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

[Charlemagne_III]

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

Jesus, by dying on the cross, showed his love and mercy toward us. That’s what lifts us out of ourselves, our pride and arrogance, and brings us to the point of reaching toward his grace. Without showing us that he loved us enough to die for us, would we ever have been thankful and humble enough to acknowledge the gift of his love and let that love work its way into our hearts?

 

[Bahman]

Jesus, by dying on the cross, showed his love and mercy toward us. That’s what lifts us out of ourselves, our pride and arrogance, and brings us to the point of reaching toward his grace. Without showing us that he loved us enough to die for us, would we ever have been thankful and humble enough to acknowledge the gift of his love and let that love work its way into our hearts?

Yes, he could stay alive and sacrifice his life with his great teaching.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Yes, he could stay alive and sacrifice his life with his great teaching.

It is altogether more convincing to lay down your life for your friends.

I would only greatly admire a great teacher.

I would adore the Son of God who gave his life for me.

I would be such an ingrate not to.

 

[Contarini]

Yes, he could stay alive and sacrifice his life with his great teaching.

But without tasting death he couldn’t conquer it.

Jesus became one with us in the lowest depths of our human experience.

No amount of teaching could do that.

The world already had Buddha and the Dharma has still not yet fully decayed even today. Another Buddha wasn’t what was needed.

Edwin

 

[Counterpoint]

Counterpoint:

Originally Posted by Counterpoint View Post
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 9:2

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

Sure I do. Catholicism claims that the Bible is authoritative. So, you don’t have the luxury of rejecting what the Bible teaches concerning the sacrificial death of Christ.

 

[Counterpoint]

Counterpoint:

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:

I see. You agree with me that the biblical portrayal of a bloodthirsty God is intellectually and morally offensive.

 

[pablope]

Sure I do. Catholicism claims that the Bible is authoritative.

Solely, and by itself…no.

So, you don’t have the luxury of rejecting what the Bible teaches concerning the sacrificial death of Christ.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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

Did Jesus Himself talk about atonement anywhere?

John 6:51 - I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Luke 22:20 - Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup [is] the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Matthew 26:28 - For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Sure I do. Catholicism claims that the Bible is authoritative. So, you don’t have the luxury of rejecting what the Bible teaches concerning the sacrificial death of Christ.

The Bible is authoritative. But it’s being authoritative was conferred upon it by the Church.

The Bible did not create the Church. The Church created the Bible.

Interpretation of the Bible is also the authoritative right of the Church, not any Tom, Dick, or Harry.

 

[Contarini]

Sure I do. Catholicism claims that the Bible is authoritative. So, you don’t have the luxury of rejecting what the Bible teaches concerning the sacrificial death of Christ.

Catholicism also claims that the Church has the right and responsibility of interpreting Scripture. Private interpretation of Scripture is of no binding authority. And you’re not even a believer.

Again: you have no business telling me what Scripture means. Scripture-as-interpreted-by-a-random-guy-on-the-Internet is not binding on anyone.

I don’t reject the passages you cite. I don’t even know, really, what you suppose them to mean. You haven’t even tried to flesh out what you think they mean and why.

You think blood sacrifice is “primitive.” But why do you think “primitive” things are intellectually untenable? “Primitive” as an insult is pretty empty. It just means something people thought a long time ago. That makes it more, not less likely to be true.

Christians do not object to the sacrifices of Santeria because we think they are “primitive.” We object to them for two reasons:

1. They are offered to appease spirits, and some if not all of these spirits may be evil, making the sacrifices at best an occasion of increasing people’s fear of these spirits, and at worst a means of actually increasing their power; and
2. Jesus’ death on the cross ended blood sacrifice.

You’re arguing that because we believe Jesus’ death was the final sacrifice, we must believe that blood sacrifices should still continue; and because we believe in a sacrifice offered to (and by) the one true God, we must accept sacrifices offered to lesser beings.

This makes no sense. I think you need to practice some of that “critical thinking” of which you speak so highly.

Edwin

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Counterpoint

Yes, blood sacrifice is primitive.

