The Central Flaw of Christianity (another article)

[Grace Seeker]

Not sure if you're using the Catholic church idea of Original Sin, but I think the term can lead to confusion.

Ah, good call, for what I am talking about is actually the consequence of the original sin, and subsequent understanding of inherited depravity.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Now in terms of Original Sin, just what danger if any does it pose? To be honest I do not believe it exists, but I appreciate the fact you probably do believe it exists. Therefore my question, what danger is it?

The short answer today, perhaps a more lengthy and nuanced theological answer to follow if you still want it.


The biggest problem with the original sin, which by the way was not the eating of an apple, nor even the picking of the fruit Adam and Eve were told not to eat, but the act of thinking that they new better than God and wanting to assert their own authority over their lives rather than being submissive to God's. Now, my view is that every single person on this earth since that time -- save Jesus -- has suffered this same malady (i.e., looking out for #1). Even that wouldn't be so bad, but we never consider ourselves #2. So you see, without being trained by anyone to sin, we are born predisposed to place self and not God in the first position. That is a violation of the most basic of all commands: "thou shalt have no other gods," but we do and his name is "I".

Now, I can't prove to you that this is the direct result of the fall described in Genesis, at least not in the since of scientific proof that comes in the form of verifiably repeatable experiments. But I feel that we've got millions of bits of observational data that are all consistent in pointing to the same conclusion -- all humans sin, it is a part of our basic nature. So, since I don't think that God created us to be sinners, yet we all are, then God either made flawed human beings or God allowed for a choice that has as its consequence predisposed us to this sinful behavior. The Biblical record hypothesizes the second of those being what happened, and I accept that hypothesis as fitting the facts as I observe them.

Now, however we get there, I assume you agree with me that people sin. And you ask what danger does the Original Sin pose? Answer it leads to the condition we presently see in the world that sin, rather than righteousness, reigns supreme in the lives of most humans so that even the most righteous among us are not free from the stain of it.

 

[Woodrow]

The short answer today, perhaps a more lengthy and nuanced theological answer to follow if you still want it.


The biggest problem with the original sin, which by the way was not the eating of an apple, nor even the picking of the fruit Adam and Eve were told not to eat, but the act of thinking that they new better than God and wanting to assert their own authority over their lives rather than being submissive to God's. Now, my view is that every single person on this earth since that time -- save Jesus -- has suffered this same malady (i.e., looking out for #1). Even that wouldn't be so bad, but we never consider ourselves #2. So you see, without being trained by anyone to sin, we are born predisposed to place self and not God in the first position. That is a violation of the most basic of all commands: "thou shalt have no other gods," but we do and his name is "I".

Now, I can't prove to you that this is the direct result of the fall described in Genesis, at least not in the since of scientific proof that comes in the form of verifiably repeatable experiments. But I feel that we've got millions of bits of observational data that are all consistent in pointing to the same conclusion -- all humans sin, it is a part of our basic nature. So, since I don't think that God created us to be sinners, yet we all are, then God either made flawed human beings or God allowed for a choice that has as its consequence predisposed us to this sinful behavior. The Biblical record hypothesizes the second of those being what happened, and I accept that hypothesis as fitting the facts as I observe them.

Now, however we get there, I assume you agree with me that people sin. And you ask what danger does the Original Sin pose? Answer it leads to the condition we presently see in the world that sin, rather than righteousness, reigns supreme in the lives of most humans so that even the most righteous among us are not free from the stain of it.

Peace Gene, and again Thank You for a clear, peaceful response.

I actually am curious as to what you believe, for the purpose of mutual understanding not for debate or argument. for people to understand each other it helps to know what it is they believe. People do not need to always agree, in order to live in Peace, but it does help that if they disagree, they know what it is they disagree over and not assume they know without asking.

 

[gmcbroom]

Woodrow,
I agree. it doesn't have to dissolve into a shouting match just because ones views are different.

Peace be with you.

 

[Grace Seeker]

I actually am curious as to what you believe, for the purpose of mutual understanding not for debate or argument. for people to understand each other it helps to know what it is they believe. People do not need to always agree, in order to live in Peace, but it does help that if they disagree, they know what it is they disagree over and not assume they know without asking.

Woodrow,
I agree. it doesn't have to dissolve into a shouting match just because ones views are different.

Peace be with you.

Me three.

I know that I never anticipated that I would be changing anyone's views regarding their faith when I came on this board. I just hoped to learn enough to be more sure about that in Islam which I did not know or myself understand. I've stayed because I've seen that there are those who have been confused regarding aspects of my faith that I had hoped I could help them better understand. Sadly, if there is any conflict for me on these boards, it is that I find many people would rather live with their embedded misunderstandings than seek guidance from someone who actually practices the faith they flaggrantly misrepresent. Others project any response that doesn't affirm their own views to be attempts at evasion or non-response rather than appreciating the reality that just as there are nuances to how one might want to articulate one's own faith, so might others wish to communicate their own religious views.

