David Wood In Debt to Murderers for Salvation and Forgiveness?

Asghar Bukhari, on his FB, writes about his experience with a Nigerian experience:

I met a Nigerian Christian today. Well somehow [the] conversation turns to Jews backing israel. He starts telling me the Bible says God supports Jews against their enemies.

So i say, hang about. Didnt they kill your God?

He replies yes but that was Prophesy. God ordained it. And if God hadn’t died he wouldn’t be saved.

So i say, ‘So God told them to kill Him? So you think they did God a favour by killing Him?

He actually said “Yes its Good they killed God”

He had no problem with Jews taking and cleansing the Palestinians because ‘Jesus gave it to the Jews ‘..

African Christians are some of the most brainwashed people on earth. I mean how can you believe in a religion that nuts.

22228190_1984988341786412_887282642895095549_n

My thoughts

I have actually thought about this before, I don’t believe this Nigerian Christian has drifted away from Biblical Christianity in what he said with respect to the crucifixion belief. Christians do effectively believe God wanted the Jews and Romans to kill him – it was a prerequisite for salvation. Thus, in some way without these murderers this “gift of salvation” Christians believe in could not happen.

I’ve always thought why aren’t those who are said to kill Jesus not considered saints as they are responsible for the salvation of billions indirectly according to Christianity? How can they be considered to be in Hell when every Christian is indebted to them indirectly for their salvation?

There is the ethical question here, why is God’s forgiveness and gift of salvation in need of Jewish and Roman murderers? If you truly believe a blood sacrifice is really needed and God really needs to die for sins then why believe God provokes people to murder Him as this means salvation and God’s forgiveness is dependent on murderers in some way, shape or form?

In Islam, God can forgive without having the need for murderers to kill Him. Which concept of God is more appealing?

A lot of tough questions, think about them and ask your pastors.

 

Note: A Christian friend, Denis Giron, did share this from the Catholic tradition: Catholic history has a tradition that the Roman soldier who stabbed Christ with the spear was a man named Longinus, who later converted to Christianity. He was (and in some pockets still is) revered as a saint. Admittedly, he was revered based on the belief that he converted.. 

Advertisements


Categories: Christianity, Missionaries

Tags: , , , , , ,

73 replies

  1. Indeed it’s a great a topic, Yahya.
    The question about jews and what they did to Jesus is a harp stab in the core of christianity.
    In fact, Ibn Teyymiah (ra) asked this question 700 yeras ago!

    Christians say that the greatest thing has happened to humanity is a great sin. Why would God want to save the humanity through a great sin?

    Liked by 3 people

  2. If christianity was a true religion, then Jesus should have said something like this:
    “Oh my beloved people whom I’d given a law you cannot keep in the first place. I’m your god who has come to earth to be the perfect ransom for you because I love you so much. All what you need to do is sacrificing me instead of your animals by nailing me on a cross so that you can be free from the worthless law I’d give to you. Then all of us will live together & forever with endless happiness.
    Note: don’t forget to lash me as much as you can before you nail me on the cross”
    😂

    However, what we find in the christian bible that Jesus was so upset form those jews. In fact, the one who handed Jesus to Pilate had a greater sin according to Jesus!
    So Jesus, what’s the point from coming to earth to be the voluntary sacrifice for those poor jews if you’re
    gonna condemn them later? Hmmm?😴
    Isn’t it enough that you Jesus didn’t tell them about ( the one essence shared by three persons & hypostatic union)? 😂

    The joke here is that christians keep telling us that the wisdom behind creating this huge universe is what you read above!

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I must say, I’m unsure why the title singles out David Wood specifically, being that he is not discussed in the body of the post. Whatever the case, getting to the article itself, the borderline exculpation and exaltation of disbelieving Jews in Christian Zionist circles is disconcerting, to put it mildly. But that is nonetheless a popular view, at least in English speaking circles (and it is creeping into various other language groups as well).

    Getting to Yahya’s thoughts…

      «why is God’s forgiveness and gift of salvation in need of Jewish and Roman murderers?»

    God’s plan is not in need of the specific persons who actually participated in the Crucifixion or the events leading to it. God can will for a tool to play a role in bringing about a plan without it necessarily being the case that God needed that tool.

    Yahya continued:

      «God can forgive without having the need for murderers to kill Him. Which concept of God is more appealing?»

    Atonement without anyone or anything (whether man or animal) suffering seems more appealing to me, personally, but let’s be honest: the systems God sets into place do not need to be limited to only those which are appealing to mere humans. This is a point I made in my article, Christ’s Sacrifice and God’s Justice. Consider two scenarios:

    Scenario 1: God creates a world where, if a pregnant woman consumes intoxicants, her baby may suffer physical deformities, brain damage, or even death, as a direct result of her doing so.

    Scenario 2: God creates a world where, even if a pregnant woman consumes intoxicants, her baby never suffers any ill effect as a result.

    Which of those two scenarios is more appealing? For me, the second scenario is more appealing. But which scenario reflects reality? Clearly the first. The lesson is obvious: just because humans find an idea palatable, that does not mean that idea therefore has to reflect what God actually puts into action.

    And we can think of many other examples. It would be great if God created a world where cute bunnies and beautiful cows were not ripped apart to sustain other organisms, and it would be great if God created a world where tsunamis didn’t wipe out hundreds of thousands of people (including tens of thousands of kids). It would be great if there was no such thing as bone cancer in children. But that’s not the world God actually created. While we may not agree on whether Jesus died, we likely do agree that certain prophets who came before Jesus were murdered. Wouldn’t it have been nicer if God had willed that no prophets were ever murdered? But what do our respective Scriptures say? And are our respective Scriptures allowed to posit things contrary to the preferences of humans?

    Yahya closed with the following:

      «A Christian friend, Denis Giron, did share this from the Catholic tradition: Catholic history has a tradition that the Roman soldier who stabbed Christ with the spear was a man named Longinus, who later converted to Christianity. He was (and in some pockets still is) revered as a saint. Admittedly, he was revered based on the belief that he converted..»

    I would add that there is even an incredible 17th statue depicting Saint Longinus, by Gian Lorenzo Bernini, prominently displayed inside Saint Peter’s Basilica, in the Vatican City.

    Now, I thank Yahya for quoting me, but I wish to point out that there is more to what I wrote which I think has relevance to this blog entry. The comment can be found in this FaceBook thread from last July, and what I consider the salient portion reads as follows:

      «To be fair, while it is not popular today, Catholic history has a tradition that the Roman soldier who stabbed Christ with the spear was a man named Longinus, who later converted to Christianity. He was (and in some pockets still is) revered as a saint.

      Admittedly, he was revered based on the belief that he converted, and this still would leave open the question, what about those who participated yet did not convert? I suppose one soft analogy could be to imagine a situation where one man fires a gun in the direction of another man’s wife and child, with the intention to kill them, but the bullet misses, hits a wall behind them, causing the wall to collapse, and revealing a vast treasure which enriches the family which the gun was fired at. The family benefited from the act, but in light of the intentions, they might still think ill of the man who fired the gun, especially if he does not apologize (i.e. engage in something akin to repentance).

      An alternative thought could be to note that even in Islam, one can imagine scenarios where the omniscient God brought about good from out of an evil act. In such a scenario, God knew the evil act would be committed, and did not stop it (which could be seen as meaning the act itself happened, in a sense, according to God’s will, and played a role in God’s plan). Even so, God can still decree that the act itself was evil (i.e. God bringing good out of an evil act need not necessarily strip said act of evil).»

    I look forward to the thoughts of others.

    Like

    • “just because humans find an idea palatable, that does not mean that idea therefore has to reflect what God actually puts into action”
      Whaaat?
      The point is the crucifixion incident and related thereto not only don’t reflect what your god is supposed to put into action according to your belief, but also it contradicts the meaning of the “all loving god-man” who is supposed to come to earth to be the voluntary sacrifice.

      Like

    • Greetings `Abdullah

      `Abdullah wrote:
      «Whaaat?»

      Note that what I wrote was a direct response to a specific question: which is more appealing? I’d like for you to likewise grapple with the variations of the question I presented. Tell me, `Abdullah, would you prefer a world where children suffer from bone cancer or a world where no child ever suffers from bone cancer? Would you prefer a world where a tsunami kills hundreds of thousands of people (including tens of thousands of children) or a world where that never happens? If you had a choice, would you prefer that some past prophets be murdered or would you prefer that none were ever murdered? I would really like it if you answered these questions directly.

      `Abdullah wrote:
      «The point is the crucifixion incident and related thereto not only don’t reflect what your god is supposed to put into action according to your belief»

      I’m not sure what, precisely, you’re alluding to here, therefore I am uncertain whether that was the point of Yahya’s blog entry. So, could you elaborate on what you mean, here?

      `Abdullah wrote:
      «also it contradicts the meaning of the “all loving god-man” who is supposed to come to earth to be the voluntary sacrifice»

      You’re saying Christian belief in the Crucifixion contradicts the idea of the God-man who came to earth to be a voluntary sacrifice? How so? Again, please elaborate.

      Like

    • I’m saying the Crucifixion incident – as it’s presented in your bible – contradicts the idea of the God-man who came to earth to be a voluntary sacrifice.

      “How so?”
      Read my comments above.

      Like

    • `Abdullah, permit me to note again that I asked you the following questions (which relate directly to the subject of God being able to establish a system which doesn’t necessarily fit neatly with human preferences or what humans find appealing):

        would you prefer a world where children suffer from bone cancer or a world where no child ever suffers from bone cancer? Would you prefer a world where a tsunami kills hundreds of thousands of people (including tens of thousands of children) or a world where that never happens? If you had a choice, would you prefer that some past prophets be murdered or would you prefer that none were ever murdered?

      I continue to be interested in your answers to those questions.

      `Abdullah wrote:
      «the Crucifixion incident – as it’s presented in your bible – contradicts the idea of the God-man who came to earth to be a voluntary sacrifice»

      I really don’t see that. It would be appreciated if you could just clearly state what you feel this alleged contradiction is. If your argument is that considering those who played the role as having sinned contradicts the notion that Christ submitted to the sacrifice, my first comment, above, already noted that it is possible for a human action to play a role in God’s plan and yet still be considered sinful (or evil). But I look forward to any elaboration you might be willing to share.

      Like

    • I’m interested to hear your answer about why jews were considered sinners while they just accomplished what it means to be the all loving god dying voluntary for many.

      Jews used to sacrifice animals,but when they sacrificed god who came willingly to be the perfect sacrifice for them, they became the bad guys? Why?

      Like

    • “which relate directly to the subject of God being able to establish a system which doesn’t necessarily fit neatly with human preferences or what humans find appealing”
      I don’t see this article has anything to do with your questions as I’ve pointed before.

      Like

    • `Abdullah wrote:
      «I don’t see this article has anything to do with your questions»

      As I explained previously, the sorts of questions I asked related to the issue, raised by Yahya, of what sort of system humans would find more appealing. The point was to demonstrate that God can establish something contrary to the preferences of humans.

      You refused to answer the questions I posed to you, but I assume you would find a world without bone cancer in children more appealing than a world where some children suffer and die from bone cancer. I assume, if you had a choice, you would prefer tens of thousands of children not be killed by a tsunami. I assume you would prefer no prophets were ever murdered. If those assumptions are correct, they illustrate the point I was making in response to Yahya’s question, “which is more appealing?” If we are choosing between any two options, X and Y, and we find X more appealing, that still does not preclude God from establishing (or having already established) Y.

      `Abdullah wrote:
      «why jews were considered sinners while they just accomplished what it means to be the all loving god»

      It has already been noted that God can permit an act to play a role in God’s plan, yet still have that act constitute a sin. There are all sorts of horrific acts which God could have prevented yet God permitted to happen. Presumably the permitting of some or even all of those acts relates to a plan of God which may well be beyond human comprehension. And God can still decree those acts to constitute sins.

      `Abdullah wrote:
      «Jews used to sacrifice animals, but when they sacrificed god who came willingly to be the perfect sacrifice for them, they became the bad guys?»

      It’s God’s will and/or decree which determines which killings are licit and which are illicit (for example, I might be allowed to kill a sheep to feed my family, but that doesn’t mean I can kill my neighbor’s cat for fun; or, for another example, the state might be allowed to execute a certain adult criminal, but that doesn’t mean the state can execute a child for some frivolous reason). Moreover, God can know an illicit killing is going to happen, intentionally permit that killing to happen (even omnisciently create all the conditions which make the killing possible), have that killing play a role in the divine plan and yet still decree the killing illicit.

      Those are the logical points to keep in mind:

      1. God intentionally permitting an act to happen (or even intentionally creating the conditions for an act to happen) does not preclude God from treating the act itself as illicit.
      2. God willing for an act to play a role in bringing about God’s plan does not preclude God from treating the act itself as illicit.

