The Central Flaw of Christianity (another article)

  • Thread starter Thread starter IAmZamzam
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 405
  • Views Views 47K
YieldedOne said:
Yo, Yahya Sulaiman.

Just gettin' your attention. After checking out your website, given in this thread, I saw your "The Koran's Challenge to Christians Who Believe in the Incarnation." I found it interesting and posted a response to it on the "Immortal/Mortal" thread.
Click to expand...

And I have posted my response to your response.

Quite possibly the only people who can engage in a religious debate without emotional feelings are atheists.
Click to expand...

Not virtually any of the atheists I've ever talked to about it! Nor virtually any on this board.
 
Woodrow:
If the Crucifixion redeemed mankind, of what value is baptism?

I can give this a brief go. And this is just MY take.

One thing that can be said is that baptism is a concrete participation in the "redemptive history" of what God did for Creation through Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. Paul seems to say as much: Through baptism, Christians put their old self/world-centered selves to death (dying to sin ala Christ's death)...and are raised to newness of life as God-centered persons via the Spirit (alive to God ala Jesus' resurrection). It's an act of identification with Christ that allows one to fully live in the covenantal "redemptive history".

Again, just my brief take. I'm more on the Incarnation right now. :shade:
 
Sol Invictus said:
did i not just quote this very post? did i not just show how your rebuttal towards it was to partially quote it? i showed you how you were proven wrong once the full quote is examined (with the part in brackets that you so conveniently left out). once again, i had refuted both ways of understanding the question but for some strange reason, you then only chose to quote the section which did not apply to the manner in which you posed/understood the question. so when i refute both ways that an individual could understand the question and then you isolate only the one that doesn't apply to you, i have then been deceiving? is this seriously what you're saying (let's not forget that i ahve explicitly told you to prove your point by using my full quote. you only used part of it and then have the audacity to imply that i have been lying)?
Click to expand...

You're lying right now, even as we speak. What you said just two posts ago or so was not anything about the full quote being "examined" nor how many ways anything has allegedly been done, but that the ENTIRE POST was a misattribution and not just the part at the end. This time I'm not sure if the others will even have to leave the page at all to catch you in this lie!

I'm still waiting for that screen capture of the two posts I linked to. But I guess that it's not coming since (a) you couldn't do it without exposing yourself, and (b) you have now shifted your ground yet again to pretend that you didn't just say the whole quote was attributed to the wrong person! It never ends. Nevertheless, the links speak for themselves. At the first you can see what you originally said and at the second you can see my quotation of it, keystroke for keystroke. The only step left is to scroll up here and see you claiming the whole post consisted of stuff you never said.
 
Last edited:
YieldedOne said:
Woodrow:
If the Crucifixion redeemed mankind, of what value is baptism?

I can give this a brief go. And this is just MY take.

One thing that can be said is that baptism is a concrete participation in the "redemptive history" of what God did for Creation through Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. Paul seems to say as much: Through baptism, Christians put their old self/world-centered selves to death (dying to sin ala Christ's death)...and are raised to newness of life as God-centered persons via the Spirit (alive to God ala Jesus' resurrection). It's an act of identification with Christ that allows one to fully live in the covenantal "redemptive history".

Again, just my brief take. I'm more on the Incarnation right now. :shade:
Click to expand...

Is it safe for me to assume that that you are essentially saying " Baptism is a means of identifying one's self as being a Christian, but it is not essential for salvation?"
 
Yahya Sulaiman said:
You're lying right now, even as we speak. What you said just two posts ago or so was not anything about the full quote being "examined" nor how many ways anything has allegedly been done, but that the ENTIRE POST was a misattribution and not just the part at the end. This time I'm not sure if the others will even have to leave the page at all to catch you in this lie!
Click to expand...
look at the screen shots i had posted. i had made an entire post (after i dealt with your other claims) which consisted only of your misattribution and then said "those words aren't mine". at this point it seems to me that you simply do not want to admit the truth.

Yahya Sulaiman said:
I'm still waiting for that screen capture of the two posts I linked to. But I guess that it's not coming since (a) you couldn't do it without exposing yourself, and (b) you have now shifted your ground yet again to pretend that you didn't just say the whole quote was attributed to the wrong person! It never ends. Nevertheless, the links speak for themselves. At the first you can see what you originally said and at the second you can see my quotation of it, keystroke for keystroke. The only step left is to scroll up here and see you claiming the whole post consisted of stuff you never said.
Click to expand...
dear lord. i'm not going to bother with screenshots but merely give you direct links to the posts:

1. this is your original post where you quote my request for you to prove your point (notice that i ask for your proof to consist of my full post):

http://www.islamicboard.com/showthread.php?t=134303456&p=1437346&viewfull=1#post1437346

notice that nowhere in your repsonse is my post actually quoted in full. you fail to quote the very section which refutes your argument.

