Abraham the true in faith?" (4:125; 41:33).
Reply

IAmZamzam
05-12-2011, 08:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
yahya, how low will you sink? what you have tried to pass off as my words aren't even mine. really, in your bid to find something--anything---wrong with my argument you would now stoop to passing off other people's words as my own. dear lord, the state of muslim apologetics certainly is a disaster.
So you do know another trick, and are now so desperate that you have to pretend I've misidentified someone else as you. At this point even you aren't foolish enough to think you can still get away with pretending not to have said what you've said, so with no other recourse you now shift your ground, in complete contradiction to your previous position, and claim instead that it was someone else who said it! Everyone here is fully capable of clicking page eleven, scrolling to the near bottom, and seeing for themselves that it was you so unless no one bothers (which is what you're apparently relying on) you've REALLY painted yourself into a corner this time!

I am asking nicely out of concern for you: please, for your own sake, PLEASE stop embarrassing yourself. You've already lost: if you walk away now, you can still walk away with some remote, microscopic measure of dignity. Just know, whether or not you do--and I would be very surprised if you were wise enough to do so--but just know that come Judgment Day you're going to have to answer for everything you've ever done, and while God most certainly forgives honest mistakes He does not forgive willful disbelief in Islam borne of even self-deception, let alone external deception. Nor does Allah take kindly to people trying, even most pitifully and unsuccessfully, to steer someone away from Islam and onto the wrong path by repeatedly lying to them. That is likely to be the most punished type of kafir in the hellfire, and to be a kafir of any kind, if I am not mistaken, gets you the maximum amount of punishment, possibly eternally. You really have no idea what you're bringing upon yourself! Stop and think, I beseech you!
Reply

Grace Seeker
05-12-2011, 08:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ProudMuslimSis
The whole idea of putting all the burden on Jesus seems to reduce our growth potential as human beings.
Interesting turn of the phrase "all the burden." In one sense you are right that we Christians do see all of the burden put on Christ. I hope you understand that there is nothing more that most of us would rather do than this. For most of us would prefer to see ourselves as capable people, able to pull ourserlves up by our own boot straps. Good people to whom God owes a chance at salvation. But this view is a denial of what we understand reality to be. For the Christian, realizing that there is nothing that one can do to save one's self is the first step in moving toward repentance and returning to God who has moved in Christ to redeem us and restore us to fellowship with himself in which he created us to live.

So, in terms of event which effects our salvation you are right that we Christians do understand that all of the burden is on Jesus, for we are actually powerless to effect our own salvation. But how different is that really from the Islamic view, that no matter how good one is, that one still stands before Allah fully dependent on his grace and not one's own merits? As I'm sure that you don't think that such a standard reduces our growth potential as human beings, the problem with Christianity then would not be in how our salvation is effected, but whether or not that is the end of the story.

And sadly, I think that here there is some degree of legitimacy in Muslim objections to the practice of Christianity. Now, mind you, I specifically said the practice of Christianity. For there do seem to be some individuals who claim to be Christian, claim to be "saved" and then return to behaving just like the unrepentant sinful persons they were prior to their "salvation" experience.

Of course, such behavior does not exhibit true Christianity, and I know of no organized Christian community that would support such practice, and yet I can't deny that it does exist. There are several reason for it. Among those reason that some churches have a doctrine of eternal security which has become popularized by the phrase "once saved, always saved." It is not meant to imply that one simply needs to confess Jesus and one then has a license to live however one wants without fear. Such a view is actually contrary to the whole idea of salvation itself. But some people make that association nonetheless. Another reason is that some churches teach that the act of receiving baptism alone is sufficient to bring about a saving work of God in one's life and the result is roughly the same in the lives of some so baptized as the "once saved, always saved" practices. But I think the biggest reason we seek supposed Christians behaving badly is the simple fact that many of us fail to allow the life of God to be manifest in us to the extent that he desires to shine through us. For some this is because doing so is work and we are by nature lazy. Others having realized what it means to truly submit to God's will in our lives turn around, go back, and abandon our faith in practice though perhaps try to retain claim to the name. And then for all the rest of us, we simply have not matured enough to be as consistent in our daily walk as we know we are called to be, but we are trying.