But on the other hand, there have been those few discussions where such conversation has happened. Then this board is at its best.



I wonder if others see this as well? And if you do, what do you see as common factors in those threads that can have a good discussion and those that become "war zones" other than the obvious that more respect is shown in some threads than others. I guess I'm asking what is it that leads some threads to give evidence of this higher level of respectful conversation? It does not seem to be related to thread topic, because I've seen threads on what color the sky is degenerate into knock down dragouts. Would I be amiss in suggesting that it seems to me that certain members are more prone to stir things up than others simply by the tenor of their posts?

 

[gmcbroom]

Grace Seeker, I agree. I think the difference is responding instead of reacting. And is that cultural or something more individual? I don't think its tied to ones religion is it?

 

[Sol Invictus]

it certainly does seem to be the case that how productive a discussion is and furthermore how peacefully it is conducted relies particularly on who exactly the participants are. there are those who can have a peaceful discussion with almost anyone, and then there are those who are unable to conduct a peaceful discussion with anyone they do not theologically agree with (whether their interlocutor be a muslim or non-muslim). one problem of note is that far too often do individuals on this board think it to be perfectly alright to write posts consisting of thinly veiled insults.

 

[Grace Seeker]

I don't think it's tied to one's religion is it?

I don't think it is, though it may be tied to one's response to religion.

I know you are on the Catholic Answers board, and honestly I run into more conflict there than I do here. So much in fact that I haven't been on it in nearly a year. But I don't think that has anything to do with religion because I've never experienced any animosity from either Catholics or Muslims in my real world experience, even though we've engaged in some heavy theological discussions and joint ministry efforts.

What I've run into is that in real life my biggest conflicts have come from others who happened to be close in beliefs to mine, but who were not content unless mine actually mirrored theirs precisely. Thus, not one's actual views, but intolerance of others who hold differing views (to whatever degree) seems to be the trigger. And then there is personality, that some are more acerbic than others in the way they communicate. (Those "thinly veiled insults", sometimes outright and unveiled, that Sol mentioned.) Given that human history illustrates religious views are often held deeply and strong, this way of relating to others with whom we might disagree can compound an already volatile situation.



I think a good word for Christians is: "Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." (Romans 12:17-18)


Perhaps a similar good word for Mulims would be: "O you who believe; people should not mock other people, for these may be better than they are." (49:11) Unless Muslims understand this to be applicable only to other believers? Is there a word on how Muslims are to treat non-Muslims?

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

I don't think it is, though it may be tied to one's response to religion.

I know you are on the Catholic Answers board, and honestly I run into more conflict there than I do here. So much in fact that I haven't been on it in nearly a year. But I don't think that has anything to do with religion because I've never experienced any animosity from either Catholics or Muslims in my real world experience, even though we've engaged in some heavy theological discussions and joint ministry efforts.

What I've run into is that in real life my biggest conflicts have come from others who happened to be close in beliefs to mine, but who were not content unless mine actually mirrored theirs precisely. Thus, not one's actual views, but intolerance of others who hold differing views (to whatever degree) seems to be the trigger. And then there is personality, that some are more acerbic than others in the way they communicate. (Those "thinly veiled insults", sometimes outright and unveiled, that Sol mentioned.) Given that human history illustrates religious views are often held deeply and strong, this way of relating to others with whom we might disagree can compound an already volatile situation.



I think a good word for Christians is: "Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." (Romans 12:17-18)


Perhaps a similar good word for Mulims would be: "O you who believe; people should not mock other people, for these may be better than they are." (49:11) Unless Muslims understand this to be applicable only to other believers? Is there a word on how Muslims are to treat non-Muslims?

Greetings Grace Seeker,


I think when it comes to discussing matters of faith particularly comparitive religion then passions will tend to run high because emotions are involved and at times that is a good thing as long as we are still respectful of each other at the end of the debate or discussion.


Even though i have debated Sol and yourself quite passionatly, i still respect both of you and your beliefs though i may not agree with them and you may not agree with mine. But i also think it works both ways. If one increases their tone then the others tone will also naturally increase.


Even in real life whenever i discuss or debate comparitive religion with my non Muslim colleages, neighbours, friends etc then passions may get high at times but at the end of the discussion we are still respectful of one another because i would never allow a discussion between myself and another person to get into mockery and insults as i think that only produces bitter feelings and consequantly gives satan a hand in the discussion which only causes more harm than good.


