The Central Flaw of Christianity (another article)

[Sol Invictus]

Yes you are correct he did NOT teach in his blood atonement at all. In this verse it is clear that Jesus - in order to take them out of darkness into light,- incurred the wrath of the evildoers and was tortured by them; but it does NOT say or imply that his death was an atonement for the sins of others and that only those who believe in his blood would be forgiven. Again as i asked you in my previous post - Where does the verse state that? Clearly it does NOT.

So therefore those verses that you quoted CANNOT be used to prove your point at all for they do NOT say nor do they imply that Jesus taught or said anything about the fact that his blood was necessery for the atonement of the inherited sin of mankind. But the verses and the vast amount of proof i have provided from the Bible itself confirms without s shadow of a doubt that sin can ONLY to be forgiven by the mercy of God alone and NOT by God slaughtering his son by the hands of his own creations just to forgiven a sin that mankind never committed in the first place.

greetings hamza, the fact that you do not believe in the death of christ really makes me take the above with a grain of salt but let us actually look to see if your understanding is at all correct. do you even understand what christ meant by the word covenant and why he claimed that his blood was the blood of the new covenant. for this we have to go back to see how the mosaic covenant was ushered in:

3 When Moses went and told the people all the LORD’s words and laws, they responded with one voice, “Everything the LORD has said we will do.” 4 Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said.

He got up early the next morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain and set up twelve stone pillars representing the twelve tribes of Israel. 5 Then he sent young Israelite men, and they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed young bulls as fellowship offeringsa to the LORD. 6 Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and the other half he sprinkled on the altar. 7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, “We will do everything the LORD has said; we will obey.”

8 Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.” --- Exodus 24:3-8 NIV

notice that christ is recalling the above image to his disciples. just as the previous covenant was sealed in blood, so will the new covenant be sealed in his blood. this is why john the baptist calls christ the lamb of god that takes away the sins of the world (john 1:29) for just as god had said in the old testament:

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

in the same way will christ pay the final sacrifice with his own blood. hence why in isaiah 53 describes him like a lamb led to the slaughter (isaiah 53:7) and outrightly calls him a guilt offering (isaiah 53:10)---the very offering offered by the jews to gain forgiveness of sin. the above is why christ repeatedly predicts his death and resurrection and goes so far as to say that it is absolutely necessary:

23 Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 24 Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. [...] 27 “Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. 28 Father, glorify your name!” Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and will glorify it again.” 29 The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him. 30 Jesus said, “This voice was for your benefit, not mine. 31 Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. 32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” 33 He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die. — John 12:23-24, 27-33 NIV

notice what the crowd says after jesus claims that he's going to die for the world. they answer him with: The crowd spoke up, "We have heard from the Law that the Christ will remain forever, so how can you say, 'The Son of Man must be lifted up'? --- John 12:34 NIV

so his audience clearly understood him as predicting his death and as we have seen earlier, he spoke of his death as one which would reconcile the world to god. so your revisionism certainly does not make sense of the words of christ. and of course following the commandments would save the person because the very words of god spoke of the death of christ before it occured.

Sol i am not about to go through pages and pages of your interactions with Yahya. I said to you in my last post that this is now a discussion between me and you and not you and Yahya. It was you who was so eager to divert the topic in discussion and now i have agreed to do so.

Therefore start a point for discussion and we will let things flow from there.

certainly not pages and pages but rather only my post #95. this certainly is a discussion between you and me and i have shown how the islamic conception of forgiveness is faulty while having vindicated the christian conception. if you disagree with this, it is now your job to show how my post is at all wrong. look, i had asked you how the concept of original sin was at all relevant to what i had posted. in fact i repeatedly asked you to show this and you were unable to. time after time i simply asked you to quote my words and show how they all functioned under the premise of original sin and yet you were unable to do so. as such, if my post was not predicated on the matter of original sin at all, why then would i spend my time debating it when it wouldn't do anything for the posts that i had written. that said, you can however start a thread on the matter of original sin if you'd like to discuss this subject so badly.

i find it odd that until i had posted my refutation, pretty much all of the posts within this thread had to do with the article and now the muslim position is one which any talk of the article is being averted. what could have happened?