2. this then is my response to your lack of proof:

http://www.islamicboard.com/showthread.php?t=134303456&p=1437350&viewfull=1#post1437350

notice that i quote my entire post and place the part which refuted your understanding of the question in bold! (this is the part that you have consistently failed to quote)

3. and then i make an entirely new post which only quotes your misattribution of me and say that "what you have tried to pass off as my words aren't even mine.":

http://www.islamicboard.com/showthread.php?t=134303456&p=1437358&viewfull=1#post1437358

and yet even after all of this, you claim that i'm still the liar. amazing.

yahya, i really do tire of this. we are far from the original topic and this discussion is on the level of children. let us get back on topic.
 
Woodrow:
Is it safe for me to assume that that you are essentially saying " Baptism is a means of identifying one's self as being a Christian, but it is not essential for salvation?"

Elements in both Eastern and Western Christianity allow for salvation outside of baptism, in so far as they say that God can save people outside of it, under various circumstances. They HAVE to allow for that, due to God's absolute freedom. Correlatively, they both sides assert that just because a person is baptized does NOT automatically insure their salvation. (Hence, even the Calvinistic idea of "perserverence of the saints" ) At the same time, the Church would say that baptism is the only way to fully participate in Christ's Body ecclessially.
"Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church" (G. Florovsky, "Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church", in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily ****ed? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: "How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!" (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a "visible" and an "invisible Church", yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say.
—Kallistos Ware (Eastern Orthodox Bishop)


The Roman Catholic Church also teaches that the doctrine does not mean that everyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily ****ed.
​
 
Last edited:
YieldedOne said:
Woodrow:
Is it safe for me to assume that that you are essentially saying " Baptism is a means of identifying one's self as being a Christian, but it is not essential for salvation?"

Elements in both Eastern and Western Christianity allow for salvation outside of baptism, in so far as they say that God can save people outside of it, under various circumstances. They HAVE to allow for that, due to God's absolute freedom. Correlatively, they both sides assert that just because a person is baptized does NOT automatically insure their salvation. (Hence, even the Calvinistic idea of "perserverence of the saints" ) At the same time, the Church would say that baptism is the only way to fully participate in Christ's Body ecclessially.
"Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church" (G. Florovsky, "Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church", in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily ****ed? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: "How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!" (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a "visible" and an "invisible Church", yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say.
—Kallistos Ware (Eastern Orthodox Bishop)


The Roman Catholic Church also teaches that the doctrine does not mean that everyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily ****ed.
​
Click to expand...


That all seems to be logical and makes sense. With that said does Baptism ever play any part in the removal of Original Sin?
 
Woodrow said:
I see more emotionalism than logic being expressed in about the last 5 pages. I do accept the fact that any debate concerning religion is going to evoke emotions among members of any faith. Quite possibly the only people who can engage in a religious debate without emotional feelings are atheists. With that said I am overlooking the past few pages and not doing a massive clean up by deleting the pages.

Now with that said let us all try to return to the topic on hand and fprget about any personal arguments that took place.

From what I see we had reached a point where a few somewhat related topics were being discussed those being:

1. The Crucifixion

2. Baptism

3. Blood atonement.

4. Original sin


In an attempt to direct this back to some sort of resemblance of order and the original topic I am tossing out this question:

If the Crucifixion redeemed mankind, of what value is baptism?
Click to expand...


I'll try to play along.


Despite understanding it as a means of grace, I don't really see it as being salvific in and of itself. But like prayer and communion, it is an ordinance of obedience, confirms our relationship with God and is a visual sign proclaiming what God has already done on the spiritual level.

This sign of God's actions is the primary way in which I see baptism as being connected with original sin. It is Christ that cleanses us of that sin, not baptism. What baptism is for us is a reminder through the action of sprinkling, pouring, or immersing with water of God's saving acts. It therefore isn't ever the water that saves one, nor even human decision, but the actions of God that lay behind the physical sign.

Baptism also becomes a sign of entry into the faith community that is defined by Christ. So, it serves as a corporate link of connectivity between the members of the community and a testimony speaking to all of the activity of God which has brought them into that community of faith.

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

Now, a word to Yahya and Sol, Woodrow has tried to get this thread back on track. Yielded and I have tried to join in and respect that. We know that you have issues with one another. But you keep returning to the old issues. Yes, it is hard to let go, but if you can't let it go, at least respect Woodrow and the rest of us and take it elsewhere. My prayer for you both is that you may spend eternity engaged in exactly the sort of conversation that your next post reflects.
 