The Islamic perspective of discussion with non Muslims is to invite them to Islam with hikmah (wisdom) and beautiful preaching:


1. Allah says to invite in the most beautiful of ways using wisdom and tact:

“Invite (all) to the Way of your Rabb (Cherisher and Sustainer) with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for your Rabb knows best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance.” (16:125)


2. As Muslims we should also be friendly and kind in calling non-Muslims to Islam:


Abu Hurairah narrated that the Prophet said, “A believer is friendly, and there is no good in one who is neither friendly nor is treated in a friendly way.” (Tirmidhi 4995; and Ahmad)


Yazid Bin Na’mah narrated that Allah’s Messengerr said, “When a man makes another his brother he should ask him his name, his father’s name and the stock from which he comes, for it Binds friendship more closely.” (Tirmidhi 5020)


3. We as Muslim should always invite people to Islam with kind words instead of evil words or bad language:


“Kind words and forgiving of faults are better than charity followed by injury. And Allah is Rich (Free of all wants) and He is most Forbearing.” (2:263)

“Allah does not love the utterance of evil words in public except by one who has been wronged. Allah is He Who hears and knows all things.” (4:148)

‘Abdullah Bin ‘Amir t narrated that the Prophet (Pbuh) never used bad language. He used to say, “The best amongst you are those who have the best manners and character.” (Bukhari 4/759 and 8/56)


4. According to the teachings in Islam we should refrain from nonsense talk:


“Say to My servants that they should (only) say those things that are best: for Satan does sow dissension among them: for Satan is to man an avowed enemy.” (17:53)

“Successful indeed are the believers, who are humble in their prayer, who shun the nonsense talking and the vain conversation, and who pay Zakat.” (23:1-4)


5. A Muslim should speak good and never insult


Abu Hurairah t narrated that Allah’s Messengerr said, “Whoever believes in Allah and the last day should talk what is good or keep quiet. And whoever believes in Allah and the last day should not hurt (or insult) his neighbor. And whoever believes in Allah and the last day should entertain his guest generously.” (Bukhari 8/482)

‘Abdullah Bin Mas’ud t narrated that the Prophet said, “A believer does not taunt, curse, abuse or talk indecently.” (Tirmidhi 1740)


6. A Muslim must control his anger and refrain from having dispute or quarrel


Abu Hurairah t narrated that Allah’s Messenger r said, “The strong is not the one who overcomes the people by his strength, but the strong is the one who controls himself while in anger.” (Bukhari 8/ 135 and Muslim 4/6311-6314)

‘Aishah t narrated that the Prophetr said, “The most hated person in the sight of Allah is the most quarrelsome person.” (Bukhari 3/637)


7. But if the people of the book make a claim then let them verify it:

“And they say: ‘None shall enter Paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian.’ Those are their (vain) desires. Say, ‘Produce your proof if you are truthful.’” (2:111)

“...Say: ‘Bring you the Torah and study it, if you be men of truth.’ If any, after this invent a lie and attribute it to Allah, they are indeed unjust wrong-doers.” (3:93-94)

“Or have they taken for worship (other) gods besides Him? Say, “Bring your convincing proof: this is the Message of those before me.” But most of them know not the Truth, and so turn away.” (21:24)


So we can only inform but it is Allah who unseals and opens the hearts and it is he who guides.


“Whom Allah does guide, he is on the right path. Whom He rejects from His guidance, such are the persons who lose.” (7:178)

 

[Grace Seeker]

3. We as Muslim should never invite people to Islam with kind words instead of evil words or bad language:

I'm hoping that the word "never" is a mistake?????

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

I'm hoping that the word "never" is a mistake?????

Oops thank you for the correction.

 

[Woodrow]

I don't think it is, though it may be tied to one's response to religion.

I know you are on the Catholic Answers board, and honestly I run into more conflict there than I do here. So much in fact that I haven't been on it in nearly a year. But I don't think that has anything to do with religion because I've never experienced any animosity from either Catholics or Muslims in my real world experience, even though we've engaged in some heavy theological discussions and joint ministry efforts.

What I've run into is that in real life my biggest conflicts have come from others who happened to be close in beliefs to mine, but who were not content unless mine actually mirrored theirs precisely. Thus, not one's actual views, but intolerance of others who hold differing views (to whatever degree) seems to be the trigger. And then there is personality, that some are more acerbic than others in the way they communicate. (Those "thinly veiled insults", sometimes outright and unveiled, that Sol mentioned.) Given that human history illustrates religious views are often held deeply and strong, this way of relating to others with whom we might disagree can compound an already volatile situation.



I think a good word for Christians is: "Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." (Romans 12:17-18)


Perhaps a similar good word for Mulims would be: "O you who believe; people should not mock other people, for these may be better than they are." (49:11) Unless Muslims understand this to be applicable only to other believers? Is there a word on how Muslims are to treat non-Muslims?