 

[IAmZamzam]

greetings yahya, for someone who keeps mentioning his ailing hands whenever the matter of continuing with our discussion comes up, those post of yours that you have graced us with would almost beg us to differ. anyway, you claim that i am side-stepping a relevant part of the argument and as such i would ask you how at all my posts are predicated on the concept of original sin? we should note that i have asked this before and have yet to receive a response on this question. can you begin to quote from my article and show how exactly the quoted portion only makes sense if we start with original sin as a foundation? notice how many times i have asked individuals in this thread to simply quote my posts that actually have to do with the this thread and then start attacking them? notice how there has yet to be such a post forthcoming?

once again, if you feel that my points are at all based on the doctrine of original sin, then please quote from my post and show how this is so. if however you fail to do this in your next post then i'd have to say that there you go again with making claims that you can't at all show to be the case.

now, if you thought your arguments to have been that great you would join me in encouraging the participants of this thread to get back to the main topic and yet strangely you have not done so but encouraged discussion that has nothing to do with the points i had brought forth to refute your claims. if you think that your argument and post are at all salvageable, will you then join me in asking for a return to such a discussion?

Sol is now resorting to cowardly tactic #3, and probably the most common and famous tactic of a cowardly and dishonest debater: twisting the other person's words and attacking the straw man in the hopes that the readers won't notice. But I'm going to show them so they have no choice but to notice. I said that original sin was the foundation of the doctrine in question, and to sidestep this he pretends (quite possibly on purpose) that I was saying it was the foundation of his arguments on the topic:

As it is the whole basis for the twisted notion of redemption that you're peddling, the very foundation, it couldn't possibly be more relevant!

Anyway, you claim that i am side-stepping a relevant part of the argument and as such i would ask you how at all my posts are predicated on the concept of original sin? we should note that i have asked this before and have yet to receive a response on this question. can you begin to quote from my article and show how exactly the quoted portion only makes sense if we start with original sin as a foundation?...Once again, if you feel that my points are at all based on the doctrine of original sin, then please quote from my post and show how this is so. if however you fail to do this in your next post then i'd have to say that there you go again with making claims that you can't at all show to be the case.

You’re already busted on this one. If you continue taunting me with claims of victory just because I’m not physiologically up to the task of writing two-then-three-then-four page posts and insinuating that I’m malingering, I just might have to call your bluff and bust you on the rest anyway, fingers be danged. You really are tempting me to injure myself out of indignation: is that something you want to be doing? Until then, by all means yes, the rest of you guys should focus, as Sol has foolishly suggested himself, on returning to the main subject on Christianity's defiance of both justice and reason with the crucifixion, as Hamza seems to have done the side-task of exposing the original sin's doctrine's doing the same very well.

 

[IAmZamzam]

i'm sure that both yahya and myself would very much like a showing of how i did not refute his claims.

I beg your pardon?? Is that how arrogant you are, that you think you can speak for me, and say that I'm desperate to see someone come rescue me from you?? Temptation level rising....

Show of hands: if any non-Christian here at the board--any at all, especially among the non-Muslim parties--thinks that Sol's "refutation" of my "claims" was effective in the least and necessitates a counter-argument lest my position end up looking bad in the end, let them make a post saying so. Anyone...?

 

[gmcbroom]

This is all very confusing. Are we discussing The central flaw of Christianity from a muslim standpoint or a christian one? When Hamnza uses the Koran to justify his position he is doing what he's taught from islamic thought is their taught the OT/NT scriptures were corrupted. As for christians trying trying to discuss the central flaw of christianity thats kind of a an oxymoron isn't it? As to be christian we have to believe in christianity and to help in that belief we use the OT and the NT and the teachings of the fathers. Christians wouldn't use the Koran as the Christian canon doesn't include it.

As for the concept of Sin christians and muslims have different views of it. Sin is intragal to christianity for if there was no Sin there would be no need to save us as we'd all be perfect and in the garden. As a christian I only know the christian view, of it I only know the muslim view is different because they say so.

Many may say that Sin doesn't exist. Yet, Sin is the easiest thing to prove. How? Well, just look at skinning a cat. There's just something wrong in doing it. But the more a person does it, the easier it becomes. The same could be said for adultery, lying, murder, stealing. It's ok to doubt me as I'm just a christian what do I know. Just ask any murderer, thief, adulterer, or liar. They'll tell you how the first time they did it was the hardest, and then it got easier. For christians at least, this is called Sin.

Note I'm not saying its not abhorrent or fair, just that it is. As for Original Sin. Christians believe in it and muslims don't, I know this.
No one likes to think of babies being condemned to hell it just feels wrong, and perhaps their not but that's under God's jurisidiction not ours. Yet, you could argue that babies are man at his most egostical. How? Easy, all they do is want, want, want; they don't listen to reason. If you argue with a baby you'll lose because their way is the only way. Babies from a psycological point of view are pure Id. So while we don't want to think of babies condemned to hell, if they aren't baptized they may go there. This is why some Christians practice infant baptism. Those that don't usually don't understand the consequences of it. Even though it's in the bible to perform infant baptism.