      Like

    • “It has already been noted that God can permit an act to play a role in God’s plan, yet still have that act constitute a sin”
      Why is that act considered a sin?
      Notice that your god man came willingly and in out of love to die for them. That god man wanted them to sacrifice him instead of their animals so that they can be free, so where’s the problem!?

      Like

    • It singles out David on this blog because David is a polemicist who makes out the Christian idea of salvation ad forgiveness is superior to the Islamic one. Sending a polemic his way can only be a good thing in this case for him and his followers (a number of whom follow this blog)

      Denis writes: God’s plan is not in need of the specific persons who actually participated in the Crucifixion or the events leading to it. God can will for a tool to play a role in bringing about a plan without it necessarily being the case that God needed that tool.

      My thoughts: The point here is those people were required for the death of Jesus in the church gospel narratives. Forgiveness is an act of holiness yet here we find in Christian soteriology that forgiveness involves and required murderers killing Jesus (whom Trinitarians believe is God).

      Denis writes: But that’s not the world God actually created. While we may not agree on whether Jesus died, we likely do agree that certain prophets who came before Jesus were murdered. Wouldn’t it have been nicer if God had willed that no prophets were ever murdered? But what do our respective Scriptures say? And are our respective Scriptures allowed to posit things contrary to the preferences of humans?

      My thoughts: This is apples and oranges. How does a world where bad things can happen compare with the Christian idea that God chose to provoke people to murder him in order to die and forgive people of their sins? It’s a huge flaw as a major sin (murder) on the part of a number of people is required (yes, required as the story of the murder of Christ would not work without these murderers) for forgiveness. I think I’m repeating myself here but you get the picture.

      Denis: I suppose one soft analogy could be to imagine a situation where one man fires a gun in the direction of another man’s wife and child, with the intention to kill them, but the bullet misses, hits a wall behind them, causing the wall to collapse, and revealing a vast treasure which enriches the family which the gun was fired at. The family benefited from the act, but in light of the intentions, they might still think ill of the man who fired the gun, especially if he does not apologize (i.e. engage in something akin to repentance). An alternative thought could be to note that even in Islam, one can imagine scenarios where the omniscient God brought about good from out of an evil act. In such a scenario, God knew the evil act would be committed, and did not stop it (which could be seen as meaning the act itself happened, in a sense, according to God’s will, and played a role in God’s plan). Even so, God can still decree that the act itself was evil (i.e. God bringing good out of an evil act need not necessarily strip said act of evil).»

      Me: Again, the fallacy of false comparison. My point is murderers were required for the Christian idea and story of salvation. That family finding some treasure found it through somebody attempting to murder them, their finding the treasure is not something which the salvation and forgiveness of a whole group of people is based on.

      he overarching point is that the greatest moment in world history according to Christianity required Jewish and Roman murderers. If you truly believe a holy God needs to die for sins then why did God provoke people to kill him (and thus commit murder) to enable this holy forgiveness? What has happened now due to this church belief is that folks effectively believe God’s forgiveness requires murderers.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Greetings Yahya

        Yahya wrote:
        «those people were required for the death of Jesus in the church gospel narratives.»

      I disagree. They played a role, but that does not mean they were needed. Hence what I wrote before: God can employ a tool without necessarily needing that tool (i.e. such does not preclude at least the theoretical possibility that it could have been brought about via other means, e.g. in this case other persons, or non-human entities, et cetera). For an analogy, your faith holds that God transmitted the Qur’an through an angel, but that does not mean God needed that angel, i.e. it does not mean that God would have been incapable of sending the Qur’an any other way without that specific angel.

        Yahya wrote:
        «Forgiveness is an act of holiness yet here we find in Christian soteriology that forgiveness involves and required murderers killing Jesus (whom Trinitarians believe is God).»

      In both Judaism and Christianity, God can will for the death of a person to play a role in atonement. I understand if that does not appeal to you, personally, but, as I noted before, our personal preferences do not preclude God from putting such a system in place.

        Yahya wrote:
        «How does a world where bad things can happen compare with the Christian idea that God chose to provoke people to murder him in order to die and forgive people of their sins?»

      It was addressing your question of which we find more appealing. Similar to `Abdullah, above, you did not clarify what your precise preference is, but I nonetheless suspect that you would find a world without murdered prophets, or tsunamis that wipe out a quarter million people, or bone cancer in children, to be more appealing. Yet that’s not the world that God actually created. If that suspicion is correct, it brings us to a logical point (in response to your question of what people find more appealing): when choosing between two options, X and Y, even if humans find X more appealing, that does not preclude God from establishing (or having already established) Y.

        Yahya wrote:
        «That family finding some treasure found it through somebody attempting to murder them»

      Right, and this relates to the quesion of whether acquiring good from an evil act exculpates the person who committed the evil act (which was also one of the subjects explored in your article). And various other examples could be given (e.g. presumably in your faith, a baby murdered in an unnecessary late term abortion will be granted paradise, which would mean the person who was murdered ultimately benefited, and yet that does not exculpate the one who committed the murder). That’s the salient point: even if God wills that we gain benefit from an evil act, that does not necessarily exculpate the person who committed the act.

        Yahya wrote:
        «The overarching point is that the greatest moment in world history according to Christianity required Jewish and Roman murderers.»

      As it happened, such persons played a role. Howeber, as was already noted above, this does not mean they were required.

        Yahya wrote:
        «why did God provoke people to kill him (and thus commit murder) to enable this holy forgiveness?»

      Why God chose the precise scenario in which the sacrifice occurred, I do not know, but I think in both our faiths, human inability to discern sufficient reason for God to decree something does not mean God therefore lacked sufficient reason.

        Yahya wrote:
        «due to this church belief is that folks effectively believe God’s forgiveness requires murderers.»

      I would think that is more due to faulty reasoning on the part of people who conclude such than the doctrine itself. And surely people could reach erroneous conclusions even without this specific doctrine.

      Like

    • “Yet that’s not the world that God actually created.”

      God created a world where you can choose a concept of “salvation” that does not depend on God being murdered. And not being murdered. Somehow.

      Alhamdulillah.

      Like

    • Greetings Burhanuddin

      «God created a world where you can choose a concept of “salvation” that does not depend on God being murdered.»

      God certainly created a world where we can believe in such. It is also a world where we can believe various other things (including things both you and I would disagree with). But the ability and freedom of persons in this world to believe things that you or I disagree with need not in itself cause us to conclude our respective beliefs are therefore false.

      Now, Burhanuddin, you were responding to a portion where I wrote: “Yet that’s not the world that God actually created.” Do you recall the context of that statement? It was in response to Yahya’s question “which is more appealing?” Since you have dipped into this part of field, so to speak, I’d like to likewise ask you: would you find a world where no prophets were ever murdered more appealing than a world in which certain prophets were murdered? Would you prefer a world where no children suffer from bone cancer? Most saliently, do you acknowledge (or deny) that God can put in place a system which is not palatable to many humans (i.e. that God is not limited by human preferences)?

      Like

    • Denis,
      Are you saying that God didn’t want jews to sacrifice him instead of their animals in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in them?

      The poor jews!
      Notice what christianity is telling the poor jews:

      1- You are born sinners ====> the result you’re still sinners.
      2- Gad gave you a powerless law that you cannot keep as a plan (A) ====> the result you’re still sinners!
      2- God came himself to be sacrificed as a sacrifice for your sins as a plan(B)====> yet you’re still sinners

      Like

    • Denis seems you are conflating fact and fiction.

      “Prophets” are being murdered, children die of cancer for a fact.

      A murdered “God” is merely opinion.

      Like

    • `Abdullah asked:
      «Are you saying that…»

      Honestly, here’s a summation of what I was saying:

      (1) Even if humans find a certain system appealing, that preference does not preclude God from establishing a different system.

      (2) If God wills for others to benefit from an evil act, that benefit does not necessarily exculpate the one who committed the act.

      Those are salient points relevant to the blog entry (and I remain curious about your thoughts on those points). Topics like original sin, the status of the Mosaic Law, et cetera, strike me as potential changes in topic.

      ***

      Burhanuddin wrote:
      «Denis seems you are conflating fact and fiction.»

      I was appealing to things which are not in dispute between us (e.g. bone cancer in children, tsunamis that kill hundreds of thousands of people) to make a point: that it is possible for God to establish systems which are less appealing to humans than various hypothetical alternatives. It raises a simple yet valuable rule of thumb: what God can or will do is not limited to merely that which humans find appealing. It drives right to the heart of the question “which is more appealing?” yet I notice several people commenting here seem less than willing to discuss it.

      Like

    • Denis

      Cancer and Tsunamis are not limited by human preferences.

      Your brand of “murdered God” is.

      Liked by 1 person

    • «Cancer and Tsunamis are not limited by human preferences.»

      Which would mean that even if humans would find a world without such more appealing, that would not preclude God from creating a world with such.

      Hence the simple logical point I made before: when choosing between two options, X and Y, even if humans find X more appealing, that does not preclude God from establishing (or already having established) Y.

      That provides an important answer to the question “which is more appealing?” (a question which was asked in the blog entry).

      Like

    • Honestly, I think you’re avoiding the core questions in the subject, and I think I know why.
      Nevertheless, I’m glad to trigger these questions in the christian’s head. It’s enough to reflect upon them.
      In fact, Quran always urges the inner self to wake up!
      “O People of the Scripture, why do you confuse the truth with falsehood and conceal the truth while you know [it]?”

      Like

    • `Abdullah wrote:
      «I think you’re avoiding the core questions»

      I honestly feel I addressed the salient points of the blog entry. Nonetheless, please quote/reproduce a portion of Yahya’s blog entry which you would like me to comment on. [Note, I’m asking that you actually share text from the blog entry; rather than introduce something which did not appear therein.]

      Like

    • @ Denis,

      Your concept of morality seems to be one where our moral values are “emotional preferences”. I doubt that any Muslim and most Christians would agree with this view. This is what one typically hears from atheists.

      You state your argumet is based on things which are not in dispute between you and other followers of Abrahamic faiths. This is not true.

      Like

    • Greetings Verdant Servant

      Note that my discussion on “preferences” and what is “more appealing” was in direct response to Yahya’s blog entry raising such a question. Recall that the blog entry above includes the following:

        «In Islam, God can forgive without having the need for murderers to kill Him. Which concept of God is more appealing?»

      It seems to me that the tacit line of reasoning, there, is that the system God put in place is likely to be the one which reflects the personal (emotional) preferences of many humans. So I was responding by showing that we can infer from creation that, on the contrary, God can put in place systems that many humans would not choose, if they had a choice.

      It’s interesting that you said this reminds you of something you might hear from an atheist. I myself am a former atheist, and as I noted in my blog entry on Christ’s Sacrifice and God’s Justice, as a former atheist, I am familiar with arguments on theodicy (including how various Muslims approach the subject when arguing with atheists), and thus I am unmoved by (what strike me as) tacit appeals to emotion in discussions on Christian soteriology.

      In other words, an atheist might note that a classical theistic worldview (including, but not limited to, an Islamic worldview) posits that the omniscient, merciful, benevolent Creator deliberately and knowingly created a world with massive, ongoing suffering (tsunamis that kill hundreds of thousands, plagues, famines, bone cancer in children, children being raped, children being throne in ovens alive, babies suffering physical deformities and brain damage because their mothers consumed intoxicants while pregnant, et cetera). Not only is it the case that God could have easily intervened to prevent such, yet didn’t, but God knowingly created all the conditions which made such possible before they even happened, hence why many would say such suffering is actually part of God’s plan and decree! Now, a Muslim might respond to such atheist objections by noting…

      • that God is the sole definer of justice,
      • that there are no objective moral laws separate from (or without) God,
      • that God is sovereign, and thus can do however God pleases with creation,
      • that God can allow (or orchestrate) an event which seems “wrong” to humans if it leads to a greater good or the triumph of God’s plan,
      • that humans, with their limited knowledge, are in no place to judge God’s decree (i.e. just because a human is unable to discern a sufficient reason for God to bring about an event, that does not mean God therefore lacked sufficient reason for such),
      • that finite suffering in this world is practically meaningless when set against the backdrop of infinite bliss in the world to come, et cetera,

      …but it seems incongruent for someone to be open to those ideas yet suddenly want to tell Christians that God having Jesus suffer and die for the sins of others is contrary to God’s justice.

      So, with that in mind, returning to Yahya’s question about what is more appealing, if we asked humans to choose between…

      (a) God having an innocent person suffer and die for the sins of others, and
      (b) God simply forgiving, without anyone suffering on the behalf of others,

      …I think many humans would find the latter more appealing. But, so too, if we asked humans to choose between…

      (c) God creating a world where children get bone cancer, and
      (d) God creating a world where children never get bone cancer,

      …I think many would find the latter more appealing. Yet we can infer from creation that God nonetheless actually chose the option which many humans would find less appealing.