Peace Gene,

Good points. It is true the closer people are the greater the animosity. Perhaps it is because we all have what we consider to be self evident beliefs. When somebody agrees with us part of the way we assume they actually already know what we believe to be true and they are deliberately rejecting it. this causes blood pressures and tempers to rise. Sort of like most of us are stricter with our own kids than we are on the neighbors kids. Oddly in some ways this hostility can be seen as a misguided love.

Regarding this paragraph:

Perhaps a similar good word for Muslims would be: "O you who believe; people should not mock other people, for these may be better than they are." (49:11) Unless Muslims understand this to be applicable only to other believers? Is there a word on how Muslims are to treat non-Muslims?

Surah 49 is directed specifically as to how Muslims should treat Muslim. but it may not be a bad idea to to extend the thought towards all people as much as possible. For specific treatment of non Muslims we do have similar wordings. Such as:


From surah 60, Yusuf Ali translation:

1. O ye who believe! Take not my enemies and yours as friends (or protectors),- offering them (your) love, even though they have rejected the Truth that has come to you, and have (on the contrary) driven out the Prophet and yourselves (from your homes), (simply) because ye believe in Allah your Lord! If ye have come out to strive in My Way and to seek My Good Pleasure, (take them not as friends), holding secret converse of love (and friendship) with them: for I know full well all that ye conceal and all that ye reveal. And any of you that does this has strayed from the Straight Path.

2. If they were to get the better of you, they would behave to you as enemies, and stretch forth their hands and their tongues against you for evil: and they desire that ye should reject the Truth.

3. Of no profit to you will be your relatives and your children on the Day of Judgment: He will judge between you: for Allah sees well all that ye do.

4. There is for you an excellent example (to follow) in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: "We are clear of you and of whatever ye worship besides Allah. we have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred for ever,- unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone": But not when Abraham said to his father: "I will pray for forgiveness for thee, though I have no power (to get) aught on thy behalf from Allah." (They prayed): "Our Lord! in Thee do we trust, and to Thee do we turn in repentance: to Thee is (our) Final Goal.

5. "Our Lord! Make us not a (test and) trial for the Unbelievers, but forgive us, our Lord! for Thou art the Exalted in Might, the Wise."

6. There was indeed in them an excellent example for you to follow,- for those whose hope is in Allah and in the Last Day. But if any turn away, truly Allah is Free of all Wants, Worthy of all Praise.

7. It may be that Allah will grant love (and friendship) between you and those whom ye (now) hold as enemies. For Allah has power (over all things); And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

8. Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.

9. Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.

Note ayyat 8 especially--- essentially that says we are to treat non Muslims in a similar manner to how we treat Muslims. Providing they are not waging war against us because of our Faith.

 

[IAmZamzam]

yahya, quite clearly you did not even bother to follow the links. at this point there's nothing i can do seeing as it would seem that you are doing everything to avoid the truth. i can only hope that you'll actually follow the links i have given you (you could not have said the isaiah thing because it wasn't even the section i had placed in bold. please actually follow the link).

My very stomach can tolerate no longer having to continue the infinite cycle of correcting and exposing your lies only to have them projected right back onto me every time with the repeated insistences that I've been avoiding things all along (which in most, though not quite all, cases haven't even been so much as mentioned before). I still must say how interesting I find it that you accuse me of not clicking on any of the links right after I quote myself from a post that the links take you directly to. It seems you're so determined to convince people that no matter what you do people keep evading and ignoring allegedly repeated challenges that you'll even go so far as to accuse someone of not going to a link they just copied from in response! Like I said, you just keep topping yourself. I want out. If by this point you've actually managed to convince anyone of your pathetic lies then that's not on my head but blameable only by their own gullibility and/or carelessness. As for the question, "Why it is that you are perfectly fine with going back and forth on this minor point yet you are absolutely averse to renewing the focus to my refutation of your article?" (a) Does the tone of my recent posts, and the very content of this one for that matter, make it sound to you like I was fine with anything? And (b) For the fortieth time or so, I have already given the reasons/arguments long ago that you inevitably insist like the clockwork man you are you've been asking for and asking for and never getting: that I was already (and since have been) endangering my health too much with all this B.S. you've put me through and to continue back and forth with point-by-point shatterings of your arguments would result in you responding again with a longer post, and me with one longer than that, and so on until my hands probably freeze up into claws for a year. You can ask Grace Seeker, whom you seem to trust, if I said that, as he has given me positive rep points for the post in which I did. Good riddance, for life, and may God please, please, please have mercy on your ruthlessly dishonest soul.

P.S. I apologize to Grace Seeker if he meant that message to be just between him and me.
P.P.S. Perhaps brother Hamza would like to take up the sword now, if he still has the stomach for it either. He doesn't seem to mind so much. Up to him.