So Voila Sin. I didn't say we'd like it (in fact its ok if you dislike it) or its consequesnces but clearly its provable.

Peace be with you

 

[Sol Invictus]

I beg your pardon?? Is that how arrogant you are, that you think you can speak for me, and say that I'm desperate to see someone come rescue me from you?? Temptation level rising....

read my words again. i certainly do believe that i have refuted your claims but in the above i'm merely stressing the fact that this argument ought to return to a defense and/or rebuttal of the article that started this thread. are you seriously going to disagree with this?

You’re already busted on this one. If you continue taunting me with claims of victory just because I’m not physiologically up to the task of writing two-then-three-then-four page posts and insinuating that I’m malingering, I just might have to call your bluff and bust you on the rest anyway, fingers be danged. You really are tempting me to injure myself out of indignation: is that something you want to be doing? Until then, by all means yes, the rest of you guys should focus, as Sol has foolishly suggested himself, on returning to the main subject on Christianity's defiance of both justice and reason with the crucifixion, as Hamza seems to have done the side-task of exposing the original sin's doctrine's doing the same very well.

your claim was that the matter of original sin was relevant to my post. i disagreed yet gave you the option (as with any other participant in this thread) to actually quote from my post and show how my logic is predicated on the matter of original sin. so far neither you nor anyone else has done so. what i'm asking for is pretty simple. if my logic is predicated on the subject of original sin, why is it that you simply cannot quote for us the sections which only make sense when such a logic is appealed to. you keep wasting your precious health writing diatribe after diatribe when all you really need to show are the quotes from my post which are predicated on original sin. once again you're simply claiming things that you have not backed up. however, i certainly am glad that you have joined me in calling for a returned focus of my rebuttal towards you. this will certainly be entertaining.

(as it comes to original sin being the foundation of the doctrine for the atonement, i would disagree. you maintain that jews did not believe in original sin and yet they still went through with blood atonement so even if you now try to dodge the matter in such a manner you are still shown to be incorrect.)

 

[Ramadhan]

Oh... this is priceless... I think I'm going to use this quote often, is this christianity at its most salient?

No one likes to think of babies being condemned to hell it just feels wrong, and perhaps their not but that's under God's jurisidiction not ours. Yet, you could argue that babies are man at his most egostical. How? Easy, all they do is want, want, want; they don't listen to reason. If you argue with a baby you'll lose because their way is the only way. Babies from a psycological point of view are pure Id. So while we don't want to think of babies condemned to hell, if they aren't baptized they may go there. This is why some Christians practice infant baptism. Those that don't usually don't understand the consequences of it. Even though it's in the bible to perform infant baptism.

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

greetings hamza, the fact that you do not believe in the death of christ really makes me take the above with a grain of salt but let us actually look to see if your understanding is at all correct. do you even understand what christ meant by the word covenant and why he claimed that his blood was the blood of the new covenant. for this we have to go back to see how the mosaic covenant was ushered in:

3 When Moses went and told the people all the LORD’s words and laws, they responded with one voice, “Everything the LORD has said we will do.” 4 Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said.

He got up early the next morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain and set up twelve stone pillars representing the twelve tribes of Israel. 5 Then he sent young Israelite men, and they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed young bulls as fellowship offeringsa to the LORD. 6 Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and the other half he sprinkled on the altar. 7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, “We will do everything the LORD has said; we will obey.”

8 Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.” --- Exodus 24:3-8 NIV

notice that christ is recalling the above image to his disciples. just as the previous covenant was sealed in blood, so will the new covenant be sealed in his blood. this is why john the baptist calls christ the lamb of god that takes away the sins of the world (john 1:29) for just as god had said in the old testament:

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

in the same way will christ pay the final sacrifice with his own blood. hence why in isaiah 53 describes him like a lamb led to the slaughter (isaiah 53:7) and outrightly calls him a guilt offering (isaiah 53:10)---the very offering offered by the jews to gain forgiveness of sin. the above is why christ repeatedly predicts his death and resurrection and goes so far as to say that it is absolutely necessary:

23 Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 24 Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. [...] 27 “Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. 28 Father, glorify your name!” Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and will glorify it again.” 29 The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him. 30 Jesus said, “This voice was for your benefit, not mine. 31 Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. 32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” 33 He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die. — John 12:23-24, 27-33 NIV

notice what the crowd says after jesus claims that he's going to die for the world. they answer him with: The crowd spoke up, "We have heard from the Law that the Christ will remain forever, so how can you say, 'The Son of Man must be lifted up'? --- John 12:34 NIV

so his audience clearly understood him as predicting his death and as we have seen earlier, he spoke of his death as one which would reconcile the world to god. so your revisionism certainly does not make sense of the words of christ. and of course following the commandments would save the person because the very words of god spoke of the death of christ before it occured.