      And that’s the logical point which strikes right at the heart of Yahya’s question about which is more appealing: God is free to put in place systems contrary to what many humans might prefer to be the case.

      Like

    • «Cancer and Tsunamis are not limited by human preferences.»

      “Which would mean that even if humans would find a world without such more appealing, that would not preclude God from creating a world with such.”

      Denis, a world without cancer or tsunamis is a world without humans.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Hello Denis,

      I understand your point to Yahya Snow. However, the one I’m making is different.

      Sorry, I didn’t get the time to reply on your previous blog entry. Maybe my comment here belongs there.
      You stated there that the objections to a system whereby salvation is obtainable through man murdering another man, through cannibalism, etc. are based on our “emotional preferences”.

      This is indeed a view that is typical of atheists in which these actions, such as man transgressing the life of another man, are not objectively evil.

      As you said in your comments on the other blog entry, if God were to order man to transgress the life of another man, to eat his brother, infant, foetus, etc., the objections against that will not stand because they are emotional preferences. Moreover, your argument is that it is possible such transgressive actions are a way to spiritual purification.

      What I wanted to point out is, you say your argumentation is based on premises that are not disputed. I don’t think so at all.
      Your conception of morality and of God are, let’s just say, not typically theistic, nor are they close to those of Islam. In the Qur’an, Allah tells us in ayah 4:40:

      إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَظْلِمُ مِثْقَالَ ذَرَّةٍ ۖ وَإِن تَكُ حَسَنَةً يُضَاعِفْهَا وَيُؤْتِ مِن لَّدُنْهُ أَجْرًا عَظِيمًا
      Indeed, Allah does not do injustice, [even] as much as an atom’s weight; while if there is a good deed, He multiplies it and gives from Himself a great reward.

      and in ayah 18:49:

      وَوُضِعَ الْكِتَابُ فَتَرَى الْمُجْرِمِينَ مُشْفِقِينَ مِمَّا فِيهِ وَيَقُولُونَ يَا وَيْلَتَنَا مَالِ هَٰذَا الْكِتَابِ لَا يُغَادِرُ صَغِيرَةً وَلَا كَبِيرَةً إِلَّا أَحْصَاهَا ۚ وَوَجَدُوا مَا عَمِلُوا حَاضِرًا ۗ وَلَا يَظْلِمُ رَبُّكَ أَحَدًا
      And the record [of deeds] will be placed [open], and you will see the criminals fearful of that within it, and they will say, “Oh, woe to us! What is this book that leaves nothing small or great except that it has enumerated it?” And they will find what they did present [before them]. And your Lord does injustice to no one.

      The concept of God in Islam is of One that does not do injustice. There is simply no possible state of affairs in which He does injustice, commands salvation through injustice and spiritual purification through transgression. That’s more a thing of a the Devil.

      You’re a respectable intelligent man, Denis. I congratulate you on having found your way out of atheism and into Christianity. I invite you to the next step, Islam, where you won’t have to go through (sorry to say) great lengths of sophistry, even using elements that are foreign to theism, in order to justify unresolvable problems with your theology.

      Like

    • Greetings Burhanuddin and Verdant Servant

        Burhanuddin wrote (and Verdant Servant liked) the following:
        «a world without cancer or tsunamis is a world without humans»

      I find this statement curious. But, just for the sake of clarification, I mentioned more specifically bone cancer in children. With that in mind, I have a few questions I would like for both of you (Burhanuddin and Verdant Servant) to explore:

      (1) Is it your position that God would be incapable of creating humans without also creating bone cancer in children?

      (2) If your answer to (1) is yes, on what grounds do you believe such?

      (3) However, if your answer to (1) is no, do you have any thoughts on why God created bone cancer in children?

      (4) If the answer to (3) is “to test us” or “to bring us to wisdom,” is it your position that God would be incapable of testing us or bringing us to wisdom without specifically bone cancer in children?

      ***

      Now, getting to the post of Verdant Servant…

        Verdant Servant wrote:
        «I understand your point to Yahya Snow.»

      Excellent, but do you have a position on that point? Again, the point was: even if, when choosing between options X and Y, a human prefers X, that preference does not preclude God from establishing (or having already established) Y. Do you agree with (or reject) this simple logical point?

        Verdant Servant wrote:
        «However, the one I’m making is different.»

      That’s fine. We can discuss that, now, here.

        Verdant Servant wrote:
        «You stated there that the objections to a system whereby salvation is obtainable through man murdering another man, through cannibalism, etc. are based on our “emotional preferences”.»

      To be more clear, in that thread you had reworked an argument I presented to include cannibalism, and you asked me if I was fine with cannibalism. I responded that I have a deep emotional aversion to cannibalism. But I also understood that you reached for that because of the shock value. And I wrote the following:

        putting appeals to emotion aside, I don’t see a logical problem with your reworking of my argument. It really is the case that God being able to establish a system of human preservation (whether somatic or spiritual) without cannibalism does not, in itself, preclude the possibility of God establishing a system where humans are preserved (whether somatically or spiritually) via cannibalism.

      Now please note the distinction between…

      (a) making the logical point that ‘God being able to establish a system without X does not in itself preclude the possibility of God establishing a system with X,’

      …and…

      (b) having personal objections and aversions to X.

      In other words, you can instantiate all sorts of things I abhor in place of X (i.e. things I prefer would not be the case), and the logical point in (a) remains: the possibility of God establishing something is not precluded merely by God’s ability to establish an alternative. With all due respect, to lose sight of that simple logical point when we are discussing something we find abhorrent is to be at risk of letting personal emotion cloud one’s reasoning.

        Verdant Servant wrote:
        «This is indeed a view that is typical of atheists in which these actions, such as man transgressing the life of another man, are not objectively evil.»

      But I never made that claim. I would say that there are objective moral laws, but my understanding is that objective morality is determined by God’s decree (similar to how objective reality is determined by God’s decree). If you disagree, what is the alternative? That there is an objective moral code above God which God is subject to? Is there a law giver external to God who established these laws which God must obey? Or is objective morality merely sourceless, eternally existing separate from God?

      It’s interesting, there are theists, both Christians (e.g. William Lane Craig) and Muslims (e.g. Adam Deen) who tell atheists that if God did not exist, then objective moral laws would not exist. If we are now claiming that God is not the source of objective moral laws, then that argument would seem to be undermined (i.e. it would seem to mean objective morality can exist irrespective of whether God exists). I look forward to your thoughts on this, Verdant.

        Verdant Servant wrote:
        «As you said in your comments on the other blog entry, if God were to order man to transgress the life of another man, to eat his brother, infant, foetus, etc., the objections against that will not stand because they are emotional preferences.»

      Wait, just to be clear, are you saying that if God commanded a human to take another human’s life, the human should disobey? It seems clear that, even according to the Qur’an, when Abraham believed God wanted him to sacrifice his son, he was willing to do so. That seems to be an acceptance of God’s sovereignty over creation, is it not? Do you believe Abraham, instead, should have responded along the lines of “no, I refuse; if God wants me to kill my son, then God must be evil, and morally inferior to me”?

      Now, you went on to quote verses in the Qur’an affirming that God is just, or that God does not do injustice. Of course I agree God is just, but it is also my position that no mere human is in a place to question God’s justice.

      So, for example, there are atheists out there who say that if a deity tested a man’s (e.g. Abraham’s) faith by leading him to believe he should kill his son, that’s “unjust” or “evil”. There are atheists who would say similar things about the idea of a deity decreeing capital punishment for a woman who had sexual relations with a man other than her husband (i.e. committed adultery) or for homosexuality. I’ve already noted atheists who think the idea of bone cancer in children (along with much of the rest of the vast spectrum of suffering in this world) is horrific, and contradicts the idea of God being good or benevolent. I imagine many Muslims would respond to those atheists by noting that they are in no place to judge God’s justice (or mercy, or benevolence), that God is the one who determines what is right and wrong, not them, et cetera. And that’s really a major crux of my position: it seems to me that how theists respond to atheists on the subject of theodicy undermines claims made within inter-theist disputes about God’s justice. Perhaps that doesn’t apply to you, which is why I’ve asked you questions (here and in the other thread) on the subject of theodicy.

        Verdant Servant wrote:
        «The concept of God in Islam is of One that does not do injustice.»

      That would be my concept of God as well. But my point is: if a mere human declares that a decree of God is “unjust,” there are no firm grounds on which they can assert such.

        Verdant Servant wrote:
        «I congratulate you on having found your way out of atheism and into Christianity. I invite you to the next step, Islam, where you won’t have to go through (sorry to say) great lengths of sophistry, even using elements that are foreign to theism»

      With all due respect, your responses have only scratched the surface of the topic (I understand if your time is limited, so I do not claim you are required to respond to anything, but nonetheless permit me to note that even though you have responded to a few of my posts over the last month+, each of those responses have ignored most of the content in the posts they were responding to), so I am unsure where the justification is for the charge of “sophistry”. As for the charge that I am using elements foreign to theism, on the contrary, I have been working within the framework of theist (including, but not limited to, Muslim) responses to atheists. That’s really a salient issue here: what I perceive to be an inconguence between how some theists respond to atheists on the subject of theodicy and how some theists respond to other theists on that subject. Recall that in a previous response to you I noted that it strikes me as awkward to tell atheists…

      1. that God is the sole definer of justice,
      2. that there are no objective moral laws separate from (or without) God,
      3. that God is sovereign, and thus can do however God pleases with creation,
      4. that God can allow (or orchestrate) an event which seems “wrong” to humans if it leads to a greater good or the triumph of God’s plan,
      5. that humans, with their limited knowledge, are in no place to judge God’s decree (i.e. just because a human is unable to discern a sufficient reason for God to bring about an event, that does not mean God therefore lacked sufficient reason for such),
      6. that finite suffering in this world is practically meaningless when set against the backdrop of infinite bliss in the world to come, et cetera,

      …only to then turn around and tell another theist that the idea of God decreeing that one person’s death can atone for another person’s sins makes God look unjust. If we’re having a meaningful correspondence on this subject, I would ask that you share whether you agree or disagree with the points listed immediately above.

      Like

  4. Denis, why do you believe in christianity? Just be honest. It can’t be on purely rational grounds. There are three fundamental flaws with christianity that can’t be explained away. First, the authenticity of the scriptures, second, the nature of God and third it’s soteriology- not necessarily in that order. These three things constitute the absolute core of most religions. Let’s look at Judaism for example. Two of these tenets are sound and rational and in regard to Islam all three are.

    I’ll be honest, I personally have problems with some aspects of Islam. I can however accept them and uphold them because the foundation of islam is sound.

    I’m just sick and tired of Christians trying to defend irrational beliefs that amount to nothing less than claiming that there are such a thing as a round square or are triangel-shaped circle.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Greetings SvenskArab (forgive me, I’m unsure what name to address you by).

        «why do you believe in christianity? Just be honest. It can’t be on purely rational grounds.»

      I fear a discussion on this subject will take us way off topic. For what it is worth, I am a convert to Christianity (embracing the faith in 2007). While my views have evolved over the last decade, I did embrace it largely because I found certain arguments persuasive when I did. Admittedly, there were some leaps of faith mixed in, but I did embrace it largely on what I felt were rational grounds. That aside, honestly, the great potential for philosophical depth within Christianity is one of the things that continues to attract me to, and intrigue me about, the faith.

        «There are three fundamental flaws with christianity that can’t be explained away. First, the authenticity of the scriptures, second, the nature of God and third it’s soteriology»

      I honestly don’t see any of these as flaws. I realize there’s lots to discuss with those issues, but none of them strike me as so egregious as to render the Christian faith false. In my view, they are merely complex (perhaps very complex).

      On the subject of the Scriptures, if what you have in mind are popular scholarly theories about layers of development within the corpus (separare from the question of textual variants), perhaps the comments section of my entry on Development in the Gospels would be a good place to discuss such (that is, if you wanted to correspond on the subject)? However, if you had in mind the issue of textual variants, perhaps my entry on Variants of the Sh’ma` and the Lord’s Prayer might be a good forum for corresponding on that subject? [I’m also thinking about doing another entry on Markan Primacy, the Q-Source, and the Muslim perspective, in the near future.]

      On the subject of the Christian conception of God (which is the subject I feel most comfortable discussing of the three you mentioned), perhaps my one entry on Dyophysitism thus far (I hope to put forth others in the future) would be a good forum for corresponding on that subject?

      As for the subject of soteriology, I suppose my entry on Christ’s Sacrifice and God’s Justice might be the right place for a correspondence on that subject?

