The fallacy of Jesus dying for our sins (By Shabir Ally)

[Britedream]

Just wait , and you will see what i am refering to is entirely different,some of it you can Actually test your self

 

[Britedream]

I have problems with all of them (peace is given to them all).. But, prophecy isn't unique to Muhammed, or Moses, or Jesus. We have prophecies being 'fulfilled' in almost every religion. We also have world phenomena and scientific insight from many other religions, and non religious people as well. None of these have been completely accurate. We also have people who believe in Bible codes, which apparently predicted events like 9/11, the US financial collapse, and the invention of airplanes. We have tribes in Africa with knowledge of star systems millions of lightyears away, and Egyptian pyramids that confound modern architects. None of this is unique to Islam, or the Greeks, or the Mayans, or the Egyptians, or Africans, or Chinese, or Japanese, or anywhere else. So if you accept the proofs of Islam, you should also accept the proofs of every other religion and people.

Please pass the introduction to the lecture, here is the link

[youtube]86WwE22gZdQ[/youtube]
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=86WwE22gZdQ

 

[sojourner]

You are infact discrediting your own religion, you can only claim your religion through the books in your hand; which not according to Jasus (pbuh), but on hear say. if discredit books for a prove, then you have no religion, if you approve the same methodlogy, then islam stands on solid ground.

This right here ^^^ is a very good example of what I'm talking about. You don't know the first thing about Christianity, yet you deign to dictate Christian theology to us. In fact, Christianity isn't a revealed religion, it's a relational religion. We claim Christianity through the relationships we form with other Christians, with Christ, with the church Fathers, the apostles, and the Tradition (of which the bible is only part. There was no bible for the first 450 years of the Church, so the Church cannot, by definition, be "known through the bible."

 

[sojourner]

if you say Jesus die, God is one, and he is your God, then who brought him to life, or you are worshing a dead God.

You have absolutely no idea what you're arguing. It's obvious you know nothing about Christian theology. Your point here isn't worth addressing, because it's theologically vapid.

 

[sojourner]

[youtube]B4kKoV_uDts[/youtube]

This is a short 5 minute clip but it explains the major issues in the concept of Jesus being the sacrifice for mankind.

The death of Jesus to me is one of the most cruel acts one can do. To send your son and die for the sins of your previous children which were a result of the parent is truly one of the most illogical and absurd stories I have heard of.

What are your opinions on Jesus'es dying for mankind's sins?

The video smacks of proselytization, too. Based upon a straw man argument.

What the heck???

 

[sojourner]

Jesus supposed death for our sins makes no sense to me. If Jesus died for our sins, he sacrificed nothing because he lost nothing. Pain and suffering become trivial when you're immortal. So really what did Jesus lose when he died? The christian god really couldn't come up with a better way to forgive himself than to sacrifice his son(or himself, depending on which denomination) to himself?

Perhaps if you understood something of Christian theology, it would make more sense to you.

 

[Britedream]

This right here ^^^ is a very good example of what I'm talking about. You don't know the first thing about Christianity, yet you deign to dictate Christian theology to us. In fact, Christianity isn't a revealed religion, it's a relational religion. We claim Christianity through the relationships we form with other Christians, with Christ, with the church Fathers, the apostles, and the Tradition (of which the bible is only part. There was no bible for the first 450 years of the Church, so the Church cannot, by definition, be "known through the bible."

then your religion is base on rumors or on dreams of yours. does that really make sense to you.

 

[Britedream]

You have absolutely no idea what you're arguing. It's obvious you know nothing about Christian theology. Your point here isn't worth addressing, because it's theologically vapid.

I know You will not have an answer for this that make sense. you could not come up with any reasonable answer, because there is none.

 

[sojourner]

then your religion is base on rumors or on dreams of yours. does that really that make sense to you.

<sigh>

I just said it was based in relationships. If I had meant "rumors" or "dreams," I would have said, "rumors," or "dreams." There's nothing rumoresque or dreamlike about relationships. In fact, most religions aren't based on writings.

The video is the worst example of red herring I've ever seen. If this is typical of Muslim understanding, I have little hope of our two religions ever coming together, because the video, the OP and now you don't get us. At. All.

 

[sojourner]

I know You will not have an answer for this that make sense. you could not come up with any reasonable answer, because there is none.

I'm sure that nothing I could say would make sense to you, because you don't get it. You don't want to get it. You just want to tell us how wrong we all are, and you could certainly explain the logic of our error to us, given half a chance. Well, isn't that SPECIAL?! Aren't we the Enlightened One?

