The Dilemma: the Christian Conception of Jesus vs. the Muslim Conception of Jesus

[Contarini]

I have already explained why.

No. You haven’t. You posted two Wikipedia articles.

Explain in your own words the major problems you have with Christianity. Why is it intellectually untenable? Of course you won’t be able to list everything. Just give a few of the leading points.

Or don’t. Again, you can walk away from the conversation at any time. But I and others are willing to engage with you if you really want to have an honest conversation about truth. I’m just describing the kind of conversation that would be real, instead of the silly farce you tried to play in the OP.

Edwin

 

[Counterpoint]

Explain in your own words the major problems you have with Christianity. Why is it intellectually untenable? Of course you won’t be able to list everything. Just give a few of the leading points.

I’ll give you one - the atonement of Christ. It’s completely unintelligible, even according to Paul.

“But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness” 1 Corinthians 1:23

 

[Contarini]

I’ll give you one - the atonement of Christ. It’s completely unintelligible, even according to Paul.

“But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness” 1 Corinthians 1:23

What do you imagine the Atonement to mean?

The Cross was foolishness to the Greeks because it messed up their categories and presented a crucified criminal as the Divine in human form.

The fact that people think a thing is foolishness doesn’t make it intellectually untenable. The people in question may have a limited point of view.

The death of Jesus on the Cross is the central reality of the universe for me. It explains everything. It is the most intellectually satisfying reality I know, precisely because it changes how we think about the world.

Jesus defeated death by death. Since Jesus was God in the flesh, taking on our suffering and death as a human being meant that it no longer had power over us. I guess if you don’t like paradox you don’t like this. But there is nothing at all “untenable” about it.

Edwin

 

[Counterpoint]

What do you imagine the Atonement to mean?

Merriam-Webster defines “atonement” as “reparation for an offense or injury : satisfaction.”

The idea that a human being must be sacrificed to appease a bloodthirsty God is primitive.

 

[orang]

Merriam-Webster defines “atonement” as “reparation for an offense or injury : satisfaction.”

The idea that a human being must be sacrificed to appease a bloodthirsty God is primitive.

If a brother or father stands , stands in the way of a vehicle for the family member and gets crushed to piece’s, whats that got to do with calling the father or brother blood thirsty ?. Anyway this is life, yuh want to eliminate the concept of hero ? explaining is required …good luck on that one.

 

[tonyrey]

I’ll give you one - the atonement of Christ. It’s completely unintelligible, even according to Paul.

“But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness” 1 Corinthians 1:23

So you believe it is a complete waste of time and energy to sacrifice your life so that others are liberated from their ignorance, weakness, indifference and selfishness?

 

[Bahman]

If a brother or father stands , stands in the way of a vehicle for the family member and gets crushed to piece’s, whats that got to do with calling the father or brother blood thirsty ?. Anyway this is life, yuh want to eliminate the concept of hero ? explaining is required …good luck on that one.

Commit a sin to clean a sin? This seems illogical to me especially when it comes to God. Moreover God died but he was resurrected so what is the sacrifice?

 

[Pancras]

No. You haven’t. You posted two Wikipedia articles.

Explain in your own words the major problems you have with Christianity. Why is it intellectually untenable? Of course you won’t be able to list everything. Just give a few of the leading points.

Or don’t. Again, you can walk away from the conversation at any time. But I and others are willing to engage with you if you really want to have an honest conversation about truth.

I’m just describing the kind of conversation that would be real, instead of the silly farce you tried to play in the OP.

Edwin

Thank you for this observation, Contarini. I had been reading the thread and thought I should wait to see what others have to say first. I’m glad to see that I wasn’t the only one to notice the “silly farce… in the OP.”

