The Central Flaw of Christianity (another article)

**IAmZamzam** · 01-18-2011

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?”

**LavaDog** · 02-25-2011

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.

**Hiroshi** · 02-25-2011

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!

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?

**Pygoscelis** · 02-25-2011

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.

**Pygoscelis** · 02-25-2011

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.

**Predator** · 02-25-2011

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 .

**Pygoscelis** · 02-25-2011

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.

**Sojourn** · 02-26-2011

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!

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

**Sojourn** · 02-26-2011

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.

**Predator** · 02-26-2011

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

**Sojourn** · 02-27-2011

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

**Ramadhan** · 02-27-2011

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.

**Sojourn** · 02-27-2011

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.

**Pygoscelis** · 02-27-2011

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.

**Ramadhan** · 02-27-2011

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.

**Ramadhan** · 02-27-2011

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.

**Pygoscelis** · 02-27-2011

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.

**Sojourn** · 02-27-2011

Originally Posted by naidamar

[FONT="Book Antiqua"][COLOR="Black"][SIZE="3"]

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

**Sojourn** · 02-27-2011

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.

**Predator** · 02-28-2011

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

**Pygoscelis** · 02-28-2011

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.