Christian theology is intricate and involved, with lots of subtlety -- more so than you and your pals are giving it credit for. You're simply convinced that we haven't ever given this thing the slightest bit of reasonable attention.

Your loss.

 

[Britedream]

I'm sure that nothing I could say would make sense to you, because you don't get it. You don't want to get it. You just want to tell us how wrong we all are, and you could certainly explain the logic of our error to us, given half a chance. Well, isn't that SPECIAL?! Aren't we the Enlightened One?

Christian theology is intricate and involved, with lots of subtlety -- more so than you and your pals are giving it credit for. You're simply convinced that we haven't ever given this thing the slightest bit of reasonable attention.

Your loss.

Please resopnd to the message , attacking me will not help

 

[Britedream]

<sigh>

I just said it was based in relationships. If I had meant "rumors" or "dreams," I would have said, "rumors," or "dreams." There's nothing rumoresque or dreamlike about relationships. In fact, most religions aren't based on writings.

The video is the worst example of red herring I've ever seen. If this is typical of Muslim understanding, I have little hope of our two religions ever coming together, because the video, the OP and now you don't get us. At. All.

You just trying to avoid the answer by complaining, and blaming.
if you feel that only Christian can understand, why call people for christianity

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That video seems to be focusing on the Satisfaction theory or the Penal Substitution theory of the Atonement. There are several Atonement theories and it seems that many people don't realize that. Both the Satisfaction theory and the Penal Substitution theories developed after 1000 AD. Both were products of the rather harsh cultures they were formed in. However, the most ancient Atonement theories were entirely different and much more positive. Those are the Ransom/Christus Victor, Recapitulation and Moral Influence theories. I believe in a combination of all three.

More info here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/soteriology-dir/165563-atonement-theories.html

This is a really good paper on the failure of both the Satisfaction and Penal Substitution theories: http://therebelgod.com/CrossPaper.pdf

The Catholic Church taught the Satisfaction theory for about 1000 years (it was developed by St. Anselm) but it doesn't really teach it anymore. I don't recall being taught it, anyway. The Eastern Orthodox Church never taught either the Satisfaction or Penal Substitution theories. Those are wholly unique to the West (the latter is Calvinist so that was never taught in the Catholic Church). My view of it agrees with the Orthodox view.

 

[sojourner]

Please resopnd to the message , attacking me will not help

How much time have you got? Unlike the video, Christian theology is involved, intricate, and detailed.

 

[sojourner]

You just trying to avoid the answer by complaining, and blaming.
if you feel that only Christian can understand, why call people for christianity

Nope. I'm just not going to waste my time on drivel, propagated by someone who *thinks* he knows better than I do about my own religion.

I didn't say "only christians can understand." I said that non-Christians don't have any business teaching Christians the "finer points" of our theology.

 

[Britedream]

Nope. I'm just not going to waste my time on drivel, propagated by someone who *thinks* he knows better than I do about my own religion.

I didn't say "only christians can understand." I said that non-Christians don't have any business teaching Christians the "finer points" of our theology.

When you say something, that seems to someone else nonsense, and you have been asked to clarify, you should explain the matter, the attitude that I am not fit to tell you what I think, or you think I am not eligible to recieve your explanation for what ever reason you may have, does not work in your favor. it is perefectly ok to say, I do not know the answer, we all do not know everthing about our religion.

 

[Sleeppy]

Please pass the introduction to the lecture, here is the link

[youtube]86WwE22gZdQ[/youtube]
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=86WwE22gZdQ

At what point does the lecture begin?

 

[Britedream]

At what point does the lecture begin?

The introduction is not very long it just about 4 min., but the lecturer is the man appearing in the photo, just slightly forward till you see it.

 

[sojourner]

When you say something, that seems to someone else nonsense, and you have been asked to clarify, you should explain the matter, the attitude that I am not fit to tell you what I think, or you think I am not eligible to recieve your explanation for what ever reason you may have, does not work in your favor. it is perefectly ok to say, I do not know the answer, we all do not know everthing about our religion.

You're not fit to tell me what you think because you don't know what you're talking about with regard to Xtian theology. I'll be happy to explain it to you -- as I said above -- but be prepared to do A. Lot. of reading. What do you want explained?

 

[psychoslice]

For me taking Jesus dying for our sins makes no sense, but taking the story metaphorically does make sense. The story of Jesus dying for our sins is our story also, when we realize that we are not the carnal self, and crucify that false self, we then are renewed as a knew creature, that is we are now also the Christ. For me the term Christ wasn't just for Jesus, he didn't have the monopoly on being the Christ.

So the story of Jesus dying for our sins does make sense, but only when it becomes my story, and your story as well.