Greetings Sol,

The Bible CLEARLY rejects the doctrine of ‘atonement’. We are responsible for our own sins:

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deuteronomy 24:16)

http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Eze&chapter=18&verse=20&version=kjvThe soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. (Ezekiel 18:20)

http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jer&chapter=31&verse=30&version=kjvBut every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge. (Jeremiah 31:30)

Give them according to their deeds, and according to the wickedness of their endeavours: give them after the work of their hands; render to them their desert. (Psalms 28:4)

According to [their] deeds, accordingly he will repay, fury to his adversaries, recompence to his enemies; to the islands he will repay recompence. (Isaiah 59:18)

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jer/Jer025.html#14For many nations and great kings shall serve themselves of them also: and I will recompense them according to their deeds, and according to the works of their own hands. (Jeremiah 25:14)

For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. (Matthew 16:27)

7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams,
with ten thousand rivers of oil?
Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression,
the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?

8 He has showed you, O man, what is good.
And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God. (Micah 6:7-8)

You claim Jesus wanted to die for the world? Wrong he clearly did NOT wish to die on the cross. For, when he knew that his enemies were plotting against his life, he declared that his "soul was exceedingly sorrowful unto death", he asked his disciples to keep watch over him to protect him from his enemies and he prayed to God, "Abba, Father, all things are possible unto Thee; take away this cup from me; nevertheless not what 1 will, but what Thou wilt." (Mark 14:36)


Francis David by W.C Gannett correctly states concering the troubling and disturbing concept of blood atonement:

“The church`s God son who is supposed to have been born of the substance of God from the beginning of eternity is nowhere mentioned in the scriptures nor the God son who would be second person of the trinity descended from heaven and become flesh this is only human invention and superstition as such should be discarded.”

So again Sol NOWHERE is it explicitley mentioned ANYWHERE in the teachings of Jesus or the Bible of the blood atonement of Christ being necessery for the abolition of the "stain" of the original sin upon mankind.

Arthur Weigall rightfully puts the blood atonement of sin as:

“We can no longer accept the appalling theological doctrine that for some mystic reason a propitiatory sacrifice was necessary. It outrages either our conception of God as Almighty or else our conception of Him as All-Loving. The famous Dr. Cruden believed that for the purpose of this sacrifice ‘Christ suffered dreadful pains inflicted by God’, and this, of course, is a standpoint which nauseates the modern mind and which may well be termed a hideous doctrine, not unconnected with the sadistic tendencies of primitive human nature. Actually, it is of pagan origin, being, indeed, perhaps the most obvious relic of heathendom in the Faith”.

Just like the trinity and theotokas the blood atonement doctrine is a blasphemy against the justice of God. A very troubling, disturbing and cruel concept unfounded by the teachings of ANY prophet or Jesus not is it mentioned in the teachings of the Christian deity or the Bible.

How could the sacrifice of an innocent man wash off the sins of others? God Almighty is never unjust even in least degree, how this injustice and unkindness can ever be attributed to Him is unthinkable.

God Almighty is Absolute and Merciful enough to forgive the sins, even without sacrifices.


Ulfat Aziz- Us- Samad puts this dogma very well:

This dogma is not only a denial of the mercy of God but also of His justice. To demand the price of blood in order to forgive the sins of men is to show a complete lack of mercy, and to punish a man who is not guilty for the sins of others… We fail to see how the suffering and death of one man can wipe out the sins of others. It sounds something like the physician breaking his own head to cure the headache of his patients. The idea of substitutionary or vicarious sacrifice is illogical, meaningless and unjust.

I would like to conclude with Tom Harpers statement:

Perhaps I am lacking in piety or some basic instinct, but I know I am not alone in finding the idea of Jesus’ death as atonement for the sins of all humanity on one level bewildering and on the other morally repugnant. Jesus never to my knowledge said anything to indicate that forgiveness from God could only be granted after or because of the cross.

certainly not pages and pages but rather only my post #95. this certainly is a discussion between you and me and i have shown how the islamic conception of forgiveness is faulty while having vindicated the christian conception. if you disagree with this, it is now your job to show how my post is at all wrong. look, i had asked you how the concept of original sin was at all relevant to what i had posted. in fact i repeatedly asked you to show this and you were unable to. time after time i simply asked you to quote my words and show how they all functioned under the premise of original sin and yet you were unable to do so. as such, if my post was not predicated on the matter of original sin at all, why then would i spend my time debating it when it wouldn't do anything for the posts that i had written. that said, you can however start a thread on the matter of original sin if you'd like to discuss this subject so badly.

i find it odd that until i had posted my refutation, pretty much all of the posts within this thread had to do with the article and now the muslim position is one which any talk of the article is being averted. what could have happened?