 

[Grace Seeker]

You can ask Grace Seeker, whom you seem to trust, if I said that, as he has given me positive rep points for the post in which I did. Good riddance, for life, and may God please, please, please have mercy on your ruthlessly dishonest soul.

P.S. I apologize to Grace Seeker if he meant that message to be just between him and me.

I'm not wishing to get in the middle of what I consider to have become discussion that has long since become without merit on either part. I'm only responding to it now because I see that my name has been appealed to. So, here is what I have to say:

1) I have no idea what the argument is about any more. Oh I know that it is because both of you feel offended for the other having spoken falsely regarding what you had posted. But your arguments of he said that I said that he said that I said only I didn't say that I said that he said that I said not I said that he said have become overwhelming and overbearing. I suspect I was invovled somehow, but I can't tell who started what anymore, nor can I figure it out by looking back -- and I've tried.

2) Yahya, the last post for which I have a record of giving you positive rep points was #116:

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

The comment I left for you on that post was: "I love your piture of an overgrown hedge. So true. You can't type them. Often I can't read them without a headache, and I know I'm one of the worst offenders as well."

3) The reality is that you are both angry. Angry over something that you feel was done to you, where you were treated badly, your honor subsequently besmirched, and you want satisfaction. Well, satisfaction of the type you are seeking isn't going to come from the verbal diaherra that has been let loose across this board. And until you figure that out you're not only to be stuck wallowing in it yourselves, but are continuing to splatter the rest of us with the excretment as well. Please, don't cause me to lose the respect that you had each worked to earn by the generally thoughtful nature of your posts in the past.

4) Woodrow's post (#257) had him speaking as a mod who did not wish to punsih anyone, but simply to redirect you both back to more appropriate forum behavior. Others have also asked you to put it behind you and move one. But it isn't happening. Not even guidance from your respective holy scriptures seems able to dissuade either of you from continuing to carry on this argument not as a debate, but as a grudge.

5) So, I don't know what to do. As a fellow member, I have no authority to delete posts, close threads or enact a ban -- all of which I suspect have been mutually earned should any mod care to step in and take action. And you are both so angry that you have shown complete unreceptivity to request, guidance, or the modelling of other members in this thread. I can only ask you to breath, ask yourself what it is that you are trying to accomplish, and then seriously consider, how is what you are doing working for you? Are you any closer to getting the response you want now than when all of this started? And if not, may I suggest a different tact.

• Please, know that your pain is felt, acknowledged, and shared by others.
• Please, know that you are a valued member of this community.
• Please, observe that you are not alone in feeling the pain you feel.
• That being so, is it your desire to see another human punished for the pain that you feel or, if it was within your power, would you release them from it?
• Take your time, don't answer the last question too quickly. When one has been offended as deeply as you have, it is one thing to say, "I'm sorry." or "I forgive you." and quite another to actually do it.
• So, you have to decide not whether the other person has merited your forgiveness, most likely they have not, at least not in your eyes right now. Rather, what you have to decide is not about them at all, but about you. Not whether they are worthy of forgiveness, but are you the sort of person who forgives?

So, are you?

If you are, what would genuine forgivenss look like? What would its goals be?
Whatever it is that you are seeking (acknowledgment of being wronged, reconciliation, peace, tolerance, or simply freedom from animous contact) are you willing to offer that to the other?





The opening post of this thread is about forgiveness. Well we can debate it all we want, but even if one should win that argument, I wonder what one would really have won. I don't think God cares nearly as much about whether we can rightly talk about it as much as if we can rightly practice it. So, here is your chance, prove to the rest of us, who really knows the most about forgiveness, the Muslim or the Christian....let the contest (and the forgiving) begin!

 

[Ramadhan]

Bumping these questions for Sol.

Greetings Sol, Now prove your position that "sin is a debt which leads to death whose ONLY atonement is paid by blood" by giving us the explicit teachings and words of Jesus or God and NOT the words of those after Jesus or other than God. Do NOT provide the vague verses you have provided which prove NOTHING but only strengthen the fact that this teaching is NOT taught ANYWHERE by any Prophet, Jesus or God. Surely if this teaching is so fundamental and central to Christianity then its teaching must be EXPLICITLY taught by Jesus or God and NOT by those after Jesus. I await your answer regarding this. If Grace Seeker wants to help you then he should do as you clearly seem to be out of your depth here.

Sol why is it that whenever i ask you for direct solid evidence in explicit words from the teachings of ANY previous Prophet, Jesus or God of the blood atonement of Christ that you are clearly unable to do so EVERYTIME? If you are out of your depth here which is quite clearly the case and if i am putting too much pressure on you then i apologise and i will leave you be for a day or so until you are ready to actually respond to my posts. Until then i await a direct response from you....