        «I’m just sick and tired of Christians trying to defend irrational beliefs»

      I do not believe I have done that here or elsewhere, but if you have specific examples in mind, feel free to point them out. Do you feel there is something “irrational” which I have posited, here?

      Like

    • Denis Giron

      Thanks for your replies. I appreciate it.
      You said;
      Intellect wrote:
      «Where is the justice that the Christian God came down to fulfill?»
      I would simply say that God willed that Christ’s sacrifice played a role in atonement. This may not make sense to you, personally, but I think even you agree that God’s plan does not hinge on your understanding; rather, it exists separate from your understanding. I remain uncertain what you think “satisfy justice” means, but no Christian claims the sacrifice of Christ would eliminate all harm or death in this life (nor does the classical Christian faith claim Christ’s sacrifice ensures no one goes to Hell).

      I say;
      -Let me try again. Now focus on JUSTICE. Do not overlook it when replying. That is my main problem, when Christians say the Christ death means God is just and has satisfy justice. But that is not the case for the victims of Christians injustice. Justice is when a victim is payed for his troubles but not the perpetrator payed for his victims troubles.
      -I, and Muslims did not say their God came down to die and pay for someone’s injustice but Christian God came to die and in that process paid for any injustices. Is it not so?
      -If you admit that, Christ death on the cross has nothing to do with justice, then i will rest my case. The reason I keep persisting is that, I hear from many Christians that Christ death is about perfect justice. if you disagree with them, then I will rest my case.
      -In Islam, God is sovereign and therefore will not submit the ther law He created for humans, so He will not come and die for JUSTICE. On the other hand Christian God came to die and to make room fof perfect justice which is a failure when the victims of Christian murderers are put to hell.
      -Islamic God did not come down to die to satisfy “perfect justice” but He is sovereign to use all knowing, all wise and mercy to judge everyone. Christian God is about “perfect justice” by dying on the cross, but the justice is not perfect when the victims of criminals are punished and the criminals going heaven.
      -Listen or read.
      If I said my God is all knowing and you find out that he does not know something, it is legitimate for you to ask me why He does not know that particular thing.
      -Christians say their God “satisfy perfect justice” which was not perfect because the victims of Christian murderers were punished while the criminals set free. Where is the perfect justice here?

      Thanks.

      Like

  5. Thank you Denis for an interesting reply. I apologize for my screen name. I’m from Sweden and it only makes sense for someone who understand Swedish.

    “I honestly don’t see any of these as flaws. I realize there’s lots to discuss with those issues, but none of them strike me as so egregious as to render the Christian faith false. In my view, they are merely complex (perhaps very complex).”

    I don’t think you’re intellectually honest here. Many bible scholars and great thinkers like Newton for instance have criticized Christianity on these perhaps most basic pillars of faith.

    If we look at Islam there is a lot of criticism leveled at Islam, but this criticism is directed at more peripheral issues like Sharia, women’s rights etc.

    Moreover, there are many Christians who are honest about what they base their belief on. They acknowledge these flaws and instead say that things like the message of love in the NT is what they primarily base their belief on. I respect their honesty and frankly, I personally, don’t see the point of trying to refute them. Instead I leave them be.

    Denis, may I ask from what religion did you convert to Christianity?

    Like

    • Greetings again, SvenskArab

      [Again, I’m unsure how to address you. I realize your screen name means something like “an Arab’s contemplations” in Swedish, hence why I chose Svensk-Arab. Perhaps you could tell me a name you’d prefer I address you by?]

      Now, regarding criticisms of the Bible, the Christian conception of God, and Christian soteriology, I am aware of many such criticisms (including criticism from persons from Christian backgrounds, persons who still identify as Christians, and even prestigious scholars). However, I reserve the right to disagree with such persons, and I have found the arguments which I have encountered thus far to be wanting. As you may have noticed from the links in my previous reply to you, above, I have written a bit which is relevant to those subjects, and thus I’m not completely oblivious to the existence of such criticisms (on the contrary, I have grappled with and responded to at least some of them).

      I think we can agree that an argument does not rest on how prestigious the person putting it forth might be, but rather on an argument rests its own merits. Therefore, if there are specific arguments, whether from Newton, or some modern scholar, or even a person who is not well known, which you would find compelling, I am willing to discuss them with you (i.e. I would like to discuss the arguments themselves, preferably in the appropriate forums, as alluded to in my previous reply to you, above).

        «there are many Christians who […] acknowledge these flaws and instead say that things like the message of love in the NT is what they primarily base their belief on.»

      Well, the call for believers to be loving and gentle has long appealed to me, but my initial interest in Christianity went beyond that. I’ll touch on that below.

        «from what religion did you convert to Christianity?»

      Before embracing Christianity, I was an atheist. There’s a longer history behind that (e.g. growing up in the household of a Marxist [and staunch atheist] father, having a mother whose beliefs were rather syncretic [e.g. still having an interest in Christianity, but also Buddhism, Wicca, Santeria, too], and having an interest in Christianity and then Islam in my late teens [interesting story there]), but the short answer, relevant to your question, is that in my early twenties, I became a pretty aggressive, abrasive “positive atheist” (i.e. I didn’t merely lack belief in God; rather I came to believe and positively assert that no gods existed, and sought to argue this point with theists, especially Christians and Muslims; sort of like a Dawkinsite style “New Atheist,” before it was popular).

      However, after grappling with the writings and debates of William Lane Craig (specifically on the Kalām Cosmological Argument), I concluded atheism was wrong, and adopted a general theistic position. But, not being satisified with “theism simpliciter,” I began to become interested in adopting a formal religious position. Now, here is where the first leap of faith of sorts might be, as I didn’t explore all religions (e.g. although I had a familiarity with Buddhism since childhood, I did not consider it; although I grew up in the shadow of a number of Hindus, and benefited directly from their charity [and thus have long had a warm spot in my heart for them], I did not consider Hinduism either); rather, I simply, perhaps unthinkingly, leaped directly to limiting my options to considering Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

      Now, as I said before, my views have evolved over the last decade, but what initially attracted me to Christianity were various things. First, I felt that where Judaism differed from Christianity was more a reaction to Christianity (e.g. I felt the Old Testament alluded rather plainly to divine incarnation, and I knew earlier layers of Rabbinic tradition were more open about notions of the death of a person providing atonement for others, as well as even applying Isaiah 53 to the Messiah), so Christianity appealed to me more than Judaism. As far as Christianity and Islam, at the time I took “Islam” to necessarily mean a denial of the Crucifixion, which I considered by that point to be about as sure a thing as anything we might “know” about an alleged “historical Jesus” (i.e. I had concluded that if Jesus existed, and there was a historical core to the NT, then the crucifixion had to be part of it). Beyond that, as I already noted, I felt the OT (specifically Genesis) alluded to divine Incarnation, so that too made me lean more towards Christianity than Islam. Moreover, still, I came to feel a certain confidence that the parable of the vineyard (in Mark 12) was likely to have been uttered by the historical Jesus (I was well aware of critical scholarship [e.g. I had been a fan of the Jesus Seminar], and was aware a number of more liberal scholars would not agree with my position, but I nonetheless came to feel a certain confidence about that), and thus I took this alleged early layer of the NT as indicating that Jesus affirmed His unique divine sonship, His death, and the finality of His prophethood (that too made me lean more towards Christianity than Islam).

      Beyond that, while I had long rejected the Trinity as an obvious contradiction, William Lane Craig’s 2002 debate with Shabbir Ally at McMaster University, on the Christian and Muslim conceptions of God, really opened my eyes, and set me on the path of changing my mind about that. To be clear, I did not think that Craig proved the Trinity true, but he surprised me by offering a subtle nuance which presented a logically consistent version of the Trinity (in hindsight, it is a version of the Trinity which doesn’t line up perfectly with Orthodoxy and Catholicism, which is of a concern for me today, but that was not a concern for me then; I was simply impressed that there could be a logically consistent version of the doctrine, as I assumed it was a necessary contradiction). I had studied a bit of the philosophy of language as an undergrad, so when Craig introduced the notion of different ways of interpreting a copula (proposing that a proposition like “Jesus is God” could be a predication that’s not an identity statement), it really resonated with me. Beyond that, perhaps fortuitously, I quickly thereafter stumbled upon what Raymond Brown (in his commentary on John) and Dan Wallace (in his Greek grammar) said regarding John 1:1c employing a predication (this amazed me, because while I was amazed by Craig’s ability to concoct a logically consistent version of the Trinity, I thought his appeal to copulas of predication was merely something he came up with on his own, yet here I was seeing serious scholars say that such appeared in the New Testament [and Brown noted it was recognized at least as far back as Chrysostom]).

      So try to imagine where I was at, at that point.

      (1) I saw divine incarnation as part of the earliest part of the Abrahamic faiths.
      (2) I believed the historical Jesus had been crucified.
      (3) I was very open to the likelihood that the historical Jesus may have made a statement alluding to His death, divine sonship and the finality of his prophethood.
      (4) I had just been bowled over by the sense that (a) my years long objections to the Trinity on logical grounds lacked sufficient nuance, and (b) a key philosophical nuance in Craig’s version of the Trinity had Biblical support.

      As you might imagine, when working within a paradigm of choosing between Judaism, Christianity and Islam, such things would make Christianity come off as the most appealing option of the three. So I became a lot more open to reading the New Testament collectively as a whole (i.e. seeing what I would get from it if I treated it as a single corpus), and I was impressed that, as per my reading, Scriptural support for the Trinity and dyophysitism seemed to me to begin leaping off the pages at me. So I made my next leap of faith in being willing to believe what the Bible as a whole said. Questions about Biblical canonicity caused me to lean towards Orthodoxy and Catholicism (on a side note, while I won’t go into detail on this, I also came to find a mystical side to specifically the Rosary and the Eucharist extremely moving, on a very personal level). All of that collectively convinced me to embrace the Christian faith.

      Now, as I said, my views have evolved since then. But my consistent position over the last decade has been to trust the classical Christian faith, though with an openness to the possibility that I could be wrong about various things. Due to that trust, I will not assume that if this particular doctrine lacks sufficient evidence to convince others, then it must be false. But if people have arguments which attempt to demonstrate a position I hold to be false, I am willing to explore those arguments, and I have done much of that over the last ten years. That has shaped my own amateur apologetic method, which is largely a defensive one, where I don’t generally attack the faiths of others, but rather attempt to address criticisms of my own faith, and show that it may be more consistent than critics realize.

      I hope that helps!

      Like

    • Denis Giron

      You said”

      “do not believe unrepentant murderers go to Heaven (cf. Revelation 21:8, 1 Timothy 1:9-11).”

      I say;
      Then why would Christians preach that Jesus as God willingly came down to sacrifice himself to save those who believed that from sins, when that is not the case but repentance is the way to save humans from their sins? It is false for Christians to preach the shedding of blood of Jesus is the only way to save humans because that is not the case. Repentance is the case of saving humans from sins as Muslims, Jews and Christians repent everyday. The blood of Jesus is rendered useless when a Christian repents.
      Muslims do not have anyone die to save them, so are responsible for their sins. It is understandable for a Muslim to repent but not a Christian who has already got someone paid for his sins.

      You said;
      Some might take a position along those lines, and even infer such from the New Testament, but I would say that ultimately the decree of God is a free decision (sure, God can set a system in place and then work within the system, never diverging from it, but the setting of the system is nonetheless a free decision).

      I say;
      Not so. God cannot decide, unless He killed Himself, is not free but something God cannot do i.e. He cannot forgive sins unless He shed blood.

      In Islam God forgives anyone He wills. He judges according to what humans do. He is all knowing and all wise and knows how He conducts His affairs.

      He is free to forgive sins without any system in His way. The Christian God is not free by putting a system he must satisfy on His way before He can forgive sins. He is not sovereign.

      You said;

      Intellect wrote:
      «God is unjust. Very unjust.»

      This brings us back to the question, when God decrees something, on what grounds does a human judge whether such a decree is just or unjust? Simply asserting that God is unjust will not do. You need to explain via what standard a mere human presumes to judge God.

      I say;
      In that case, God can forgive anyone He wills at any time without sacrifice like how He did to the people who followed Abraham, Jacob, Moses, etc. and no human can judge whether such decree is just or unjust. But Christians accuse Allah of not meeting the requirement of justice i.e. someone must be punished before justice is served.

      The law that God has created for us humans are for us not God to follow because God is not a human. It is just like ordering your children to sleep at 8.00 in order to get up early to go to school which understandably is for your children and not you an adult who may not go to school and is on holidays. It is not mandatory for you to sleep at 8:00 because you are not your children and above the law you create for them.