I am not interested in any previous discussions or dialogues you have had as I have already mentioned this discussion is between you and me and is one where i want to start it from the beginning and build up the discussion from there.

I have already asked you more than once to start a point of discussion from where we can build our discussion upon but seeing as you are unwilling to do so then let me begin our discussion from here.

Firstly you state that your argument does not predicate towards the concept of the original sin. Then what does your argument actually predicate towards? Surely you are trying to prove your position using the Christian concept of sin then why are you implying that you are not? Why am i getting the impression that you want to avoid going towards a discussion on the Christian concept of sin?

Before we actually start our discussion i need you to first state your position in regards to the Christian concept of sin and then prove the Christian concept of sin using the teachings of Jesus and proof from the biblical scriptures. I will then do the same for the Islamic concept of sin and will prove it using the Qur'an and the actual words of God. From there we can build up our discussion.

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

No one likes to think of babies being condemned to hell it just feels wrong, and perhaps their not but that's under God's jurisidiction not ours. Yet, you could argue that babies are man at his most egostical. How? Easy, all they do is want, want, want; they don't listen to reason. If you argue with a baby you'll lose because their way is the only way. Babies from a psycological point of view are pure Id. So while we don't want to think of babies condemned to hell, if they aren't baptized they may go there. This is why some Christians practice infant baptism. Those that don't usually don't understand the consequences of it. Even though it's in the bible to perform infant baptism.

Greetings Gmcbroom,

I admire your honesty in being firm in your beliefs as a Christian in that ALL infants, babies and unborn babies who were not baptized being destined to burn in Hell FOREVER.

However my admiration of your honesty on this matter cannot be extended to Sol who has been consistantly dishonest about his beliefs and the fact that unborn babies, infants and children who are not baptized will inevitably burn in Hell forever.

Therefore it is clear that either he refuses to accept this belief or rejects the blood atonement of the original sin altogether.

 

[YusufNoor]

This is a conundrum... Jesus (p) was a baby too, right?

Also, what do christians mean when they swear or pray to "baby Jesus"? Was the baby already a God?

Is this a flaw in christianity?

well, according to gmcbroom they would have been praying to a baby that was going to hell! cuz according to the "gospels," he didn't get baptized till he was 30!

i think their god was very confused! he didn't know about sin, he's got people praying to people going to hell! what's next? their god suicides himself?

makes perfect sense...



if you're on medication!

 

[Ramadhan]

well, according to gmcbroom they would have been praying to a baby that was going to hell! cuz according to the "gospels," he didn't get baptized till he was 30!

Why did Jesus need to be baptized? Wasn't he, according to christians, already perfect and free from all sins?
makes no sense...

makes perfect sense... if you're on medication!

oh well.. I guess you are right

 

[IAmZamzam]

Your claim was that the matter of original sin was relevant to my post. i disagreed yet gave you the option (as with any other participant in this thread) to actually quote from my post and show how my logic is predicated on the matter of original sin. so far neither you nor anyone else has done so. what i'm asking for is pretty simple. if my logic is predicated on the subject of original sin, why is it that you simply cannot quote for us the sections which only make sense when such a logic is appealed to. you keep wasting your precious health writing diatribe after diatribe when all you really need to show are the quotes from my post which are predicated on original sin. once again you're simply claiming things that you have not backed up. however, i certainly am glad that you have joined me in calling for a returned focus of my rebuttal towards you. this will certainly be entertaining.

Amazing. Your response to my exposition of your straw man attack is simply to repeat it. Wow. My claim was not that the matter of original sin was "relevant to your post" but that it was the foundation of the atonement doctrine and since that's a faulty foundation the whole thing comes tumbling down. Who do you think you're fooling? Other than yourself?

As it comes to original sin being the foundation of the doctrine for the atonement, i would disagree. you maintain that jews did not believe in original sin and yet they still went through with blood atonement so even if you now try to dodge the matter in such a manner you are still shown to be incorrect.)

Either you're getting bolder still with your straw man attacks or you're getting me mixed up with Hamza. When did I say anything about that??

 

[Grace Seeker]

you say God did not possess the ability to forgive until he killed himself. it just sounds too loopy!