 

[Sol Invictus]

Sol why is it that whenever i ask you for direct solid evidence in explicit words from the teachings of ANY previous Prophet, Jesus or God of the blood atonement of Christ that you are clearly unable to do so EVERYTIME?

greetings hamza. one must really wonder what isn't explicit about the following:

40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence. 44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” 45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” --- Luke 24:40-49 NIV

could you please explain to us what is ambiguous about the above? could you please explain to us what christ meant with the above? i've noticed that it's often the case that you never actually deal with explaining why my examples do not say what i claim they say but instead continually bring up passages that have to do with personal responsibility. that's great for you but neither christians or jews have ever claimed that blood atonement removes personal responsibility. as it goes for your claims that blood atonement is not taught in scripture then what do you make of the animal sacrifices that the jews conducted for thousands of years? and more importantly, how the very prophets whom you claim spoke against blood atonement themselves could conduct and participate in blood atonement (such as you claiming that the passage in ezekiel is against blood atonement when ezekiel 43 highlights specifically how to make a proper blood atonement)? your revisionism is just so against history. if what you say is at all true, then could you show us through biblical jewish law that the following is at all false?:

Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. --- Hebrews 9:22

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

i'd very much like it if you could deal with the above. i find it quite odd that on one hand, muslims will decry the blood atonement in the bible as base and evil and use this to disparage god's word and yet when the matter calls for it, you will now claim that there is no basis for blood atonement in the bible (and as such it isn't supposedly base and evil). really, that's faulty argumentation.

as regards the matter of whether sin is a debt or not, please disprove my point from the debt motive within the language of the bible.

 

[Woodrow]

greetings hamza. one must really wonder what isn't explicit about the following:

40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence. 44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” 45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” --- Luke 24:40-49 NIV

could you please explain to us what is ambiguous about the above? could you please explain to us what christ meant with the above? i've noticed that it's often the case that you never actually deal with explaining why my examples do not say what i claim they say but instead continually bring up passages that have to do with personal responsibility. that's great for you but neither christians or jews have ever claimed that blood atonement removes personal responsibility. as it goes for your claims that blood atonement is not taught in scripture then what do you make of the animal sacrifices that the jews conducted for thousands of years? and more importantly, how the very prophets whom you claim spoke against blood atonement themselves could conduct and participate in blood atonement (such as you claiming that the passage in ezekiel is against blood atonement when ezekiel 43 highlights specifically how to make a proper blood atonement)? your revisionism is just so against history. if what you say is at all true, then could you show us through biblical jewish law that the following is at all false?:

Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. --- Hebrews 9:22

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

i'd very much like it if you could deal with the above. i find it quite odd that on one hand, muslims will decry the blood atonement in the bible as base and evil and use this to disparage god's word and yet when the matter calls for it, you will now claim that there is no basis for blood atonement in the bible (and as such it isn't supposedly base and evil). really, that's faulty argumentation.

as regards the matter of whether sin is a debt or not, please disprove my point from the debt motive within the language of the bible.

There is an inherent difficulty in debating the words of different faiths that are not in agreement as to what is the accepted source of proof. This post is a good example of that.

We all need to accept the fact that in a debate between Muslims and Christians we are not in agreement over which books are true. In other words while to you the Bible is the true verification of the proof of your comments. We see the Bible as having no more validity as verification than the New York telephone book is. I believe you probably feel the same about the Qur'an while we accept it as the only verification of proof, I doubt very much you do. This does not mean that neither of us believes everything in the the other's source is wrong. but it does mean neither of us can or will accept the other's source as the True Complete Word of God(swt)

This is best exemplified in your last comment.

as regards the matter of whether sin is a debt or not, please disprove my point from the debt motive within the language of the bible

It is actually impossible to disprove anything. Even if a person were able to disprove something it would not be proof that their conflicting belief is true. It is always our burden to prove what we say is true, not to prove what somebody else is false.

In this case the burden of proof is upon you to prove you are right using what we accept as verification so your challenge is actually reversed and to be acceptable it is really a challenge for you to prove so the challenge is:


Sol, as regards the matter of whether sin is a debt or not, please prove your point from the debt motive within the language of the Qur'an or aHadith.

 

[Grace Seeker]

There is an inherent difficulty in debating the words of different faiths that are not in agreement as to what is the accepted source of proof. This post is a good example of that.

We all need to accept the fact that in a debate between Muslims and Christians we are not in agreement over which books are true. In other words while to you the Bible is the true verification of the proof of your comments. We see the Bible as having no more validity as verification than the New York telephone book is. I believe you probably feel the same about the Qur'an while we accept it as the only verification of proof, I doubt very much you do. This does not mean that neither of us believes everything in the the other's source is wrong. but it does mean neither of us can or will accept the other's source as the True Complete Word of God(swt)

This is best exemplified in your last comment.