      God is sovereign and He can forgive sins free of charge because He is not in debt to anyone. It is humans who are in debt to their victims and God is all wise and all knowing to solve all this without killing Himself.

      ……to be continued

      Like

    • Intellect, why did you post your comment in this subthread? It seems out of place here (as you are responding to comments from another subthread). Nonetheless…

      Intellect asked:
      «why would Christians preach that Jesus as God willingly came down to sacrifice himself to save those who believed that from sins, when that is not the case but repentance is the way to save humans from their sins?»

      First of all, the obvious reason why Christians say that Christ was a divine Person who came down to die for the sins for others is because that’s the implication of the Bible.

      As for repentance, I would say it is required, but, as per God’s will, it is not the only factor. So, the way I see it, the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice are not available to those who do not repent. [Perhaps others would say, instead, that those predestined to be saved will repent, but either way, the Christian view is that repentance is required.]

      Intellect asked:
      «God cannot decide, unless He killed Himself, is not free but something God cannot do i.e. He cannot forgive sins unless He shed blood.»

      The way I would put it is this way: God freely decided that the death would play a role in atonement, with the death of a Person in the Trinity serving as the ultimate sacrifice in that regard. Personally, I think, at the beginning of God’s decree, God was free to establish a different system, but willed for that to be the system.

      Intellect asked:
      «In Islam God forgives anyone He wills.»

      Yes, I know. On a barely related side note, correct me if I’m wrong, but it is also your position that God is free to cause death and suffering to anyone God wills, correct? In other words, if God wants to cause a child die of cancer, or an old lady to have a heart attack, et cetera, God is sovereign, and can inflict suffering and death on whom God pleases. Is that correct?

      I ask because we would get two interesting premises:

      (1) God can forgive anyone, for anything, at any time.

      (2) God can inflict suffering and/or death on anyone at any time.

      Thinking about these two premises together, it leads me to wonder, if God can forgive anyone and God can kill anyone, what precludes God from linking the death of one person to another person’s forgiveness?

      Intellect wrote:
      «He is free to forgive sins without any system in His way.»

      If you now agree there are no systems in God’s way, would you likewise say that, if God so pleased, God will for the death of one person to provide atonement for another person? Or do you believe there is a system of justice which would prevent such a free decision?

      Intellect wrote:
      «The law that God has created for us humans are for us not God»

      Fascinating. So, just to be clear, your position is that existing law does not put any restrictions on God. Rather God can trascend or abrogate any extant law, if God so pleases, correct?

      Intellect wrote:
      «God is sovereign»

      Agreed.

      Like

  6. in the many different sects of first century judaism, where is the evidence that the jews thought to themselves that they had to be the KILLERS of yhwh to bring atonement for the whole world?

    did the jews read their scriptures and thought to themselves “hey, we gonna have to MURDER god and we won’t even know that it is our god” ?

    Liked by 1 person

    • quote:
      If you read what the pagans wrote about the Jews, it wasn’t the Jews’ monotheism that they found odd. It’s the fact that the Jewish temple had no god inside of it. That is to say, the Jews didn’t represent their god with some form of statue or image. The Holy of Holies in the Temple was literally empty. The notion of an all-powerful Creator godhead wasn’t that odd to the pagans. The lack of a physical representation is what the pagans found odd.

      end quote

      one day the jews thought to themselves that this invisible being would become visible and they would be the killers of it ? did any first century jewish sect have such an understanding of its god?

      Like

    • I know of no 1st century Rabbinic text which posits that the Jews believed they had to kill God to bring about atonement.

      Nonetheless, for what it’s worth, in the early Rabbinic corpora, we do at least see a belief that the death of a person can provide atonement for others (Talmud Bavli Mo`ed Qatan 28A and Makot 11B) as well as a belief that Isaiah 53 applies to the Messiah (Talmud Bavli Sanhedrin 98b). You might object that none of those texts say the Messiah (or any other person whose death [or suffering] might provide atonement) is divine, but, from a Christian perspective, an apparent silence in the extant Rabbinic corpora need not preclude the possibility.

      Interestingly, however, in later Rabbinic texts we might get closer to the possibility of such, as, for example, the second Lubavitcher Rebbe (AKA the Mitteler Rebbe), Dovber Schneuri, in his work, Ner Mitsvah ve-Torah Or (Sh`ar Ha-Emunah, 106B), applied Isaiah 52:13 to the Messiah (which would seem to imply that Isaiah 53 is also about the Messiah), and then, practically in the very next sentence, treated Psalm 2:7 as having seemingly incarnational implications, saying the verse refers to how “in the future will come all the lights of the sephirot [i.e. extensions/emanations from God] which are in the real essence [of God], in the aspect of a man, without any limitations at all” (לע”ל יבואו כל אורות דע”ס שבעצמות ממש בבחי’ אדם שהוא בלי גבול כלל).

        Mr. Heathcliff wrote:
        «one day the jews thought to themselves that this invisible being would become visible»

      Actually, we see allusions to God having a body or at least taking a human form in various parts of the Rabbinic literature (e.g. in Midrash Eliyahu as well as the Tiquney Zohar, vol. I, 22a, [corresponding to parshat B’reshīt, para. 159, in the Sūlam]). I’ll close with the following video, in which an orthodox rabbi, while discussing disputes in Jewish history, notes that when Maimonides declared that it is contrary to Judaism to believe God has a body, and Abraham ben David declared “people better than the RaMB”aM [i.e. Maimonides] believed that God had a body!”

      Like

    • God did take human form when he appeared to Abraham in the OT…

      Liked by 1 person

  7. My brother and sisters,
    Please don’t give the christians the chance to escape from this destroying implication of their belief about the “voluntary sacrifice”!
    Why were jews considered sinners for that matter?

    It’s like when someone went to a hospital to donate his blood willingly for a patient he loves so much, yet when the nurses took his blood to be donated, he got angry because he believed that nurses were guilty for taking his blood!

    Like

    • `Abdullah asked:
      «Why were jews considered sinners for that matter?»

      If you mean specifically those Jews who played a role in bringing about His death, as has already been explained before, God can permit an evil act to be committed –God can even deliberately will for the act in question to play a role in God’s plan, and will for benefit for others to be derived from such– without exculpating the person(s) who committed the act.

      In short, there is no contradiction between…

      (a) God willing for an act that is committed to play a role in God’s plan, and willing for benefit for others to be derived from that act

      …and…

      (b) God deeming the act in question sinful.

      For example, consider the example of elective late term abortion. Suppose there is a woman who is eight months pregnant, and the pregnancy is not a threat to her health or life, but she fears that having the baby will interrupt her studies at university, and hurt her future job prospects, so she gets an abortion. Couldn’t we agree that the doctor who performs such an abortion has committed murder? And if God sends the murdered baby straight to paradise, the baby will, in a sense, have benefited, but couldn’t God still consider the act murder (and thus sinful), despite that later benefit? Suppose God permitted the abortion to occur, rather than intervene, because God intended to use news of that flagrant disregard for life to shock many millions of people, and cause them to turn towards God. In this scenario, the act is part of God’s plan, and benefit was derived from it, yet God can still decree the act itself sinful.

      `Abdullah wrote:
      «It’s like when someone went to a hospital to donate his blood willingly for a patient he loves so much, yet when the nurses took his blood to be donated, he got angry because he believed that nurses were guilty for taking his blood!»

      How about a scenario where a criminal gang is knocking people unconscious, kidnapping them, taking their blood while they are unconscious (and thus without their consent), releasing their victims alive, and selling their blood on the black market. Suppose, as part of a police operation, an undercover cop knowingly allows himself to fall into the trap of those criminals (and thus, in a sense, willingly puts himself in a situation where the criminals knock him unconscious and take his blood). This act on the part of the cop allows the police to capture the criminals. They in turn seize the blood which had been taken from the undercover cop, and freely give it to a person who desperately needed a blood transfusion, saving their life. In this scenario, the person who is harmed willingly put himself in that position, and others benefited from the act, yet, presumably, the police could still charge the relevant criminals with a crime.

      None of these scenarios is a perfect fit, but I return to this point: God can will for an act to be part of the divine plan, and will for that act to benefit others, yet still decree the act itself to be a sin.

      So, why were the relevant Jews (and Romans) considered sinners? Ultimately it is a matter of God’s will, and God is sovereign in such matters.

      Like

    • Denis,
      You did not answer. Your comments are about why God permits evil to happen. The question though is about why that act was considered something evil in the first place?!

      Your scenario does not fit with the belief in christianity. The blood that Jesus shed is not becuase jews wanted that blood but because God wanted that blood to meet his justice!

      “How about a scenario where a criminal gang is knocking people unconscious, kidnapping them, taking their blood while they are unconscious (and thus without their consent), releasing their victims alive, and selling their blood on the black market. ”
      The crminal in this scenario – according to christianity – is God himself because God the one who cannot forgive without their blood, and those people deserve to die aacording to christian belief.

      Like

    • `Abdullah wrote:
      «You did not answer.»

      I feel I did. For example, aside from noting that there is no contradiction, I also wrote: “So, why were the relevant Jews (and Romans) considered sinners? Ultimately it is a matter of God’s will, and God is sovereign in such matters.” Why is any sin considered a sin? That it is a matter of God’s will. Neither you nor I decide what constitutes a sin; rather that is a matter of God’s will.

      `Abdullah wrote:
      «The question though is about why that act was considered something evil in the first place?!»

      Mere humans trying to get a person killed out of hatred for that person would be considered by most to be an evil act. If you disagree, fine, but again, it’s God’s decision, not ours. Likewise, humans unilatterally deciding to execute a person to appease a mob can be considered sinful as well. But again, God is sovereign.

      `Abdullah wrote:
      «The blood that Jesus shed is not becuase jews wanted that blood»

      The issue with specifically the Jews that attempt to provoke the Romans into killing Him would be the issue of killing Him because they hated Him. Yes, God willed for the act to happen and play a part in God’s plan, but that does not exculpate those who did such.

      `Abdullah wrote:
      «The crminal in this scenario – according to christianity – is God himself»

      If you’re saying the “criminal” should not be considered guilty, and you’re saying God is the “criminal,” well, then, note that I do not claim God committed any sin. The point of the analogy (back when you were asking about the culpability of Jesus’ Jewish opponents) was that having a plan which permits a crime and derives benefit from that crime does not necessarily negate the culpability of the one who committed the crime.

      Like

    • Denis Giron

      Abdullah wrote:
      «The question though is about why that act was considered something evil in the first place?!»

      Mere humans trying to get a person killed out of hatred for that person would be considered by most to be an evil act. If you disagree, fine, but again, it’s God’s decision, not ours. Likewise, humans unilatterally deciding to execute a person to appease a mob can be considered sinful as well. But again, God is sovereign.

      I say;
      You said God is sovereign? I don’t believe you said so, because you do not believe that because in your religion(Christianity), God is not sovereign because He cannot forgive sin unless He shed blood or kill Himself.

      Islam that has sovereign God because He forgives sins when He wills and nothing can be His from forgiving sins.

      Christian God is unjust. Very unjust..

      Why?
      When a Christian who just believed Jesus died for his sins will go to heaven, the Christian God is unjust to none Christian victims of Christian murderers like the Crusaders.

      The murdered victim of a Christian murderer will be unjustly punished by the Christian God, but the victims murderer(Christian) will be sent to heaven. That is the most unjust God(Christian God) I have to say.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • Denis Giron

      Abdullah wrote:
      «The question though is about why that act was considered something evil in the first place?!»

      Mere humans trying to get a person killed out of hatred for that person would be considered by most to be an evil act. If you disagree, fine, but again, it’s God’s decision, not ours. Likewise, humans unilatterally deciding to execute a person to appease a mob can be considered sinful as well. But again, God is sovereign.

      I say;
      You said God is sovereign? I don’t believe you said so, because you do not believe that because in your religion(Christianity), God is not sovereign because He cannot forgive sin unless He shed blood or kill Himself.
      Islam has a sovereign God because He forgives sins when He wills and nothing can be on His way from forgiving sins.

      Christian God is unjust. Very unjust..

      Why?
      When a Christian who just believed Jesus died for his sins will go to heaven, the Christian God is unjust to none Christian victims of Christian murderers like the Crusaders.

      The murdered victim(non Christian) of a Christian murderer will be unjustly punished by the Christian God, but the victim’s murderer(Christian) will be sent to heaven. That is the most unjust God(Christian God) I have to say.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • “The issue with specifically the Jews that attempt to provoke the Romans into killing Him would be the issue of killing Him because they hated Him”
      It doesn’t matter!
      Remember, that man went to the hospital so that nurses can take his blood which he wanted to be donated willingly. Those nurses did what he wanted to do specifically.

