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?”

**Pygoscelis** · 03-18-2011

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

**IAmZamzam** · 03-18-2011

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?

**IAmZamzam** · 03-18-2011

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!

**Pygoscelis** · 03-18-2011

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).

**3rddec** · 03-18-2011

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

**IAmZamzam** · 03-18-2011

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.

**Pygoscelis** · 03-19-2011

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.

**Pygoscelis** · 03-19-2011

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.

**3rddec** · 03-19-2011

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

**IAmZamzam** · 03-19-2011

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.

**YieldedOne** · 03-19-2011

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.

**IAmZamzam** · 03-19-2011

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!

**YieldedOne** · 03-19-2011

Safe travels, brother! Be blessed!

**JPR** · 03-19-2011

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!

**Pygoscelis** · 03-19-2011

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?

**Pygoscelis** · 03-20-2011

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.

**SalamChristian** · 03-20-2011

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.

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.

**SalamChristian** · 03-20-2011

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.

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.

**IAmZamzam** · 04-16-2011

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.

**UsayIsaIsayGod** · 04-16-2011

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.