The Central Flaw of Christianity (another article)

[YieldedOne]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

Robert Ingersoll and he makes the following comments in Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 4, p. 266-67:
Christ, according to the faith, is the second person in the Trinity, the Father being the first and the Holy Ghost third.

Each of these persons is God. Christ is his own father and his own son. The Holy Ghost is neither father nor son, but both.

The son was begotten by the father, but existed before he was begotten--just the same before as after. Christ is just as old as his father, and the father is just as young as his son.

The Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and Son, but was equal to the Father and Son before he proceeded, that is to say, before he existed, but he is of the same age as the other two.

So it is declared that the Father is God, and the Son and the Holy Ghost God, and these three Gods make one God. According to the celestial multiplication table, once one is three, and three time one is one, and according to heavenly subtraction if we take two from three, three are left. The addition is equally peculiar: if we add two to one we have but one. Each one equal to himself and to the other two. Nothing ever was, nothing ever can be more perfectly idiotic and absurd than the dogma of the Trinity.

Christians are faced with a dilemma. The Bible says in the Old Testament, "I, even I, am the Lord; and besides me there is no savior" (Isa. 43:11). "Salvation belongeth unto the Lord . . ." (Psalms 3:8. "For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour . . ." (Isaiah 43:3).

According to the Old Testament, only God can be the Savior. In order for Jesus Christ to be the Savior, he must also be God.

Trinity advocates use:

"I and the Father are one" (John 10:30);

". . .he that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 17:22);

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God" (John 1"1);

". . . that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me and I in Him"

". . .he that hath seen me hath seen the Father. . ." (John 14:9)

". . .Holy Father keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are." John 17:11

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." Colossians 3:8,9.

The Bible has many more verses denying the Trinity than it has confirming it:

"Why callest me good? There is none good but one, that is God" (Matthew 19:17)

". . .for my Father is greater than I. . ." (John 14:28)

"My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me." (John 7:16)

"O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt." (Matthew 26:39)

"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46)

"But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." (Mark 13:32)

"Who has gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God" (Peter 3:22)

There are, of course, more scriptures. The passages quoted are a representative of the opposing concepts.

Here is the dilemma. Christians know that in order for Jesus to be the savior of mankind, he must also be God. The bible says so. If he is not God, then he cannot be the savior. His death would be meaningless. So Christians have invented the Trinity to explain Christ's divinity. He is man. He is God. He is both. He must be in order to be the savior. Unfortunately, he is ambivalent at best. Sometimes he claims to be one with God. Sometimes he admits God knows things which he doesn't know and does things which he cannot do. Christians go to nearly any length to prove the Trinity including the declaration that its a "mystery" and we "just don't have the mind to understand it". Is the bible the perfect, inerrant word of God? The Christian created Trinity doctrine and the contradictions which must accompany the doctrine sound a resounding "No"! So how did the Trinity doctrine/dogma come into existence?

The origins of the Trinity doctrine are appalling. Like most historic issues pertaining to Christianity, there was much deceit and bloodshed. Many lives were lost before 'Trinitarianism' was finally adopted.

As many Christians know, the word "trinity" does not appear in the Bible. It doesn't because it is a doctrine which evolved in early Christianity. It was a manipulated, bloody and deadly process before it finally arrived as an 'accepted' doctrine of the church.

 

[Grace Seeker]

I say the death row analogy is more apt, because the price being paid is not "giving some money to lift somebody out of poverty", it is the torture and death of an innocent person (Jesus) on the cross. And we are asked to accept that it is done in our name and praise that it was done for us, and that we stand to benefit from it.

Your description of the Christians understanding of salvation is more caricature than careful analysis. I take it you haven't seen this post that where I responded to a similar statement you made on another thread:

Since you are a reader, I bid you to read two helpful books on this subject:

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

Salvation and the Cross, by David A Brondos

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

 

[IAmZamzam]

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

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

 

[Fivesolas]

If the OP was done in good taste, I might have actually responded to it.

 

[Fivesolas]

I would also suggest that if someone wants to try to refute the doctrine of the Trinity, at least articulate it from a Christian source....Robert Ingersoll...really? lol

 

[IAmZamzam]

That is a pure ad hominem attack. It doesn't matter one whit who said it, only what was said.

 

[IAmZamzam]

If the OP was done in good taste, I might have actually responded to it.

What exactly qualifies as good taste? How does taste even enter into it? Would any exposure of the doctrine's nonsensical nature have been distasteful or is it the way I decided to put my exposure?

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

 

[IAmZamzam]

Pygoscelis, I just found this quote of yours in another thread:

I get to see how these believers think, and interact with them and clear up misunderstandings about them. I originally came here for this purpose, following the attack on 9/11. A lot of misinformation was going around at that time and I (and I think many others) came to boards such as this to clear them up. I have learned in my time on these boards (and also through in-person conversations with muslims) that much of it is indeed misinformation, including some of it that I didn't think was. I have also learned that some of what I expected was misinformation is in fact true.

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

 

[Fivesolas]

That is a pure ad hominem attack. It doesn't matter one whit who said it, only what was said.

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

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

 

[JPR]

And since he did this proactively and since his sacrifice can erase all sin, we should sin all we can, for the more we sin the more Jesus' sacrifice is worth. Jesus is the Lord. And therefore sin brings glory to the lord. Show me the flaw in that logic.

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

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

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

 

[Pygoscelis]

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

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

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

A few problems with this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JPR]

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

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

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

Cheers

 

[IAmZamzam]

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

 

[IAmZamzam]

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

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

It doesn't matter who makes an argument, only whether the argument itself is valid. According to you it would be more viable if someone else who wasn't an atheist said exactly the same thing, word for word. That doesn't make any sense. What makes it an ad hominem is that you are judging the argument itself by the person making it.

 

[Pygoscelis]

It is rare that Yahya and I agree about anything, but I agree fully with his last two posts. That's got to say something right there.

God never asked you to only believe in Him. The commandment was to "love Him".

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JPR]

JPR, it is precisely because I love God that I refuse to believe that He would ever require anything more than repentance, which you seem to acknowledge in your most recent post. You can't have it both ways.

To show us the cost of sin, like he asked the Jews in the OT to sacrifice something precious if they sinned. He showed everyone through Jesus and his life how He wanted us to act, and to what extant He loves us. He loves us! You, me, the whole world and He acted on it. That's basically how I see this, although I understand this vision is not at all shared by everyone. My question to you though would be: would you die for your son/daughter? If by dying you could save one person whom you love, would you sacrifice yourself?

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

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

 

[Pygoscelis]

would you die for your son/daughter? If by dying you could save one person whom you love, would you sacrifice yourself?

If he did, it would be superior moral act to what Jesus did, for all of the reasons noted in my post above regarding the rail way savior.

 

[Fivesolas]

It is rare that Yahya and I agree about anything, but I agree fully with his last two posts. That's got to say something right there.



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

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

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

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

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

I do not find it disturbing that God commands us what it right and good. I rather expect that. He is God, not me.

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

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

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

 

[Pygoscelis]

If you can demonstrate for us how our own interpretation of these Koranic verses about killing is not obviously true then by all means do so. Otherwise don't make believe that it isn't or that it doesn't matter. Truth always matters, especially when it comes to life or death issues.

It is clear that your interpretation is not obviously true. If it was obviously true, we'd all know it, not just your subset of muslims, and not just muslims. We'd ALL know it. We don't. Most of us (atheists, christians, hindus, buddhists, the other muslims, everybody else) dismiss it as religious belief. So even if it was true, it isn't obviously so.

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

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

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