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?”

**siam** · 02-15-2011

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....

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?

**Ramadhan** · 02-16-2011

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

You have to have blind faith to believe in trinity.

**Trumble** · 02-17-2011

You have to have blind faith somewhere down the line to believe in God, period.

**Ramadhan** · 02-17-2011

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.

**Hiroshi** · 02-19-2011

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.

**Insaanah** · 02-19-2011

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...

**Hiroshi** · 02-19-2011

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.

**Insaanah** · 02-19-2011

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...

**Pygoscelis** · 02-19-2011

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.

**Pygoscelis** · 02-19-2011

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.

**Ramadhan** · 02-19-2011

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.

**Pygoscelis** · 02-20-2011

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.

**Ramadhan** · 02-20-2011

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.

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.

**siam** · 02-21-2011

"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........

**Hiroshi** · 02-21-2011

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.

**Hiroshi** · 02-21-2011

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)

**Predator** · 02-21-2011

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

**Sojourn** · 02-25-2011

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

**Ramadhan** · 02-25-2011

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!