Last edited:
Grace Seeker said:
I'll try to play along.


Despite understanding it as a means of grace, I don't really see it as being salvific in and of itself. But like prayer and communion, it is an ordinance of obedience, confirms our relationship with God and is a visual sign proclaiming what God has already done on the spiritual level.
Click to expand...

That makes sense. In your opinion do you think it is necessary for the removal of original sin?
 
Woodrow:
With that said does Baptism ever play any part in the removal of Original Sin?

In my opinion, that question becomes merely academic if it is admitted by both East and West that the presence of baptism doesn't necessarily ensure salvation and its absence doesn't necessarily preclude salvation. A baby that was baptized as an infant in the Roman Catholic Church could still end up NOT being saved...whereas a baby that was NEVER baptized may be saved. Sooo...whence the issue about the removal of original sin? It's continual participation in the life of the Spirit of God--and the accompanying conquest of the "law of sin and death" BY that Spirit--that is the crucial factor.
 
Woodrow said:
That makes sense. In your opinion do you think it is necessary for the removal of original sin?
Click to expand...

Sure, because any sort of sin can separate us from God. But Christ's death on the cross has already accomplished that (that being the removal of original sin). The power of sin to enslave has been broken for all of us, believer and unbeliever. All that baptism does in that regard is express the faith of the person that the work of Christ is indeed true and efficacious. Again, it is the work of Christ that is efficacious, not baptism proper. So, if sin does continue to enslave a person now, it isn't because sin won the battle, but because with the victory already secured by Christ we still chose to surrendered to it.
 
Last edited:
Sol Invictus said:
look at the screen shots i had posted. i had made an entire post (after i dealt with your other claims) which consisted only of your misattribution and then said "those words aren't mine". at this point it seems to me that you simply do not want to admit the truth.


dear lord. i'm not going to bother with screenshots but merely give you direct links to the posts:

1. this is your original post where you quote my request for you to prove your point (notice that i ask for your proof to consist of my full post):

http://www.islamicboard.com/showthread.php?t=134303456&p=1437346&viewfull=1#post1437346

notice that nowhere in your repsonse is my post actually quoted in full. you fail to quote the very section which refutes your argument.

2. this then is my response to your lack of proof:

http://www.islamicboard.com/showthread.php?t=134303456&p=1437350&viewfull=1#post1437350

notice that i quote my entire post and place the part which refuted your understanding of the question in bold! (this is the part that you have consistently failed to quote)

3. and then i make an entirely new post which only quotes your misattribution of me and say that "what you have tried to pass off as my words aren't even mine.":

http://www.islamicboard.com/showthread.php?t=134303456&p=1437358&viewfull=1#post1437358

and yet even after all of this, you claim that i'm still the liar. amazing.
Click to expand...

The situation is very amazing indeed, but not for the reasons you think. You're incorrigible. If you can't get away with fabricating that every single part of my post, instead of just the one little part at the end, was a misattribution of other people's words then instead you dodge the issue by pretending that you weren't saying it was the whole post in the first place (you wouldn't dare show screen shots of that!):

made an entire separate post to deal with your misattribution and as such i could in fact say, those words weren't mine because the entire post which i was responding to constituted of words you tried to pass off as my own.
Click to expand...

There was absolutely no post of mine whatsoever that is one long misattribution from start to finish, and everyone is free to look; indeed, I encourage it!

As for my "consistently failing to quote" the Isaiah thing, I just addressed it about two posts ago! People won't even have to leave the page this time to see you're lying and evading! (EDIT: Okay, I now see that they will have to go one page back....) But just for the sake of sparing them a few seconds, here it is AGAIN:

this is amazing. were these not your words?: "He asked for examples from PREVIOUS prophets, you ignored this and provided only quotes from CONTEMPORARY AND/OR SUBSEQUENT WRITERS"

No, he didn't. He said UNEQUIVOCAL ones. Show me where the words "Jesus" or "Messiah" pops up in Isaiah 53.
Click to expand...

Awfully safe bet to expect people to overlook or fail to remember the "unequivocal" part, ain't it? I do believe that's the closest to a convincing pretense you've yet made.

It seems no matter what I say, you always react the same way: by (a) pretending that you didn't say what I was speaking of when anyone who bothers to click on one single link can see that you did--and the one time that you happen to be right about that you still foul it up by exaggerating and claiming more misattribution than there actually was! It's as though you're determined to be as unconvincing a liar as you possibly can--(b) pretending as well that I never said something I just said a few posts ago, or a few pages at the very most, and (c) always attaching the utterly inevitable addendum that you have been repeatedly challenging me for information you haven't even mentioned before and the posts of mine you are claiming don't exist have just been dancing all around questions you've never asked. It's as though you believe that merely saying you've been asking me the same thing repeatedly will make people think that it is so and that you are the obvious victor.

yahya, i really do tire of this. we are far from the original topic and this discussion is on the level of children. let us get back on topic.
Click to expand...