It is actually impossible to disprove anything. Even if a person were able to disprove something it would not be proof that their conflicting belief is true. It is always our burden to prove what we say is true, not to prove what somebody else is false.

In this case the burden of proof is upon you to prove you are right using what we accept as verification so your challenge is actually reversed and to be acceptable it is really a challenge for you to prove so the challenge is:


Sol, as regards the matter of whether sin is a debt or not, please prove your point from the debt motive within the language of the Qur'an or aHadith.

I want to propose that we simply quit using the words "proof" and "prove" altogether. Let me tell of a situation that occurred off of this board to explain why.

A woman who was a JW came to my house and wanted to proselytize me. I allowed her in and she began to follow her routine for witnessing according to her faith. The usual point of beginning is to assert that there are lots of bad things happening in the world, so many that it must be "proof" of Christ's imminent return. I denied that I saw the same terrible signs that she report. I suggested that the tornadoes and hurricanes and earthquakes were no more than in the past years and a little less than in some. She didn't know what to do with that, but went on with your spiel. She openned up the Bible and began to tell me that it meant XYZ. I looked at the passge and saw only X and no connection to Y & Z. Indeed I understood the larger context of the passage to actually being saying the exact opposite of what she claimed. So, she then tried a different passage and had a most unusual twist on it as well. When she was done I asked if I could pose her a couple of questions. She had anticipated that and was ready to respond to what she thought were going to be the stock question that many people pose to JWs, but I surprised her with completely different questions that she wasn't at all prepared for. So, she excused herself and said that she would be back next week. She was, but she still didn't have answers for my question. Rather, she returned to her prepared presentation that, in my opinion, twisted the mean of much of the scriptures on its head. And when I asked my questions again, she once again excused herself. A third time she returned, and this time I began with my same, as yet, unanswered questions. Her response this time was to tell me that she had "proved" from scripture the truth of what she was saying and that I was wrong to question it.

Now, how does this story apply to our forum? Namely that this woman had not proved anything to me, and frankly I doubt that anyone here (except perhaps Hiroshi) would have thought she "proved" anything either. Rather, what she had done was produced an argument for a particular set of beliefs, one that made sense to her, but not to me. Now, I don't doubt that in her own mind she was convinced that she had "proved" her point. The problem was that she was asserting to me that she had "proved" her case even while I was totally unconvinced. I see the same thing happening a great deal in this section of the forum.

When we use the words "proof" and "prove" when need to be aware that the one making the argument may be trying to prove something, may think that the argument is logical, it may even have historically been seen as logical and convincing to many, but unless it compels the mind of the present listener to accept one's assertions as true one has NOT proved anything. One has only made a series of assertions.

The criterion of something to be considered "proven" rests not in the one making the assertion, but in the one we are trying to convince. As that seldom happens, my suggestion is that we drop such terminology from our lexicon. It would certainly be more honest, and I think it might even help us to be tolerant of others who didn't and won't respond to our "proofs."

 

[Woodrow]

I want to propose that we simply quit using the words "proof" and "prove" altogether. Let me tell of a situation that occurred off of this board to explain why.

A woman who was a JW came to my house and wanted to proselytize me. I allowed her in and she began to follow her routine for witnessing according to her faith. The usual point of beginning is to assert that there are lots of bad things happening in the world, so many that it must be "proof" of Christ's imminent return. I denied that I saw the same terrible signs that she report. I suggested that the tornadoes and hurricanes and earthquakes were no more than in the past years and a little less than in some. She didn't know what to do with that, but went on with your spiel. She openned up the Bible and began to tell me that it meant XYZ. I looked at the passge and saw only X and no connection to Y & Z. Indeed I understood the larger context of the passage to actually being saying the exact opposite of what she claimed. So, she then tried a different passage and had a most unusual twist on it as well. When she was done I asked if I could pose her a couple of questions. She had anticipated that and was ready to respond to what she thought were going to be the stock question that many people pose to JWs, but I surprised her with completely different questions that she wasn't at all prepared for. So, she excused herself and said that she would be back next week. She was, but she still didn't have answers for my question. Rather, she returned to her prepared presentation that, in my opinion, twisted the mean of much of the scriptures on its head. And when I asked my questions again, she once again excused herself. A third time she returned, and this time I began with my same, as yet, unanswered questions. Her response this time was to tell me that she had "proved" from scripture the truth of what she was saying and that I was wrong to question it.

Now, how does this story apply to our forum? Namely that this woman had not proved anything to me, and frankly I doubt that anyone here (except perhaps Hiroshi) would have thought she "proved" anything either. Rather, what she had done was produced an argument for a particular set of beliefs, one that made sense to her, but not to me. Now, I don't doubt that in her own mind she was convinced that she had "proved" her point. The problem was that she was asserting to me that she had "proved" her case even while I was totally unconvinced. I see the same thing happening a great deal in this section of the forum.