Actually we don't say this. God lives outside of time, so applying temporal phrase like "until" to him is what is loopy.

 

[Ramadhan]

Actually we don't say this. God lives outside of time, so applying temporal phrase like "until" to him is what is loopy.

But dear pastor, wasn't Jesus a historical figure, which means he was inside time, and hence God was inside time, well at least part of him.
oh dear, this is getting loopy.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Greetings Sol,

The Bible CLEARLY rejects the doctrine of ‘atonement’. We are responsible for our own sins:

greetings hamza, let's get straight to the point. clearly you don't understand the doctrine of the atonement, personal responsibility is not antithetical to it. for the jews quite clearly believed in blood atonement (unless of course in your bid to prove your inaccurate picture of what the bible actually teaches you will now deny that the jews ever conducted animal sacrifices?). if you claim that personal responsibility could not be had within the system of the atonement, can you please get to explaining this? the fact of the matter is that i have given you a passage in which atonement by blood is expressly taught and yet you merely ignore this and turn the question over to that of personal responsibility. now it is either that you don't understand the matter of atonement through blood or you are being willfully deceiving. could you show us how personal responsibility could not coexist with blood atonement? rather, could you ask your sources for this seeing as i'm not really debating with you in the first place? in hope of elaborating on this point, it must be said that even in the system of the atonement, god reserves the right to hold the individual accountable for their own sin and in fact what we find in the bible is the regular punishment of the individual for their own sins while the concept of blood atonement is also espoused. if your point were indeed correct then this could not be the case. furthermore, we have the very words of christ in which he claims that his death is for the forgiveness of sin and as such your point fails (but i'm still very much interested in how you can misunderstand the concept of blood atonement as denying personal responsibility while the bible is full of personal responsibility and the practise of blood atonement).

as to the individuals whom you quote in hopes of somehow proving your point, i would say that you have accomplished very little. i certainly could also quote various muslim individuals (so-called moderates and reformists) whom have a gripe with certain fundamentals of muslim teaching and yet you would not find this as adding any weight to my points. the hypocrisy is astounding.

Wow. My claim was not that the matter of original sin was "relevant to your post" but that it was the foundation of the atonement doctrine and since that's a faulty foundation the whole thing comes tumbling down.

As it comes to original sin being the foundation of the doctrine for the atonement, i would disagree. you maintain that jews did not believe in original sin and yet they still went through with blood atonement so even if you now try to dodge the matter in such a manner you are still shown to be incorrect.)

Either you're getting bolder still with your straw man attacks or you're getting me mixed up with Hamza. When did I say anything about that??

greetings yahya, your failure to grasp the argument has been duly noted. you claim that original sin is the basis for blood atonement and i have denied this. if your position was at all true, then the biblical jews who both muslims on this board here (and if this doesn't include you then i suppose that i was wrong) and present-day jews claim never believed in original sin in the first place could never themselves have engaged in blood atonement. yet both present-day jews and the bible are quite clear that they practised this very thing! so no, original sin is not the foundation of blood atonement, rather it is viewing sin as a debt which makes allowance for this (note: 'makes allowance' and not forms a basis. on that matter, original sin can't even said that it makes allowance for this either. it may perhaps reinforce the point but blood atonement cannot find its logical source in original sin). i'm sure i already said this in my rebuttal to your original post, have you not read my post carefully enough? anyway, once again you've shown us how little of the judeo-christian doctrine you really understand and if it is the case that you disagree with this then can you in your next post show us how blood atonement is predicated on the premise of original sin? if you fail to do so then once again you'll be guilty of claiming things which you do not back up (seriously, how many times is it now?). anyway, i'll be waiting for you to prove this claim of yours.

Firstly you state that your argument does not predicate towards the concept of the original sin. Then what does your argument actually predicate towards? Surely you are trying to prove your position using the Christian concept of sin then why are you implying that you are not? Why am i getting the impression that you want to avoid going towards a discussion on the Christian concept of sin?

Before we actually start our discussion i need you to first state your position in regards to the Christian concept of sin and then prove the Christian concept of sin using the teachings of Jesus and proof from the biblical scriptures. I will then do the same for the Islamic concept of sin and will prove it using the Qur'an and the actual words of God. From there we can build up our discussion.

hamza, have you at all been reading anything i've said. i had directed you to my post #95 and you have been avoiding it like the plague. now you ask me for my conception of sin which i expressly highlighted in my post #95? seriously, go read the post seeing as i have preemptively already answered your query. now as it comes to what we should discuss let me say something completely wild here: how about my post #95? you'll note that in coming to the discussion, i answered yahya's post. woodrow and yahya then both wrote responses to my post. i then wrote responses to their post. do you see the pattern here? in coming to this discussion and in wanting to engage me in a discussion it is on you to respond to my claims--seriously, the concept is not native to myself. it's common sense. now, will you respond to my post number 95 or not? in fact, you don't even have to touch anything that was expressly directed towards yahya. all you need to do is extract my basic argument concerning forgiveness (i.e. the payment of debt, the act of sinning against god being an infinite wrong etc.) and how the islamic conception is thus rendered substandard. it's very simple really.