Catholics can be humble, and nice, and charitable and forgiving, but here is a clue, when non-Catholics pretend to have honest questions when they really are just playing your graciousness as if it is a weakness, and taking you for a ride, and abusing your good will, then there comes a time when justice demands that you put a stop to the farce, and call it out for what it is. Dialogue can be useful, provided that everyone is at least capable of recognizing the truth when they see it. There is no one so blind, however, as he who simply refuses to see.
.

 

[Servant19]

Atonement is critical, of course, if it was proven that there was something to atone for.

Did Jesus Himself talk about atonement anywhere?

Anyway, in regards to the Christian Jesus or the Muslim Jesus, why does it matter to you which is true? How would that impact your life, and why is it an either/or situation? Have considered other expositions on the station of Jesus?



.

 

[orang]

Commit a sin to clean a sin? This seems illogical to me especially when it comes to God. Moreover God died but he was resurrected so what is the sacrifice?

Well, until someone has walked in your shoes they really can’t fully understand a person So God reached out to man for a good relationship where understandings are possible.

 

[Contarini]

Merriam-Webster defines “atonement” as “reparation for an offense or injury : satisfaction.”

The idea that a human being must be sacrificed to appease a bloodthirsty God is primitive.

I see. You don’t actually know anything about Christian theology of the atonement, so you go to a regular dictionary?

Please. Your methods of discussion are so childish and superficial that it’s frustrating to try to have any kind of substantive dialogue with you.

The idea of reparation is there in the Catholic theology of redemption (“atonement” is really not the most complete way of describing it), but it’s just part of the picture. Sections 599-623 of the Catechism summarize the Catholic position here.

Now why would we speak of “reparation”? Because sin separates us from God. If God is good, then when we sin we are no longer in communion with God. And because God made us free, God can’t simply overcome that alienation by a decree, or He’d be overriding our freedom. Something has to be done on our side to overcome the moral and spiritual gap between ourselves and God. But since we are sinners, we can’t do that ourselves. So God became human, and as a sinless human being offered Himself in perfect obedience to the Father. (God did not legally pretend that Jesus was a sinner and punish him in our place, as some Protestants claim. That’s not the Catholic view.)

Personally, I don’t like the word “reparation,” precisely because it can be interpreted the way you do. But I don’t pick the vocabulary. The concept being expressed is certainly intellectually tenable.

Edwin

 

[Counterpoint]

If a brother or father stands , stands in the way of a vehicle for the family member and gets crushed to piece’s, whats that got to do with calling the father or brother blood thirsty ?. Anyway this is life, yuh want to eliminate the concept of hero ? explaining is required …good luck on that one.

I’m afraid you simply don’t have the luxury of ignoring what the Bible says about the sacrificial death of Christ.

“And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.” Hebrews 9:22

 

[Counterpoint]

So you believe it is a complete waste of time and energy to sacrifice your life so that others are liberated from their ignorance, weakness, indifference and selfishness?

I find the idea that an animal or human being must be sacrificed to appease a bloodthirsty God to be a primitive one. Apparently, you don’t. And since you don’t, then you should have no problem with the ritual sacrifices that are performed in other religions (e.g. the ritual sacrifices performed in Santeria).

 

[Counterpoint]

Atonement is critical, of course, if it was proven that there was something to atone for.

Did Jesus Himself talk about atonement anywhere?

Anyway, in regards to the Christian Jesus or the Muslim Jesus, why does it matter to you which is true? How would that impact your life, and why is it an either/or situation? Have considered other expositions on the station of Jesus?

Well, Contarini decided to derail this thread.

 

[Counterpoint]

I see. You don’t actually know anything about Christian theology of the atonement, so you go to a regular dictionary?

Please. Your methods of discussion are so childish and superficial that it’s frustrating to try to have any kind of substantive dialogue with you.

The idea of reparation is there in the Catholic theology of redemption (“atonement” is really not the most complete way of describing it), but it’s just part of the picture. Sections 599-623 of the Catechism summarize the Catholic position here.