When we use the words "proof" and "prove" when need to be aware that the one making the argument may be trying to prove something, may think that the argument is logical, it may even have historically been seen as logical and convincing to many, but unless it compels the mind of the present listener to accept one's assertions as true one has NOT proved anything. One has only made a series of assertions.

The criterion of something to be considered "proven" rests not in the one making the assertion, but in the one we are trying to convince. As that seldom happens, my suggestion is that we drop such terminology from our lexicon. It would certainly be more honest, and I think it might even help us to be tolerant of others who didn't and won't respond to our "proofs."

Peace Gene,

Quite interesting and true. You are correct whenever anybody uses the words prove or proof it automatically becomes a challenge and the topic becomes emotionally charged.

But it is also a paradox, as each of us wants to prove to others what we believe to be true. I think we feel we are not doing our job if we do not use the word proof, proven etc. It makes us to feel somewhat of coming short when we we do not present "PROOF"

Hopefully others will read your post and arrive at the conclusion to use the word Proof or any of it's derivatives, can have adverse effects if not used sparingly at only at the appropriate times.

 

[Sol Invictus]

We all need to accept the fact that in a debate between Muslims and Christians we are not in agreement over which books are true. In other words while to you the Bible is the true verification of the proof of your comments. We see the Bible as having no more validity as verification than the New York telephone book is. I believe you probably feel the same about the Qur'an while we accept it as the only verification of proof, I doubt very much you do. This does not mean that neither of us believes everything in the the other's source is wrong. but it does mean neither of us can or will accept the other's source as the True Complete Word of God(swt)

greetings woodrow. this debate does not even concern the truth of the bible. one does not need to believe in the truth of the bible in order to be able to understand what it teaches. i don't need to believe in the truth of the qur'an to understand what is being taught within the book. hamza had claimed that the bible did not teach blood atonement, clearly we have seen that it does. now the fact that blood atonement is taught in the bible has no bearing on whether its more fundamental claims are true or not just as the fact that that he qur'an describes christ as having spoken at birth has no bearing on whether this account is true or not. all we are discussing is whether the claim that blood atonement is taught in the bible is true or not. i do not need to accept the qur'an as the word of god to understand that it describes the islamic prophet as a messenger from the muslim deity and in the same way one need not accept the truth of the bible to understand that it teaches blood atonement. as such, i think that you have been misunderstanding the nature of the discussion.

It is actually impossible to disprove anything. Even if a person were able to disprove something it would not be proof that their conflicting belief is true. It is always our burden to prove what we say is true, not to prove what somebody else is false.

woodrow, i believe that both you and i would disagree with the above. if i went about the forum claiming that the qur'an did not teach muhammad's prophethood wouldn't muslims cite various passages from the book in question as a means of disproving my claims? would you not agree with the fact that they are then proving my argument to be false? i think that the error that is happening in the above is that you are supposing that i am asking you to prove a negative. that i am not. two contentions are being argued here (that the bible teaches blood atonement or that the bible doesn't teach blood atonement) and to prove one is to disprove the other and vice versa. by asking hamza to disprove my position i am merely asking him to prove his position, the difference is merely in semantics. as such, i think that your above comment was due to a misunderstanding and not really with an objection with my claims but you are certainly allowed to disagree on this matter.

In this case the burden of proof is upon you to prove you are right using what we accept as verification so your challenge is actually reversed and to be acceptable it is really a challenge for you to prove so the challenge is:


Sol, as regards the matter of whether sin is a debt or not, please prove your point from the debt motive within the language of the Qur'an or aHadith.

i think that in the process of this long discussion, the various subpoints which have led to this particular topic have been forgotten. woodrow, it is not my challenge to prove that the qur'an describes sin as a debt to god (though this argument could certainly be made) for the fact that this was never my claim. we were speaking concerning christianity and i said that "the bible describes sin as a debt". hamza then disagreed with this and as such neither the qur'an nor hadith need enter into this particular question because they have nothing to do with this. what business do i have trying to prove my position from the qur'an when my point concerned the bible and hamza disagreed not on the basis of the qur'an but on the bible. remember that in entering this thread i said that i would espouse the christian logic as it came to yahya's article. my post has always been centered on christianity (seeing as this very thread has always been centered on christianity) and therefore it would be very odd if i turned to the qur'an to prove my debt analogy (though i suppose that this could be done as a minor secondary point).

so, i must once again reiterate that i understand your post as a misunderstanding of the discussion and yet if it is the case that it was i who mistook your intentions, then you are more than welcome to correct me as concerns the point you were trying to get across.

edit: graceseeker, in this case the word proof is warranted. though i certainly do understand what you are trying to get at.