 

[JPR]

Sol and Trumble are my heros of this message board. Special mention to Woodrow for being one of the most civilized poster / admin.

Don't sweat it guys, most muslims never read the Bible or only use parts/fragments out of context to prove their points yet are outraged if someone dares to use a verse from the Qu'ran that contradicts their point of view.

Maybe a quick idea for you Sol: break your points in smaller posts and just ask to be answered to one point, then maybe people will stop picking only the points to which they have answers.

I read everything that was posted from both sides and even though you might all say I'm biased, Sol's arguments are way more solid and actually touch on the subject as well as refute most muslims claims and his arguments against muslim's concept of God as explained by most people on the forum has not even come close to being answered satisfactly and has mostly been ignored or given very weak counter-arguments.

I am very disappointed by the argumentation coming from the muslim brothers as it brings nothing new to the table but more of the same *yawn* opinioning about what makes or makes no sense. Instead, try starting from the point that God is justice and cannot abide sin and evil. Starting from there, try to be consistent like Sol has been and explain how His justice cannot be escaped. Christianity is consistent through and through, now explain it using the Qu'ran.

Most of the argumentation I saw was something like "You claim that because God created everything, he created sin". I posit to you that it isn't true, it's the ABSENCE of God that is evil and results in sin, not Him creating it. God gave us the choice to either be with Him, or not (sinning / doing evil).

I'm not going any further into this thread and I won't reply to any post because I'm not trying to prove any point, I just wanted to put some ideas out there and maybe encourage the muslim brothers to really answer Sol without resorting to opinions (I clearly don't care about what so and so's opinions) or any misquotes of the Bible (which apparently is flawed anyways according to muslims, which is funny how muslims misquotes what they claim is already misquoted (-1--1=0?)).

Anyways, peace out!

 

[gmcbroom]

Naidamar,

I'll admit I didn't know what salient meant util I looked it up. But if you mean prominent then thank you for the compliment. If you mean jumping out then I don't see how that equates but thanks.

As for The baby Jesus question the answer is yes he was already God. The are a few New Testament scripture that point to it.

First as the most obvious is of course John Chapter 1 (1-5) where there was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God.

Then of course there is the Annunciation where Gabriel appears to Mary. Luke Chapter 1 -(28) Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.

also in Luke where an angel of the Lord appears to some sheperds to proclaim the good news. Chapter 2 -(11) "For today in the city of David a savior has been born for you who is Messiah and Lord.

And for the Jesus needing baptism, well in essense he didn't. and John the baptist knew this when he saw him. So much so that he tried to prevent him. Matthew Chapter 3 (14-15) "John tried to prevent him , saying,"I need to be baptized by you, and yet you are coming to me?" Jesus said to him in reply,"Allow it for now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness."

So if your a christian these all point to Jesus being God and recognized as such both as an infant and as an adult. Now some can and do argue that the baptism of Jesus is when he became God. Yet, they fail to see the other the above scriptures I referenced.

I trust the Jesus was God since the beginning as the Word. Now maybe he wasn't fully conscious of it until the Heavens opened up at the Baptism. However, he is God none the less.

I believe he sanctified all the waters of the earth when he was baptised. Thats why christians use water to baptise. However, that's just my humble opinion.

Peace be with you.

 

[YusufNoor]

Sol and Trumble are my heros of this message board. Special mention to Woodrow for being one of the most civilized poster / admin.

Don't sweat it guys, most muslims never read the Bible or only use parts/fragments out of context to prove their points yet are outraged if someone dares to use a verse from the Qu'ran that contradicts their point of view.

some of us have a great deal of knowledge about "the Bible," but i must agree with you that because we DON'T KNOW who wrote so much of it that we surely differ on context

Maybe a quick idea for you Sol: break your points in smaller posts and just ask to be answered to one point, then maybe people will stop picking only the points to which they have answers.