And its that last part I also hope you hear. We are trying. We are trying to daily learn to submit oursevles to the will of God as revealed to us in the life, work, and teachings of Jesus Christ. While the work of salvation may be that which is effect by Christ on our behalf, we do understand that subsequent to that experience we must commit ourselves to living out our salvation. That we will be judged on what we do. And so we cannot remain static in our faith, having received salvific faith and nothing more. Salvation is the beginning of a process known as sanctification. Christian must grow in Christ. And that growth is a work of the believer aided by the presence of God's Holy Spirit who convicts us of sin, calls us back to righteousness, and seeks to guide us to live lives that reflect the presence of Christ living within us. But this walk is one in which God and man work as a team. Once saved, we no longer put all the burden on Christ, now we too are responsible to work out our salvation.
Reply

JPR
05-12-2011, 08:31 PM
I'm not sure where everyone is going on this thread but I'll try to capture some of the main points said so far.

Christians say Jesus died on the cross to pay for our sins (by ours I mean every single human being that ever lived and that will ever live) as a perfect sacrifice to God

Muslims answer (other than the Qu'ran saying he didn't really die on the cross) that blood sacrifices (read atonement/reconciliation here) are nowhere in the Bible and that everyone is accountable for their own deeds.

In support of the christian point of view, I would ask everyone the question: who has never sinned? Such is the nature of the human race; we're all sinners, we're born with that spiritual defect gene. I mean sinning usually feels physically good on the spot (sex, alcohol, looking at the pretty ladies...), it's in the long, long, very long run that it's not good for you. Under this argumentation, the justice of God is served, but Allah's infinite justice and mercy come in contradiction since you cannot be infinitely just and not punish sin, and if you always punish sins then there's no room for mercy (I'll define the word mercy using a web dictionnary: the discretionary power of a judge to pardon someone or to mitigate punishment, especially to send to prison rather than invoke the death penalty. —Synonyms 1. forgiveness, indulgence, clemency, leniency, lenity, tenderness, mildness.) If I have the wrong kind of "mercy" term and if it's badly translated from arabic, let me know. So far I've not seen mostly "Allah the Merciful" on this forum so if I make a mistake, correct me please.

In support of the Muslim point of view, why would Jesus die for barely born babies? Are they sinners too? They shouldn't receive any kind of punishment or be barred from Heaven because they didn't do anything wrong. Using this point of view, then Allah's mercifulness is better served than God's justice, since, according to the arguments I've read so far, you should be judged by your deeds.

Stemming from the two positions and the counter-arguments proposed by the muslim brothers, it would seem that the concept of "Original Sin" has crept into the debate. Either as a way to prove/cope with the baby needing redemption. Although I don't see how or why it is needed since no one is in the shoes of God judging 6 months old souls. Does he really need to mete out justice to a soul barely conscious of the world?

I know these are only two paragraphs crudely summing up about 10 pages of argumentation but I just want to make sure I got the gist of what is actually been said and that this debate doesn't devolve further. Maybe the real question people should ask themselves instead is how is my faith making this world a better place. From my own point of view, thinking that my sins crucified Jesus makes me hate sinning and want to live a better life and give glory to God through my actions.

Peace out!
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-12-2011, 08:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
So you do know another trick, and are now so desperate that you have to pretend I've misidentified someone else as you. At this point even you aren't foolish enough to think you can still get away with pretending not to have said what you've said, so with no other recourse you now shift your ground, in complete contradiction to your previous position, and claim instead that it was someone else who said it! Everyone here is fully capable of clicking page eleven, scrolling to the near bottom, and seeing for themselves that it was you so unless no one bothers (which is what you're apparently relying on) you've REALLY painted yourself into a corner this time!
yahya, do you really mean to keep up with these lies? i hope that everyone here actually goes to the eleventh page and presses ctrl+ f for the following:

"I truly feel as if Hamza moved the goalposts. He may have intended to ask that the "proof" of the concept of blood atonement came from prophets who preceeded Jesus. But in those post to which I responded what he asked for was from "ANYWHERE in the Bible." His words and his emphasis; not mine."

it's simply not there. yahya, if you wanted to pass the above off as my words then you should at least taken care not to use capitalizations. i simply don't write like that. more than being amused by this i must wonder why you must resort to such lies? is it not enough that i have already refuted your argument, must i now embarrass you as well by exposing you to be a liar?