It is also modern.

Christians today are willingly sacrificing their lives to witness Jesus Christ.

They are called martyrs.

Jesus was a martyr for us all. A martyr is a noble calling, not just primitive blood lust.

Murdering Christians, on the other hand, is primitive blood lust.

 

[tonyrey]

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

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

If everyone followed the teaching and example of Jesus there would be peace, harmony and happiness on this planet. His unselfish love and courage have inspired countless millions of people throughout the world - including non-Christians - to dedicate their lives to helping those neglected by society. His message that God is a loving Father is the basis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with its principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

 

[Counterpoint]

The letter to the Hebrews was intended to enlighten the Jews not encourage their primitive custom.

Perhaps I should remind you that the primitive custom of ritual sacrifices that the Jews performed were ordained by God (at least, according to the Old Testament).

 

[tonyrey]

I see. You agree with me that the biblical portrayal of a bloodthirsty God is intellectually and morally offensive.

On the contrary, even in the Old Testament the Biblical portrayal of God is based on the Decalogue:

In Roman Catholicism, Jesus freed Christians from Jewish religious law, but not from their obligation to keep the Ten Commandments.[62] They are to the moral order what the creation story is to the natural order.[62]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#cite_note-Kreeft-62

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church—the official exposition of the Catholic Church’s Christian beliefs—the Commandments are considered essential for spiritual good health and growth,[63] and serve as the basis for social justice.[64] Church teaching of the Commandments is largely based on the Old and New Testaments and the writings of the early Church Fathers.[65] In the New Testament, Jesus acknowledged their validity and instructed his disciples to go further, demanding a righteousness exceeding that of the scribes and Pharisees.[66] Summarized by Jesus into two “great commandments” that teach the love of God and love of neighbor,[67] they instruct individuals on their relationships with both.

• wikipedia

You have still failed to answer the question:

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

 

[Counterpoint]

You think blood sacrifice is “primitive.”

Yes, I do.

But why do you think “primitive” things are intellectually untenable? “Primitive” as an insult is pretty empty. It just means something people thought a long time ago. That makes it more, not less likely to be true.

Merriam-Webster defines “primitive” as “belonging to or characteristic of an early stage of development : crude, rudimentary.”

I consider ritual sacrifices to appease a deity or deities to be a primitive, crude, and rudimimentary form of religious practice. I do not believe that we have to appease a bloodthirsty God. Apparently, you do.

 

[Counterpoint]

On the contrary, even in the Old Testament the Biblical portrayal of God is based on the Decalogue:

Evidently, you have never read the Bible. Either that, or you are engaging in denial.

 

[tonyrey]

Perhaps I should remind you that the primitive custom of ritual sacrifices that the Jews performed were ordained by God (at least, according to the Old Testament).

Only Fundamentalists believe the entire Old Testament is literally true. It should be interpreted in the light of the teaching of Jesus that the Creator is a loving Father who wants “mercy not sacrifice”.

 

[Counterpoint]

Contarini has succeeded in derailing this thread. However, I must take some responsibility for this derailing because I responded to his request. At any rate, I will not comment any further on the ritual sacrifices as portrayed in the Bible or the sacrificial death of Christ. That’s a topic for another thread. And since the powers that be (the members of the forum’s inquisition) are placing a limit on the number of threads that I can create, that’s a topic that I am not at liberty to pursue at this time.

 

[tonyrey]

On the contrary, even in the Old Testament the Biblical portrayal of God is based on the Decalogue:

You are obviously failing to read what I write and cite (in addition to failing to answer my question):

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church—the official exposition of the Catholic Church’s Christian beliefs—the Commandments are considered essential for spiritual good health and growth,[63] and serve as the basis for social justice.

 

[tonyrey]

… And since the powers that be (the members of the forum’s inquisition) are placing a limit on the number of threads that I can create, that’s a topic that I am not at liberty to pursue at this time.

Your reference to “the forum’s inquisition” is not only discourteous but dishonest in its implicit demand for unlimited scope to attack Christian doctrine.