I read everything that was posted from both sides and even though you might all say I'm biased, Sol's arguments are way more solid and actually touch on the subject as well as refute most muslims claims and his arguments against muslim's concept of God as explained by most people on the forum has not even come close to being answered satisfactly and has mostly been ignored or given very weak counter-arguments.

I am very disappointed by the argumentation coming from the muslim brothers as it brings nothing new to the table but more of the same *yawn* opinioning about what makes or makes no sense. Instead, try starting from the point that God is justice and cannot abide sin and evil. Starting from there, try to be consistent like Sol has been and explain how His justice cannot be escaped. Christianity is consistent through and through, now explain it using the Qu'ran.

Most of the argumentation I saw was something like "You claim that because God created everything, he created sin". I posit to you that it isn't true, it's the ABSENCE of God that is evil and results in sin, not Him creating it. God gave us the choice to either be with Him, or not (sinning / doing evil).

it's funny, your book claims Jesus created EVERYTHING, and you disagree with you book. we also disagree with many things in your book.

I'm not going any further into this thread and I won't reply to any post because I'm not trying to prove any point,

thanks in advance for not wasting our time then

I just wanted to put some ideas out there and maybe encourage the muslim brothers to really answer Sol without resorting to opinions (I clearly don't care about what so and so's opinions) or any misquotes of the Bible (which apparently is flawed anyways according to muslims, which is funny how muslims misquotes what they claim is already misquoted (-1--1=0?)).

sorta like 1 + 1 + 1 = 1? i can see how you'd be easily confused

Anyways, peace out!

it's always kind of odd when a Christan comes here and A) has a problem with what Muslims think about some part of Christianity [you came here, we're not at your site]; B) doesn't want to hear any of our opinions! [um...you came here, we're not at your site];
C) cry that Muslims "misquote the Bible" and then try to imply or straight out claim that they know what the Qur'an says better than we do!

IF one of DID know the Qur'an or Islam better than we do, you could teach at a Mosque! i don't think that happens ANYWHERE, UNLESS said Christian realizes that Islam IS the Truth. but then, they aren't Christians anymore are they? SOME of us here ARE in that position!

we have more FORMER Christians than we have former Muslims. THAT should tell you something!

cheers

 

[M.I.A.]

so in my mind, a central flaw of christianity is that it differs from islam in that it says jesus pbuh is the begotten son of god swt.

i am probably really stupid because i googled it,

does the bible say jesus is the son of god?

and then i picked this page.. because i thought i needed an unbiased opinion.

http://www.********************/Who/jesus_monogenes.html

and then i thought i was even more stupid, because from what i could make out of it.. christianity is not as far from islam at i thought.

feel free to lough at me if i really am stupid but it did well to remove some ignorance,
sorry for being off topic but i had to share.. be harsh.

*the link is offensive but somebody really needs to read it mods please ask me for link, PM, read link and decide

now i really do feel stupid mg:

just to summarise, from what i can make out.. the author goes some way to saying that its just a bad translation of the word and use of monogenes (in the bible). i did not expect that would be the answer from such a site.. for people who did not get the joke in the post..which i have bolded just in case.

yup...still feeling stupid.

 

[gmcbroom]

YusufNoor,
Your right of course it is about opinions. Christians do have a problem with the muslims misrepresenting the trinity and then the same muslims using their trinity misrepresentation as justification of why their right when saying the trinity is flawed. Yet, the trinity to Christians is actually different than what the muslims believe.

In short its ok if you deny christianity. But, if your going to do it then atleast be knowledgable on what your denying. The fact that you have only the Koran saying its wrong as why its wrong and the trinitarian view represented in the Koran isn't even what Christians actually believe the trinity to be just makes the muslim denial more tragic. Note: Christians are not denying whats said in the Koran. We're denying what the Koranic view is concerning christianity. Because if the Koran is from God and the view from the Koran is flawed concerning christianity, that would mean the Koran is a fraud. That's where the problem lies in a nut shell. Its like the whole concept of abrogation. If an angel of God told Mohammed what to write and then later changed his mind concerning an earlier subject that already written concerning the same subject. Simply saying it was abrogated doesn't sound quite right. God wouldn't make that sort of error, humans do though all the time even today. This is the crux of the Christian argument. Especially after being told that there would be no more revelations and that if anyone whether angel or person were to say there was then that person isn't from God. You see the dilemia.

Peace be with you

 

[Grace Seeker]

<font color="red">The Bible CLEARLY rejects the doctrine of ‘atonement’. We are responsible for our own sins:

You understand I believe that there is a distinction in Christianity between an individual's sins and the larger concept of a SIN nature that all humanity is afflicted with. However, your response to gmcbroom post seems to have conflated the two ideas.