      “If you’re saying the “criminal” should not be considered guilty, and you’re saying God is the “criminal,” well, then, note that I do not claim God committed any sin.”
      No! I’m not saying that.
      My point is that your analogy doesn’t fit with the christian belief unless you say;
      that gang = God himself, the hero cop= Jesus, and the other cops who helped that hero cop to do his heroic job = jews.

      If Jesus had not wanted to die, which is soemthing we clearly see in your gospels, then that it would be another matter. However, christianity affirms that Jesus came to die for the sins of the world willingly since God cannot forgive sins without the blood.

      “That it is a matter of God’s will”
      Fine!
      In other words, you have no answer for this devastating contradiction & nonsense.

      “O People of the Scripture, why do you confuse the truth with falsehood and conceal the truth while you know [it]?” QT

      Like

    • This is in reply to both Intellect and `Abdullah

      ***

      Intellect wrote:
      «in your religion(Christianity), God is not sovereign because He cannot forgive sin unless He shed blood or kill Himself.»

      Some might take a position along those lines, and even infer such from the New Testament, but I would say that ultimately the decree of God is a free decision (sure, God can set a system in place and then work within the system, never diverging from it, but the setting of the system is nonetheless a free decision).

      By the way, the topic of God being able to just freely forgive, without Christ’s sacrifice, came up briefly, towards the end of my blog entry on Christ’s Sacrifice and God’s Justice.

      Intellect wrote:
      «God is unjust. Very unjust.»

      This brings us back to the question, when God decrees something, on what grounds does a human judge whether such a decree is just or unjust? Simply asserting that God is unjust will not do. You need to explain via what standard a mere human presumes to judge God.

      Intellect wrote:
      «When a Christian who just believed Jesus died for his sins will go to heaven, the Christian God is unjust to none Christian victims of Christian murderers like the Crusaders.»

      I do not believe unrepentant murderers go to Heaven (cf. Revelation 21:8, 1 Timothy 1:9-11). And isn’t is possible even in your faith for those who commit murder and then sincerely repent to be saved? If so, even in your faith, a misguided person who identifies as Muslim could murder a Hindu who never harmed anyone, and if the Muslim afterwards sincerely repents, he can ultimately still go to Heaven, while the Hindu whom he killed might still go to Hell, for unrepentant shirk. Ergo, your objection is a strange one, since the phenomenon described exists in popular interpretations of both our faiths.

      Intellect wrote:
      «That is the most unjust God»

      Do you believe that you are God’s judge? Do you believe that if God were to do certain things, you would have the authority to declare God unjust? Or is it the case that no matter what God does, you are in no place to judge God’s decision?

      ***

      `Abdullah wrote:
      «It doesn’t matter!»

      It does matter, because I think you would agree that trying to get a person killed purely out of hatred is a sin. God willing for such to be part of God’s plan need not exculpate those who engaged in such.

      `Abdullah wrote:
      «that man went to the hospital so that nurses can take his blood which he wanted to be donated willingly.»

      Was the crucifixion a benign agreement between all parties involved? Or were some acting out of hatred, irrespective of whether Christ was willing to die or not? Again, to use your blood analogy, it is more like the people desiring to engage in something in illegal (e.g. take people’s blood without their consent). If a person willingly puts himself in that trap, that does not change their malicious intentions.

      `Abdullah wrote:
      «My point is that your analogy doesn’t fit with the christian belief unless you say; that gang = God himself, the hero cop= Jesus, and the other cops who helped that hero cop to do his heroic job = jews.»

      How about:

      God = the police force who came up with the plan.
      the criminal gangs = Christ’s Jewish and Roman opponents
      the cop who put himself in the trap = Christ

      The point remains: the gang’s malicious intent is not erased by one person allowing himself to fall into their trap, nor are they exculpated by the benefits derived from their crime.

      `Abdullah wrote:
      «you have no answer for this devastating contradiction»

      You haven’t pointed to an actual contradiction. Permit me to share that just because something doesn’t make sense to you, personally, that does not necessarily mean it is therefore a logical contradiction. If you’d like to explain the alleged contradiction, please do so. Otherwise, you should not expect me to agree with you.

      Like

    • ” The blood that Jesus shed is not becuase jews wanted that blood but because God wanted that blood to meet his justice!”

      actually we can say that the jews were innocent in what they did. there is no evidence that the jews thought that in isaiah 53 yhwh was going to be object of punishment and reward. they had no idea that killing a blasphemer was sin .

      so the driver of the events and the one who delivered himself to divinely prescribed execution was yhwh himself. the jews cannot be accused of doing any sin, they were following guidance from their own law.

      christians think that almighty god got punished violently and rewarded. (isaiah 53)
      not only that, they think yhwh was an animal levitical sacrifice. the jews surely did not believe that almighty god was an animal levitical sacrifice in the first century .

      think about this man, according to modern day christians, the jews just needed to believe that yhwh was an animal sacrifice and they could NAIL jesus lovingly and willingly.

      so yhwh is responsible for his own divinely prescribed whooping.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Mr. Heathcliffe wrote:
      «there is no evidence thatthe jews thought that in isaiah 53 yhwh was going to be object of punishment and reward.»

      Questions about the divinity of the Messiah aside, we do at least see an ancient Jewish understanding that Isaiah 53 applies to the Messiah in Talmud Bavli Sanhedrin 98b. Now, the Jews who tried to get Jesus crucified may or may not have held to that tradition. But if, for the sake of argument, they did hold to such an understanding, I doubt it would therefore mean they were therefore allowed to attack the Messiah at any time they wished (in other words, understanding that God can choose for the Messiah to suffer does not mean you are I are therefore free to attack the Messiah whenever we please).

      Mr. Heathcliffe wrote:
      «they had no idea that killing a blasphemer was sin»

      Killing a mere blasphemer may not have been a sin (at least not in certain previous settings). However, even if it was unintentional, killing a person for blasphemy who was not actually a blasphemer can still be a sin (i.e. unintentional crimes can still be crimes). This becomes compounded if they were not only guided by a dispassionate desire to get rid of blasphemers but also by a deep hatred, separate from that.

      Mr. Heathcliffe wrote:
      «the driver of the events and the one who delivered himself to divinely prescribed execution was yhw_ himself.»

      As Abdal Hakim Murad (A.K.A. Timothy Winter) once put it, “it’s an impugning and compromising of our tawHeed to suggest that what’s happening in today’s world is not the direct will of Allah”. So, yes, the killing of a person (irrespective of whether than person is divine or not) relates directly to God’s will and God’s plan (as indeed, God knowingly created all the conditions which made such possible).

      Mr. Heathcliffe wrote:
      «the jews cannot be accused of doing any sin, they were following guidance from their own law.»

      Quick thought experiment: the Qur’an, in surat Al `Imran 3:50, notes that Jesus brought the arbogation of certain laws which previously existed for the Jews. If Jews sought to attack Christ for teaching things contrary to the Law they had, would you say that’s okay? Or were they expected to submit to Christ’s authority? And even if they didn’t fully understand or grasp Jesus’ authority, God can still hold them accountable, right?

      Mr. Heathcliffe wrote:
      «the jews just needed to believe that yhwh was an animal sacrifice and they could NAIL jesus lovingly and willingly.»

      No, they could not. If God gave them a specific command to carry out such, then it would be permissible for them to do so (like Abraham and his son). However, if they acted on their own, that’s something different (even if God permitted such to happen and intended it to be part of the divine plan).

      Like

    • Denis Giron

      You said;
      I do not believe unrepentant murderers go to Heaven (cf. Revelation 21:8, 1 Timothy 1:9-11). And isn’t is possible even in your faith for those who commit murder and then sincerely repent to be saved? If so, even in your faith, a misguided person who identifies as Muslim could murder a Hindu who never harmed anyone, and if the Muslim afterwards sincerely repents, he can ultimately still go to Heaven, while the Hindu whom he killed might still go to Hell, for unrepentant shirk. Ergo, your objection is a strange one, since the phenomenon described exists in popular interpretations of both our faiths.

      I say;
      We(Muslims) do not go around falsely preaching that God must satisfy justice by killing Himself and punish someone before He can forgive sins. Our God is sovereign who can forgive sins without shedding blood. So, He can forgive a sincere repentant free of charge without fear or favor. You admit that God is sovereign and can make His decision and no human can judge Him. So, why are Christians accusing Allah of forgiving sins without punishment?

      In Islam, the law God set up for His creations(human) are for humans and not God Himself. God is sovereign and above the law He set for us. We die and the Bible says God is immortal( does not die), so He is above our law. He forgives at His will and not to sacrifice anything.

      If a Muslim willingly murdered a Hindu, that Muslim must be killed according to Sharia(God law) or must be spared if the family of the murdered victim forgives him(Muslim murderer). So, Islam is different because we follow the law and Christ did not die for a Muslim murderers sins but the Muslim murderer is responsible and must pay for his sins himself and not the blood of Christ.

      The Christians murderer has got Christ pay for his sins but the non Christian victim will be put in hell but the murderer goes to heaven, is injustice to the non Christian victim in my opinion.

      So, there is no justice in Christian doctrine of sacrificing God(immortal).

      Islam is not like Christianity which preaches, only the believe in Christ sacrifice can save humans. In Islam, those who do hear about Islam could go to heaven depending with God’s Mercy. When the Hindu goes to hell, it is because of his shirk and disobeying God’s law and not on justice as Christians will falsely preach. That Hindu could go to heaven if he has not heard about Islam, Moses at his time or Jesus at his time. It has nothing to do with justice that God has to satisfy by punishing someone.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • Intellect wrote:
      «So, He can forgive a sincere repentant free of charge»

      So then, in both our faiths, there is nothing incoherent about a murderer going to Heaven and the murderer’s victim going to Hell (provided the murderer repented of his sins, and the victim did not). This would mean that there is nothing incoherent about, to use the example you brought up, a crusader going to Heaven and a person killed by that crusader being sent to Hell.

      Intellect wrote:
      «why are Christians accusing Allah of forgiving sins without punishment?»

      I, personally, did not accuse God. I was merely noting what is possible in each of our faiths.

      [Skipping over some things addressed in another subhtread.]

      Intellect wrote:
      «If a Muslim willingly murdered a Hindu, that Muslim must be killed according to Sharia(God law)»

      This doesn’t address the point I made: if that Muslim repents, he can go to paradise, and his victim can still go to Hell (e.g. for unrepentant shirk). So while you complain about a murderer going to Heaven and the victim going to Hell, that is possible in both our faiths.

      Intellect wrote:
      «The Christians murderer has got Christ pay for his sins but the non Christian victim will be put in hell but the murderer goes to heaven»

      I don’t see the point of repeating this objection, when it was already noted that, according to the Christian faith, unrepentant murderers do not go the Heaven. So, again, in both our faiths, it is possible for a murderer to go to Heaven and their victim to go to Hell.

      Intellect wrote:
      «When the Hindu goes to hell, it is because of his shirk and disobeying God’s law»

      Yes, so, imagine there is a gentle Hindu lady, who has never harmed anyone. She’s kind to everyone she meets, human and animal alike. There have been Muslims who have tried to give da`wah to her, but she was, respectfully, unconvinced, and remained a Hindu. In your faith, it is possible for God to send that gentle woman to Hell, and yet send a man who committed many murders to Heaven, provided he sincerely repented. It seems to me such is possible in Christianity as well. Either way, God is sovereign.

      Like

    • if there is pain , suffering , murder , killing , innocent people being ripped apart , children growing up in slums and seeing nothing but sins, can i ask, when one of these kids turns from evil and sincere repents, why can’t god forgive him?

      god makes the human “born in sin”
      gives him a corrupt heart
      and on top of that he allows satan to tempt him.

      why can’t god show some pity on sincerely repentful sinner?

      i thought it was
      “the sabbath is made for man, not man for the sabbath”

      so if God is merciful and kind and fair and loving, why can’t he forgive the sincerely repentant without the RIPPING TO PIECES OF ANYONE?

      Like

    • Denis Giron
      October 9, 2017 • 7:12 pm
      Intellect wrote:
      «So, He can forgive a sincere repentant free of charge»

      So then, in both our faiths, there is nothing incoherent about a murderer going to Heaven and the murderer’s victim going to Hell (provided the murderer repented of his sins, and the victim did not). This would mean that there is nothing incoherent about, to use the example you brought up, a crusader going to Heaven and a person killed by that crusader being sent to Hell.

      I say;
      Except that, in Christianity God came down to sacrifice Himself to fulfill justice-which the victims of the Crusaders were denied by the Christian God. Muslim God is sovereign and forgives free of charge and does not have to die to fulfill justice but is all knowing, all wise, all merciful etc. to forgive a sincere repentant of his sins. Do you notice the difference now?

      Thanks.