do yourself a favour yahya and go to the 11th page and see if you can find me saying anything as you imply in the above. it's repulsive that after having been proven wrong, you would now resort to lies and passing off words which i have never said as my own.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-12-2011, 08:56 PM
i have since found which post you tried to pass off as my own (even though i have repeatedly told you that it wasn't mine. i suppose that you thought that maybe if you made the lie big enough, it would more easily be believed):

http://www.islamicboard.com/showthre...=1#post1437327

so yet again, you are completely proven wrong yahya. though watching you get caught in your own web of lies was nothing if not amusing.
Reply

JPR
05-12-2011, 09:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
i have since found which post you tried to pass off as my own (even though i have repeatedly told you that it wasn't mine. i suppose that you thought that maybe if you made the lie big enough, it would more easily be believed):

so yet again, you are completely proven wrong yahya. though watching you get caught in your own web of lies was nothing if not amusing.
Deeply disturbing, completely unethical intellectually wrong and again, deeply disturbing...

I didn't even caught on to that. Ya learn something new everyday.
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
05-12-2011, 09:08 PM
Please let us not let this discussion turn into a bitter fued. We are here discussing important matters and i am sure our aim is to please God so let us post that which will please God and not that which will please Satan.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-12-2011, 09:15 PM
the truth pleases god for "the truth will set you free". i do not take kindly to the fact that such a scenario has been orchestrated where my name is juxtaposed with the words of another individual. furthermore this circus continued even after i had claimed that the words weren't mine. it isn't that we are pleasing satan or anything of the kind, we are coming to the truth for my character had been called into question and i have since shown that the accusations were nothing but lies. while i sincerely harbor no ill-will towards yahya i will not pretend as if he has shown himself to be a dignified individual by the manner in which he carried on this campaign to sully my character if he could not at the least prove me wrong.

that said, on my part, i have been advised to let the matter go and so i'm quite prepared not to talk about what just happened, anymore.
Reply

IAmZamzam
05-12-2011, 09:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JPR
Deeply disturbing, completely unethical intellectually wrong and again, deeply disturbing...

I didn't even caught on to that. Ya learn something new everyday.
The reason you didn't catch on to it is that there's nothing to catch onto. I will give you positive reputation points if you click on the "page eleven" link, scroll down, and see for yourself that he's the one lying. Go ahead, look. I dare you. It will take you all of five or ten seconds.
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
05-12-2011, 09:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
the truth pleases god for "the truth will set you free". i do not take kindly to the fact that such a scenario has been orchestrated where my name is juxtaposed with the words of another individual. furthermore this circus continued even after i had claimed that the words weren't mine. it isn't that we are pleasing satan or anything of the kind, we are coming to the truth for my character had been called into question and i have since shown that the accusations were nothing but lies. while i sincerely harbor no ill-will towards yahya i will not pretend as if he has shown himself to be a dignified individual by the manner in which he carried on this campaign to sully my character if he could not at the least prove me wrong.
I am sure it is a misunderstanding Sol. When there are so many posters and posts with quoted posts then it is easy to attribute a post to one who did not post such a thing in the first place.

So i think we should give one the benefit of the doubt and accept it as a misunderstanding and not let this misunderstanding get in the way of a good discussion otherwise bitterness will permeate the thread and that will not result in any good discussion taking place.

So let it be known that those words were not attributed to Sol and that this was a clear misunderstanding due to the fact that so many posters are posting quotes from other posters so confusion may clearly result as it has done.

So let us all accept this as a human error and not let the misunderstanding progress into a bitter fued which will only result in enmity and bad feelings in ones heart.
Reply

IAmZamzam
05-12-2011, 09:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Please let us not let this discussion turn into a bitter fued. We are here discussing important matters and i am sure our aim is to please God so let us post that which will please God and not that which will please Satan.
I'm trying to help him, brother. He really needs a stern warning about what will happen if he doesn't do something about the error of his ways. It's just disturbing what lengths of dishonesty an agenda will drive someone to, and as JPR has just demonstrated all it takes for them to succeed is the most momentary lapse of effort on the part of someone who doesn't bother to look for themselves, because that's what they'd rather believe. People like Sol are paradoxically as dangerous as they are incompetent, because you don't have to actually be convincing to convince someone. All you need is their own gullibility or in this case even their own laziness or carelessness. However, I am much more worried for the predator than the prey. Repeated and stubborn iniquity as he has demonstrated is not going to bode well for him in the hereafter. I would be pleasantly surprised beyond all reason if he listened to me but isn't it our sworn duty as Muslims to at least try??
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-12-2011, 09:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
The reason you didn't catch on to it is that there's nothing to catch onto. I will give you positive reputation points if you click on the "page eleven" link, scroll down, and see for yourself that he's the one lying. Go ahead, look. I dare you. It will take you all of five or ten seconds.
yes, let's go to page 11. honestly i really did try to conclude the matter but you seem so intent on holding to such lies.
Reply

IAmZamzam
05-12-2011, 09:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
I am sure it is a misunderstanding Sol. When there are so many posters and posts with quoted posts then it is easy to attribute a post to one who did not post such a thing in the first place.