I promise you that there's no way you can be anywhere near as tired of it as you are. I'm about ready to pull my hair out at your constant and supremely redundant and contradictory fabrications. For heaven's sake, man, if you're going to lie then at least pick a story and stick with it! But yes, feel free to slink away now that I've shown for the nine hundredth time with a few simple links just how shamelessly you're making things up.
 
Last edited:
Grace Seeker said:
Sure, because any sort of sin can separate us from God. But Christ's death on the cross has already accomplished that. The power of sin to enslave has been broken for all of us, believer and unbeliever. All that baptism does in that regard is express the faith of the person that the work of Christ is indeed true and efficacious. Again, it is the work of Christ that is efficacious, not baptism proper. So, if sin does continue to enslave a person now, it isn't because sin won the battle, but because with the victory already secured by Christ we still chose to surrendered to it.
Click to expand...

First of all Thank you for the friendly replies. I know you and I have fundamental differences in beliefs, but it is good to know differences can be discussed without the need for body armor or hand grenades. I do appreciate reading your view.

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?
 
YieldedOne said:
I'm missin' your response you said you made, Yahya. Technical issue, maybe? Can you repost it?​
Click to expand...

That's weird, where did it go??? I could've sworn the computer told me it was up! Well I don't want to have to bother retyping the whole thing and I've already done way more typing today than is good for me so I'll just sum up (my apologies for whatever in the holy h might have happened): the question is whether or not the "Father" could utterly annihilate the "Son"--not just his body but everything that he is.
 
Woodrow said:
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?
Click to expand...

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

What would be the first sin ever made according to the Bible? Eve followed by Adam when they disobeyed God's command. What was the consequence? removal from Eden and God's presence. Although I don't think we are born with sin, we surely are all sinners by default. It's deep in our genes, I mean, if I tell you the first law I'll make is to not think about a red hammer, the first thing you'll probably be thinking is a red hammer, not because you want to piss me off and break my law but because we're all hardwired that way.

If you ask any young kid between 5 and 9 years old, give or take, what they wish for, most of them will answer you something as happiness for everyone, world peace, etc... anything for the greater good of mankind. Yet, as they become older, they slowly start to wish for themselves and less for others. It's like that for everyone. We're all slowly drifting away from God's goal, from His presence.

I can make an analogy with my own life and Adam's: I was born close to God's presence, but I chose to disobey because it felt rewarding at the moment. We're all finite beings so we all want and search for easy pleasures now that contradict God's law. We're all Adams and Eves on our own falling away from God. That's the danger of what you would call Original Sin. You might also think of it this way: if death sentence was mandatory for any of the 10 commandments broken and God decided to enforce it right now, this moment, how many people would die this instant? (it's a rhetorical question just to get you thinking about the seriousness and the universality of sin)

As for when one should get baptized for salvation, how kids get into this is complicated matters. I'm no doctor of theology but my guess is that when the person is ready, God is waiting. Some people have said that when you are able to discern good vs bad, it is a good time. It took me 28 years.

Every single human being has sinned, sins, and will sin, not counting Jesus of course. Don't know if that's "Original" enough for you. Hehe, just made a pun. Doubly original, whabam!

Anyone is welcome to add or substract from what I said.
 
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). that said, we have spent an awful long time discussing this subject and at this point i must wonder, 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?

the reader should note the manner in which any attempt to truly engage my argument has been avoided so far.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Grace Seekers post number 269 of this thread. About baptism being an ecclesial entry into the the faith community of Christ. That also makes sense since in Acts 19:15 an evil spirit possesing someone told a few jewish exorcists how he recognized Jesus and knew Paul but didn't know the jews that came to exorcise it.

Also in an earlier chapter 10 (44-49) its reinforced by Peter when he said how can anyone withhold the water for baptizing who have received the Holy Spirit even as they had. The he ordered their baptism and they welcomed him to stay with them a few days.

Now if one wanted to attack the idea of baptism they could reference the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ as that differs from what Jesus said in Matthew 28:19 to baptise them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

This is also where the formulation of the Trinity comes into play. Though your right Trinity isn't stated directly in the New Testament is can be implied from these 2 references. This is why there are Trinitarian Christians and Unitarian Christians.

Peace be with you.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top