      Like

    • Intellect wrote:
      «Except that, in Christianity God came down to sacrifice Himself to fulfill justice-which the victims of the Crusaders were denied by the Christian God.»

      How were the victims of the crusades denied anything? There were Christians too killed by certain crusaders. And presumably a great many of the non-Christians killed by the crusaders had some familiar with Christians or crusaders. So what was denied to them?

      But consider the implications of your own faith. Suppose a crusader murdered a bunch of Jews who lived among Muslims. Then suppose that crusader sincerely converted to Islam, and repented. According to your faith, that crusader could wind up in Heaven, and those Jews he killed could wind up in Hell (perhaps surat an-Nisa’ 4:150-151 is relevant as to why). So even in your own faith, crusaders can go to Heaven and their victims can go to Hell (even if their victims never killed anyone), right?

      Intellect wrote:
      «Do you notice the difference now?»

      Yes, in your faith God does not have the death of a person play a role in atonement. In my faith, God does have such play a role. But that becomes irrelevant to the question of whether murderers can go to Heaven while their victims go to Hell, as on either system, such remains possible.

      Like

    • Mr. Heathcliffe wrote:
      «if there is pain , suffering , murder , killing , innocent people being ripped apart , children growing up in slums and seeing nothing but sins, can i ask, when one of these kids turns from evil and sincere repents, why can’t god forgive him?»

      Of course God can forgive them.

      Mr. Heathcliffe wrote:
      «why can’t god show some pity on sincerely repentful sinner?»

      Who said God does not? I would think God does show mercy on truly repentant sinners.

      But consider a thought experiment: suppose a Hindu who is familiar with both Islam and Judaism converts to a unitarian interpretation of Judaism. This Hindu repents of previously believing in multiple gods, or a multipersonal concept of God, or divine incarnation, and winds up having a conception of God like that in Islam. But in a Jewish framework. The Hindu continues to disbelieve in Jesus and Muhammad. With surat an-Nisa’ 4:150-151 in mind, what happens to that former Hindu turned Jew? Will they be punished, according to your faith?

      Mr. Heathcliffe wrote:
      «if God is merciful and kind and fair and loving, why can’t he forgive the sincerely repentant without the RIPPING TO PIECES OF ANYONE?»

      God’s mercy cannot be judged by humans. It’s like asking, if God is merciful, why can’t God carry out the divine plan without bone cancer in children, or babies suffering birth defects because their mother consumed intoxicants while pregnant? If God is merciful, why can’t God sustain animal life without the food chain (in which countless gentile creatures are torn to shreds)? The honest answer is God is sovereign, and God’s justice and mercy are not the subject of the judgments of humans who have only a tiny sense of reality.

      Like

    • “Was the crucifixion a benign agreement between all parties involved?”
      Are you saying that Jesus didn’t want to be killed? Or are you saying that jews should have killed Jesus with love? 🙂
      If that person went to the hospital willingly and in out of love, would it be matter if the nurses loved him or not ?

      “How about:
      God = the police force who came up with the plan.
      the criminal gangs = Christ’s Jewish and Roman opponents
      the cop who put himself in the trap = Christ”
      I have no problem with this analogy. However, you have to say that the police force is the party which wanted the blood of unconscious people if you want to meet the picture in your belief not the gang.

      “You haven’t pointed to an actual contradiction”
      I have! But you were busy writing long comments about why God permits evil to happen, which has not been the question we keep asking.
      To refresh your memory and again, if christianity was a true religion, then Jesus should have said something like this:
      “Oh my beloved people whom I’d given a law you cannot keep in the first place. I’m your god who has come to earth to be the perfect ransom for you because I love you so much. All what you need to do is sacrificing me instead of your animals by nailing me on a cross so that you can be free from the worthless law I’d give to you. Then all of us will live together & forever with endless happiness.
      Note: don’t forget to lash me as much as you can before you nail me on the cross”
      However, what we find in the christian bible that Jesus was so upset form those jews. In fact, the one who handed Jesus to Pilate had a greater sin according to Jesus!
      So Jesus, what’s the point from coming to earth to be the voluntary sacrifice for those poor jews if you’re gonna condemn them later?
      Isn’t it enough that you Jesus didn’t tell them about ( the one essence shared by three persons & hypostatic union)?

      I’m telling you Denis, you have not dealt with this devastating contradiction, and you cannot.

      Like

    • “christians think that almighty god got punished violently and rewarded. (isaiah 53)
      not only that, they think yhwh was an animal levitical sacrifice. the jews surely did not believe that almighty god was an animal levitical sacrifice in the first century .

      think about this man, according to modern day christians, the jews just needed to believe that yhwh was an animal sacrifice and they could NAIL jesus lovingly and willingly”

      AMAZING!

      Like

    • Denis Giron

      Intellect wrote:
      «Do you notice the difference now?»

      Yes, in your faith God does not have the death of a person play a role in atonement. In my faith, God does have such play a role. But that becomes irrelevant to the question of whether murderers can go to Heaven while their victims go to Hell, as on either system, such remains

      I say;
      Distinguish the two and extract the incoherence of the Christian faith with regards to JUSTICE. I mentioned the injustice to a victim of a Christians murderer because Christ came down to satisfy justice but he failed because the victims of Christians are unjustly punished while the criminal is rewarded in heaven just by sincerely believing Christ died for his sins.

      In Islam, God and no one came down to satisfy justice because God is sovereign. So, our God did not come down to satisfy justice as the Christian God did. So, we have every right to point out to Christians that their God coming down to satisfy justice is in vain because he ended up not satisfying justice to the victims of Christian murderers.

      That is my point. Repeat Christian God came down but did not satisfy justice but caused injustice by punishing the victims of Christian murderers.

      We did not say our God came down to satisfy justice. He is sovereign, so it is only the Christian God who came down to satisfy justice but he failed to do so.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • Denis Giron

      How were the victims of the crusades denied anything? There were Christians too killed by certain crusaders. And presumably a great many of the non-Christians killed by the crusaders had some familiar with Christians or crusaders. So what was denied to them?

      But consider the implications of your own faith. Suppose a crusader murdered a bunch of Jews who lived among Muslims. Then suppose that crusader sincerely converted to Islam, and repented. According to your faith, that crusader could wind up in Heaven, and those Jews he killed could wind up in Hell

      I say;
      Jews who did not hear about Islam and worship the God of Abraham and follow his law and refrain themselves from sin, could end up in heaven. Our Muslim God is God of Mercy.
      ——-
      {And never would We punish until We sent a messenger.} [Quran 17:15]
      ——-

      The person who did not hear about Islam, will still be judged in the day of judgement to account for what he did on earth.

      The Muslim God is sovereign and the law He created for humans does not apply to Him(God). He does not have to come down to satisfy justice like humans. He administers justice with His all knowing and all wise attributes.

      The Christian God came down to satisfy justice like humans do, but He failed by not serving justice to the victims of Crusaders and other Christians like the child molesters in the Catholic and Protestant Churches.

      Christian clergy will molest a non Christian child and the child will be sent in hell and the perpetrator sent to heaven. Where is the justice that the Christian God came down to fulfill?

      Do you get it now?

      Our Muslim God is sovereign and did not come down to fulfil justice but is all knowing, all wise and merciful to judge anyone and compensate anyone as possible. He loves us and provide us with food, air, water etc. except sometimes He tests us for our obedience to Him which when passed the reward is great.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • This will contain replies to `Abdullah and Intellect

      ***

        `Abdullah wrote:
        «Are you saying that Jesus didn’t want to be killed? Or are you saying that jews should have killed Jesus with love?»

      I was saying that it’s not like there was an agreed upon arrangement, where the Jews and Romans were commanded by God to carry out these acts, and did merely to follow orders. Rather, they sought to harm Him out of malicious intent, and, separate from that, or unbeknownst to the perpetrators, God permitted that to be the setting for the sacrifice of Christ. It is a case of God knowing that there was an intention for an evil act to be committed, and God willing for that act to play a role in the divine plan.

        `Abdullah wrote:
        «If that person went to the hospital willingly and in out of love, would it be matter if the nurses loved him or not?»

      It matters if their intent was malicious and illicit, and it matters whether they were acting on orders or own their own initiative. That’s why, rather than an example of blood donation at a hospital (which would only work with consent — there’s an agreed upon arrangement), I gave the analogy of a criminal gang which seeks to acquire blood illegally, without consent. In the latter case, even if a person willfully places himself in their trap, that does not exculpate their intent and actions.

        `Abdullah wrote:
        «However, you have to say that the police force is the party which wanted the blood of unconscious people if you want to meet the picture in your belief not the gang.»

      The point of my analogy was only to explore this point: people who seek to commit a crime can be held accountable, even if the victim allowed himself to be snared.

      Nonetheless, sure, even if we imagine a scenario where the police planned to confiscate the illicitly acquired blood, for the benefit of others, that would not exculpate the criminals.

        `Abdullah described the aforementioned (alleged) contradiction thusly:
        «To refresh your memory and again, if christianity was a true religion, then Jesus should have said something like this: “Oh my beloved people whom I’d given a law you cannot keep in the first place. I’m your god who has come to earth to be the perfect ransom for you because I love you so much. All what you need to do is sacrificing me instead of your animals by nailing me on a cross so that you can be free from the worthless law I’d give to you. Then all of us will live together & forever with endless happiness. Note: don’t forget to lash me as much as you can before you nail me on the cross” However, what we find in the christian bible that Jesus was so upset form those jews. In fact, the one who handed Jesus to Pilate had a greater sin according to Jesus! So Jesus, what’s the point from coming to earth to be the voluntary sacrifice for those poor jews if you’re gonna condemn them later? Isn’t it enough that you Jesus didn’t tell them about ( the one essence shared by three persons & hypostatic union)?»

      With all due respect, you haven’t actually shown a contradiction within Christianity, here. Rather, a large part is you stating the way you feel the faith should have unfolded and then noting it didn’t actually unfold that way. But of course, just because a faith does not meet your preferences does not mean if therefore it contradicts itself.

      Then you touch on something which has already been addressed, complaining that Christ’s Jewish opponents remain sinners, despite the sacrifice. The way I have previously put it, and would put it again, here, is that the benefits of the sacrifice are not available to those who are unrepentant or reject Christ.

      So I ask you again, where is the alleged contradiction? And I ask you to try to clearly lay it out. Resist the urge to post sarcasm, and just attempt to clearly lay out “this contradicts that, for these reasons…”

      ***

        Intellect wrote:
        «I mentioned the injustice to a victim of a Christians murderer because Christ came down to satisfy justice but he failed because the victims of Christians are unjustly punished while the criminal is rewarded in heaven»

      But the alternative system does not really change that. Repeating a point previously made, note the two systems under discussion:

      System 1: God wills for the death of a person to play a role in atonement. Those who repent and accept the true faith (including acceptance of Jesus) go to Heaven, while those who do not repent, or reject key elements of the truth faith (including rejecting Jesus) may find themselves in Hell. This includes murderers and their victims (i.e. a murderer who repents and accepts the true faith can go to Heaven, while their victims may wind up in Hell if they do not repent or if they reject the truth faith, including if they reject Jesus).

      System 2: God does not have the death of any person to play a role in atonement. Those who repent and accept the true faith (including acceptance of Jesus) go to Heaven, while those who do not repent, or reject key elements of the truth faith (including rejecting Jesus) may find themselves in Hell. This includes murderers and their victims (i.e. a murderer who repents and accepts the true faith can go to Heaven, while their victims may wind up in Hell if they do not repent or if they reject the truth faith, including if they reject Jesus).

      So while you complained about murderers (or more specifically crusaders) going to Heaven while the people they killed go to Hell, that turns out to be a possibility in both systems. Whether the death of a person plays a role in atonement or not, in either case we still have the possibility of murderers going to Heaven while their victims go to Hell. Do you acknowledge this? Do you acknowledge that even in the alternative system you are proposing, murderers can wind up in Heaven while their victims wind up in Hell?

        Intellect wrote:
        «God coming down to satisfy justice is in vain because he ended up not satisfying justice to the victims of Christian murderers»

      No one has claimed that Christ’s sacrifice will prevent harm from befalling people in this life. As for where they wind up after death, that relates to their faith and repentance, as it does in your own system. So you haven’t actually solved the alleged “problem” of murderers going to Heaven and their victims going to Hell.

      That aside, who goes to Heaven or Hell is God’s decision, and no human has any ground on which to question what God does with creation (Romans 9:20-21, along with Isaiah 29:16 and Isaiah 45:9, has relevance here).

        Intellect wrote:
        «caused injustice by punishing the victims of Christian murderers.»

      Is it really your position that sending a murder victim to Hell is injustice? That would be strange, as, again, in your own faith, murder victims (including people murderered by professed Christians) can go to Hell.