So i think we should give one the benefit of the doubt and accept it as a misunderstanding and not let this misunderstanding get in the way of a good discussion otherwise bitterness will permeate the thread and that will not result in any good discussion taking place.

So let it be known that those words were not attributed to Sol and that this was a clear misunderstanding due to the fact that so many posters are posting quotes from other posters so confusion may clearly result as it has done.

So let us all accept this as a human error and not let the misunderstanding progress into a bitter fued which will only result in enmity and bad feelings in ones heart.
Oh no, not you too! JUST SCROLL DOWN AND LOOK! IT'S ON PAGE ELEVEN!!
Reply

IAmZamzam
05-12-2011, 09:30 PM
Here, I'll save you all the trouble: It's at the bottom right here. Last post, the one beginning with the lie itself: "your claim was that the matter of original sin was relevant to my post". This being after I had already called him on it and explained what my actual claim had been, as you'll see if you look above that post too. Just take five seconds and take a look at the post, and see the name "Sol Invictus" to the left of it, plain as the nose on your face. I don't know how to do that thing where your link directs someone already to a particular part of the page but it can't take longer than two seconds to grab hold of the bar on the right and drag it down. Now will you please stop embarrassing yourself?!
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
05-12-2011, 09:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
Oh no, not you too! JUST SCROLL DOWN AND LOOK! IT'S ON PAGE ELEVEN!!
What are we actually referring to here? Is this misunderstanding related to who posted this:

"I truly feel as if Hamza moved the goalposts. He may have intended to ask that the "proof" of the concept of blood atonement came from prophets who preceeded Jesus. But in those post to which I responded what he asked for was from "ANYWHERE in the Bible." His words and his emphasis; not mine."


Or are you referring to something else?
Reply

IAmZamzam
05-12-2011, 09:41 PM
Oh, I see. Yes, that particular quote I did misattribute but he made his post in response to an entire, LONG exposition that he cheerfully ignored the rest of so as to focus on that one, single quote instead, and that's why I thought he was talking about the previous part. This is the rest, the thing he's been trying to distract you with for all this time by harping on the misattributed Grace Seeker quote which came at the very bottom (and which I didn't even know he was talking about):

"proof please (and by this i mean my whole post). why is it that you keep bringing this up but consistently fail to quote this post where i supposedly lied?"

Every time I think you can never conceivably stoop lower and astound and appall me even more, you always prove such optimism wrong. It's like you're inhumanly good at topping yourself. Are you really so bold and overconfident as to think that anyone who has even so much as skimmed through this thread did not already see the post you just deliberately lied about existing?! Or that they would somehow forget it?! And you even act like you've asked me to quote it before, several times! I'm actually offended not only at your dishonesty but also at how insulting you're being to the people reading this thread. What do you take them for?! But just for the sake of (I admit out of spite at this point) exposing your lies yet again, here it is again, from the bottom of page 11:

"Greetings yahya, for someone who keeps mentioning his ailing hands whenever the matter of continuing with our discussion comes up, those post of yours that you have graced us with would almost beg us to differ. anyway, you claim that i am side-stepping a relevant part of the argument and as such i would ask you how at all my posts are predicated on the concept of original sin? we should note that i have asked this before and have yet to receive a response on this question. can you begin to quote from my article and show how exactly the quoted portion only makes sense if we start with original sin as a foundation? notice how many times i have asked individuals in this thread to simply quote my posts that actually have to do with the this thread and then start attacking them? notice how there has yet to be such a post forthcoming?"

once again, if you feel that my points are at all based on the doctrine of original sin, then please quote from my post and show how this is so. if however you fail to do this in your next post then i'd have to say that there you go again with making claims that you can't at all show to be the case.

now, if you thought your arguments to have been that great you would join me in encouraging the participants of this thread to get back to the main topic and yet strangely you have not done so but encouraged discussion that has nothing to do with the points i had brought forth to refute your claims. if you think that your argument and post are at all salvageable, will you then join me in asking for a return to such a discussion?"