Now why would we speak of “reparation”? Because sin separates us from God. If God is good, then when we sin we are no longer in communion with God. And because God made us free, God can’t simply overcome that alienation by a decree, or He’d be overriding our freedom. Something has to be done on our side to overcome the moral and spiritual gap between ourselves and God. But since we are sinners, we can’t do that ourselves. So God became human, and as a sinless human being offered Himself in perfect obedience to the Father. (God did not legally pretend that Jesus was a sinner and punish him in our place, as some Protestants claim. That’s not the Catholic view.)

Personally, I don’t like the word “reparation,” precisely because it can be interpreted the way you do. But I don’t pick the vocabulary. The concept being expressed is certainly intellectually tenable.

The Bible is very clear on this issue even though you are trying to obfuscate it. The God of the Bible is a bloodthirsty God and demands the shedding of blood for the remission of sin.

“For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” Hebrews 9:13-14

“And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.” Hebrews 9:22

 

[tonyrey]

I find the idea that an animal or human being must be sacrificed to appease a bloodthirsty God to be a primitive one. Apparently, you don’t. And since you don’t, then you should have no problem with the ritual sacrifices that are performed in other religions (e.g. the ritual sacrifices performed in Santeria).

Your distorted view of the Redemption reflects your cynicism and you have evaded the question:

Do you believe it is a complete waste of time and energy to sacrifice your life so that others are liberated from their ignorance, weakness, indifference and selfishness?

 

[Contarini]

I’m afraid you simply don’t have the luxury of ignoring what the Bible says about the sacrificial death of Christ.

“And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.” Hebrews 9:22

You have no business telling Christians what they “have the luxury” to do or not to do.

It’s our faith, not yours.

If you want to reject some caricature of Christianity you have created in your own head, do so. You will be in agreement with us–we all agree that your caricature is false. If you want to reject certain understandings of Christianity (such as the fundamentalist version), again, do so, and many Christians will agree with you.

But you have no business telling Christians what we should believe.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The Bible is very clear on this issue even though you are trying to obfuscate it. The God of the Bible is a bloodthirsty God and demands the shedding of blood for the remission of sin.

“For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” Hebrews 9:13-14

“And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.” Hebrews 9:22

I accept the things you have quoted as true, but I question your right to interpret them for Christians.

I have cited the passage from the Catechism explaining what Catholics believe.

I agree that the thread is off topic–the original topic was a fake one and not worthy of discussion. I would suggest that the moderators had better close the thread, and we can start another one on the rationality of the atonement if you really want to engage in this discussion. Or, as I’ve said several times, you can just walk away and accept that you haven’t been able to bait us.

Edwin

 

[Bahman]

Your distorted view of the Redemption reflects your cynicism and you have evaded the question:

Do you believe it is a complete waste of time and energy to sacrifice your life so that others are liberated from their ignorance, weakness, indifference and selfishness?

How about people responsibility toward their ignorances, weaknesses…? How dieing on cross could resolve people ignorance, weakness…?

 

[tonyrey]

The Bible is very clear on this issue even though you are trying to obfuscate it. The God of the Bible is a bloodthirsty God and demands the shedding of blood for the remission of sin.

“For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” Hebrews 9:13-14

“And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.” Hebrews 9:22

You have ignored the word “if” in a vain attempt to justify your distortion of the meaning of the Redemption. St Paul was well aware that Jesus had quoted the prophet Hosea:

Then he added, “Now go and learn the meaning of this Scripture: ‘I want you to show mercy, not offer sacrifices.’ For I have come to call not those who think they are righteous, but those who know they are sinners.”

The letter to the Hebrews was intended to enlighten the Jews not encourage their primitive custom. Jesus Himself said:

"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down **his life **for the sheep…

Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends."

His sacrifice was not inflicted by the Father as you make out but inspired by love and compassion for humanity with our blood-stained history of violence, injustice and the lust for power that have caused so much needless misery and suffering. There is only one answer to war, conflict and the vortex of evil…