Originally Posted by Me: "As it is the whole basis for the twisted notion of redemption that you're peddling, the very foundation, it couldn't possibly be more relevant!"

Originally Posted by Him, in response: "Anyway, you claim that i am side-stepping a relevant part of the argument and as such i would ask you how at all my posts are predicated on the concept of original sin? we should note that i have asked this before and have yet to receive a response on this question. can you begin to quote from my article and show how exactly the quoted portion only makes sense if we start with original sin as a foundation?...Once again, if you feel that my points are at all based on the doctrine of original sin, then please quote from my post and show how this is so. if however you fail to do this in your next post then i'd have to say that there you go again with making claims that you can't at all show to be the case."
Now here is my post at the bottom of page 12, read it and weep:

"Your claim was that the matter of original sin was relevant to my post. i disagreed yet gave you the option (as with any other participant in this thread) to actually quote from my post and show how my logic is predicated on the matter of original sin. so far neither you nor anyone else has done so. what i'm asking for is pretty simple. if my logic is predicated on the subject of original sin, why is it that you simply cannot quote for us the sections which only make sense when such a logic is appealed to. you keep wasting your precious health writing diatribe after diatribe when all you really need to show are the quotes from my post which are predicated on original sin. once again you're simply claiming things that you have not backed up. however, i certainly am glad that you have joined me in calling for a returned focus of my rebuttal towards you. this will certainly be entertaining."

Amazing. Your response to my exposition of your straw man attack is simply to repeat it. Wow. My claim was not that the matter of original sin was "relevant to your post" but that it was the foundation of the atonement doctrine and since that's a faulty foundation the whole thing comes tumbling down. Who do you think you're fooling? Other than yourself?
Not only did you both (a) rely on everyone reading this thread to have the memory of a dead gnat, and (b) start pretending out of nowhere that this isn't the first time you have asked me to provide the quote I just gave a page or two before, but also you immediately proceeded to go and do the whole thing all over again with brother Hamza! He asked for examples from PREVIOUS prophets, you ignored this and provided only quotes from CONTEMPORARY AND/OR SUBSEQUENT WRITERS, and then (at least at first) you tried to ignore it altogether and continue acting like you'd been asking him for his evidence of biblical prophets, period, repeatedly and he was the one dodging you! Is this the only trick you've got? The only thing worse than evil is unimaginative and stupidly redundant evil, and it seems as though you can't even be bothered to think of any new tactic beyond the solitary one of misquoting someone and then making up an imaginary repeated challenge to them that they just keep on avoiding. Honestly, if you're going to be a liar then at least don't modify it by also being a one-trick pony. You're like a magician who knows only one magic trick--say sawing a woman in half--and keeps doing it over and over and over again before the same crowd even after everyone in the crowd chimed in that the woman is obviously curled up inside and the feet sticking out of the box are fake, and when finally called upon to acknowledge them you pretend that they were offering a different explanation, and for pulling a rabbit out of your hat, which you haven't done. And then goes right back to sawing.
He's trying to divert you from that. Don't let him.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-12-2011, 09:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
Oh no, not you too! JUST SCROLL DOWN AND LOOK! IT'S ON PAGE ELEVEN!!
alright, i'm tired of your lies. here are screenshots:

this is your initial post:



then here is my response:



and then here is where you continue with your lies:

Reply

IAmZamzam
05-12-2011, 09:44 PM
And here is the relevant part from the section of the post in question which you deliberately avoided and which you're still trying to keep people from thinking about by going on about the one mistake at the very bottom of it. I'll even put the important words in bold:

Originally Posted by Me: "As it is the whole basis for the twisted notion of redemption that you're peddling, the very foundation, it couldn't possibly be more relevant!"

Originally Posted by Him, in response: "Anyway, you claim that i am side-stepping a relevant part of the argument and as such i would ask you how at all my posts are predicated on the concept of original sin?
Note again that this is what he continued pretending I said even after I called him on it, and when he said "those words aren't even mine", he really meant "the last few words aren't even mine", and was speaking as though they constituted the whole post because he had no other means left of making people look the other way on the pathetic straw man attack that the previous part of his post, which was not misattributed, was demonstrating, and which he continued to repeat even in response to said demonstration.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!