        Intellect wrote:
        «only the Christian God who came down to satisfy justice but he failed to do so»

      I don’t see on what grounds you assert that God has failed to achieve anything. Those who die in this life, die in part because of God’s will, and those who are sent to Hell, are sent there because of God’s will. So people dying and going to Hell is not an example of a failure of God; rather it is an example of God’s will. A person who is not saved is not saved in part because God chose not to save that person. This would be the case in both our faiths.

      Like

    • It seems I missed a post, so here is an addendum…

        Intellect wrote:
        «Jews who did not hear about Islam and worship the God of Abraham and follow his law and refrain themselves from sin, could end up in heaven.»

      Yes, but Jews who were familiar with Islam, and rejected it, and then were killed by a crusader, could wind up in Hell. So, again, even on your own system, it is possible for a crusader to kill a Jew, and then the crusader to sincerely recite the shahadatayn, repent of his past sins, and go to Heaven, while the Jew he killed goes to Hell.

        Intellect wrote:
        «God is sovereign»

      Agreed. And that’s a point to keep in mind, as you seem to think that if God did certain things, mere humans would have a right to accuse God of injustice. I don’t think so. God’s ultimate sovereignty means that no matter what God decrees, no mere human has any grounds on which to presume to pass judgment on that decree.

        Intellect wrote:
        «Christian clergy will molest a non Christian child and the child will be sent in hell and the perpetrator sent to heaven.»

      This possibility, too, exists in your own faith. Suppose a Catholic priest opens a school in India, and molests a bunch of Hindu children. Suppose the priest later in life sincerely embraces Islam. Suppose the Hindus he molested grow up and remain Hindus for the entirety of their lives (despite being aware of Islam). According to your system, the child molesting priest goes to Heaven, and the Hindus he molested go to Hell, right?

        Intellect wrote:
        «Where is the justice that the Christian God came down to fulfill?»

      I would simply say that God willed that Christ’s sacrifice played a role in atonement. This may not make sense to you, personally, but I think even you agree that God’s plan does not hinge on your understanding; rather, it exists separate from your understanding. I remain uncertain what you think “satisfy justice” means, but no Christian claims the sacrifice of Christ would eliminate all harm or death in this life (nor does the classical Christian faith claim Christ’s sacrifice ensures no one goes to Hell).

        Intellect wrote:
        «Do you get it now?»

      No, honestly, I do not. It seems to me that you keep complaining that my faith makes room for possibilities which are also possibilities in your own faith (e.g. murders going to Heaven while their victims go to Hell, child molesters going to Heaven while their victims go to Hell). You’re not actually providing a solution if what you’re complaining about is a possibility in both systems.

      Like

    • Denis,
      I’ve told you! You cannot & you won’t 🙄

      For the rest of christians in this blog,
      What were jews supposed to do? Put yourself in their shoes!
      If their animals cannot save them, and the all loving god came to the earth to become the perfect sacrifice for them instead of their animals, then why is it so wrong to sacrifce that god who came to be sacrificed if this is the only way for them to be saved?

      Any answer?

      Like

    • `Abdullah asked:
      «What were jews supposed to do? Put yourself in their shoes! If their animals cannot save them, and the all loving god came to the earth to become the perfect sacrifice for them instead of their animals, then why is it so wrong to sacrifce that god who came to be sacrificed if this is the only way for them to be saved?»

      They are not allowed to unilaterally carry out a sacrifice. Nor is there any indication that those who tried to get Jesus killed did so because they wanted to bring about the relevant sacrifice. Rather malicious intent was the guiding force for many.

      So, what should Christ’s Jewish and Roman opponents have done? Submitted to Christ’s authority, and did what He told them to do. Why is what they did wrong? Because one is not allowed to simply attack (or convince other’s to attack) Christ out of hatred. Just because God brought benefit out of their hatred and malicious intentions does not exculpate them.

      There is no contradiction in this concept.

      Like

    • Denis Giron

      Thanks for your replies. I appreciate it.
      You said;
      Intellect wrote:
      «Where is the justice that the Christian God came down to fulfill?»
      I would simply say that God willed that Christ’s sacrifice played a role in atonement. This may not make sense to you, personally, but I think even you agree that God’s plan does not hinge on your understanding; rather, it exists separate from your understanding. I remain uncertain what you think “satisfy justice” means, but no Christian claims the sacrifice of Christ would eliminate all harm or death in this life (nor does the classical Christian faith claim Christ’s sacrifice ensures no one goes to Hell).

      I say;

      Let me try again. Now focus on JUSTICE. Do not overlook it when replying. That is my main problem, when Christians say the Christ death means God is just and has satisfy justice. But that is not the case for the victims of Christians injustice. Justice is when a victim is payed for his troubles but not the perpetrator payed for his victims troubles.

      I, and Muslims did not say their God came down to die and pay for someone’s injustice but Christian God came to die and in that process paid for any injustices. Is it not so?

      If you admit that, Christ death on the cross has nothing to do with justice, then i will rest my case. The reason I keep persisting is that, I hear from many Christians that Christ death is about perfect justice. if you disagree with them, then I will rest my case.

      …..to be continued

      Like

    • Denis Giron

      continued………

      Denis Giron

      In Islam, God is sovereign and therefore will not submit the ther law He created for humans, so He will not come and die for JUSTICE. On the other hand Christian God came to die and to make room fof perfect justice which is a failure when the victims of Christian murderers are put to hell.

      Islamic God did not come down to die to satisfy “perfect justice” but He is sovereign to use all knowing, all wise and mercy to judge everyone. Christian God is about “perfect justice” by dying on the cross, but the justice is not perfect when the victims of criminals are punished and the criminals going heaven.

      Listen or read.
      If I said my God is all knowing and you find out that he does not know something, it is legitimate for you to ask me why He does not know that particular thing.

      Christians say their God “satisfy perfect justice” which was not perfect because the victims of Christian murderers were punished while the criminals set free. Where is the perfect justice here?

      Thanks.

      Like

    • “Submitted to Christ’s authority, and did what He told them to do”
      Again, are you saying that Jews should have killed Jesus in out of submission to his authority? Or are you saying they should have not killed Jesus becuse Jesus did not want that? 😴

      *Don’t forget the “fact” that humanity cannot get the salvation except through Jesus’ blood, and Jesus came to the earth for this very reason. There’s no way!

      Don’t worry about the contradiction! It’s above you and under you. It’s behind you and in front of you. It’s in your right and in your left. You cannot escape from it since your belief has been invented by men.

      Like

    • This will contain responses to Intellect and `Abdullah

      ***-***-***

        Intellect wrote:
        «Christians say the Christ death means God is just and has satisfy justice.»

      You keep appealing to this, but it remains unclear what you mean by “satisfy justice,” or what you think it means. For example, in a previous response to you I tried to explore whether you are under the impression that Christ’s sacrifice “satisfying justice” means no person can be harmed or die in this life? Or that no person goes to Hell? Or do you have in mind, perhaps, an Anselmian view (like in his Cur Deus Homo), where man’s sin incurs extraordinary debt, and thus requires something extraordinary to “satisfy” it? Before we can determine whether this notion you’re exploring fits with people getting killed and going to Hell, we need to know what this notion you’re alluding to is, i.e. what it posits. So please elaborate on what you mean by “satisfy justice,” or what you think it means.

      For example, you later wrote that, on the Christian view, “God came to die and in that process paid for any injustices”. Do you mean that your impression is that Christians believe that once Christ’s sacrifice happened, no one could ever be wronged in this life? If so, that is surely not a Christian position I have ever encountered. However, if that is not what you mean, please elaborate.

        Intellect wrote:
        «Justice is when a victim is payed for his troubles but not the perpetrator payed for his victims troubles.»

      I would say that, ultimately, justice is defined by God, not men, and thus no mere man is ever in a place to dictate to God what is or is not just. That aside, I don’t see any injustice in a person who suffers paying a price for a person who is guilty of some crime, provided the person who suffered agreed to such.

        Intellect wrote:
        «If you admit that, Christ death on the cross has nothing to do with justice, then i will rest my case.»

      Well, here’s what I would say: God is just, no matter what. From the perspective of humans, if God wills for the death of a person to play a role in atonement, then a human cannot question God’s justice. And, alternatively, if God does not have the death of a person to play a role in atonement, then a human still cannot question God’s justice. In other words, my view is that whether God decrees X or not-X, either way, God’s justice remains unassailable from the human perspective.

      Having said that, if we are referring to a system set in place by God, where the death of Christ can provide atonement to those who repent and turn to Him, I do affirm such.

        Intellect wrote:
        «is a failure when the victims of Christian murderers are put to hell.»

      You keep invoking this, and I keep responding: in both systems under discussion (one involving Christ’s death, the other not) it is possible for a murderer to go to Heaven and his victim to go to Hell. You have yet to explain why this is a problem if it is possible in both systems. Continually saying “Islamic God did not come down to die” does not answer the question. The fact remains that even in your own faith, it is possible for a murderer to go to Heaven and his victims to go to Hell.

        Intellect wrote:
        «justice is not perfect when the victims of criminals are punished and the criminals going heaven.»

      Are you sure you want to take such a position? Consider the following argument which extends forth from it:

      • Your premise: justice is not perfect a criminal can go to Heaven while his victim goes to Hell.
      • Second premise: in Islam, it is possible for a criminal to go to Heaven and his victim to go to Hell.
      • Conclusion: therefore, according to the claim put forth by you, Intellect, “justice is not perfect” in Islam.

      ***-***-***

        `Abdullah wrote:
        «are you saying that Jews should have killed Jesus in out of submission to his authority?»

      No, as, to my knowledge, He never commanded them to do such a thing.

        `Abdullah wrote:
        «are you saying they should have not killed Jesus becuse Jesus did not want that?»

      As I have mentioned before, just because God intends for a death to play a role in the divine plan, that does not mean mere humans are permitted to try to bring about that death at any time. So, for example, God can will for a certain little old lady to die, and for her death to somehow play a role in the divine plan. Even if we know that small bit of information, that does not mean we therefore can go out and unilaterally try to kill that old lady.

        `Abdullah wrote:
        «humanity cannot get the salvation except through Jesus’ blood, and Jesus came to the earth for this very reason.»

      Even that would not mean anyone has free license to unilaterally attempt to spill His blood at any time.

        `Abdullah wrote:
        «Don’t worry about the contradiction!»

      Well, I can assure you, I’m certainly not worried about an alleged contradiction that has yet to be shown to me (a secret contradiction, perhaps?). Nonetheless, since you previously seemed to want to discuss it (even if you are currently not interested in discussing it), I will share that if you would like to discuss it in the future, I am willing to explore the subject with you (provided you lay it out clearly).

      Like

    • Denis,
      Are you saying if jews had submitted to Jesus’ authority, they would have not killed him?
      Don’t forget that your belief states that Jesus loved so much to be killed instead of their animals so that they can be free from the worthless law he had given to them because Jesus is all loving god.
      Otherwise how can they get their salvation then? There’s no way!

      Also,
      God had given the Old Law to be obeyed & done, yet it’s worthless.
      God then gave the New law( blood of Jesus) in out of love to be done & accomplished. Where’s the evil in this matter?
      It’s not Jews’ fault that their animals’ blood cannot meet God’s justice, so no idea why you keep reapting the subject of why God permits evil unless you say it’s evil from God to demand blood.

      “Even that would not mean anyone has free license to unilaterally attempt to spill His blood at any time.”
      Aha! Are you saying Jews were sinners because they had no license to kill Jesus? Who had that license to accomplish that amazing mission which all loving god came specifically to earth for?
      Who are those people who should have killed Jesus?

      Again, do not worry about the contradiction. Just deal with it if you can since till now you have not. I’m telling you from now, you cannot & you won’t 🙄 .

      Like

  8. Greetings Denis

    re your questions

    Q (1) “Is it your position that God would be incapable of creating humans without also creating bone cancer in children?”
    A: Yes

    Q (2) “If your answer to (1) is yes, on what grounds do you believe such?”
    A: God given laws of nature in this universe

    Denis, I will not respond to any further comments as I feel speculations of this kind are a waste of time.

    Like

      • Burhanuddin wrote:
        «I will not respond to any further comments as I feel speculations of this kind are a waste of time.»

      Well, that’s unfortunate, as there’s a lot that’s left unexplained. For example, if God given laws (allegedly) require that in order for humans to exist, bone cancer in children must also exist, why couldn’t God give laws that did not require such? In short, the issue is merely pushed back a step, and the question of why the omniscient and omnipotent God is, according to you, incapable of creating humans without also creating bone cancer in children remains unanswered.

      I know you said you won’t be answering any more questions, but just in case you change your mind, permit me to note that I remain interested in your further elaboration on this rather controversial claim.

      Like

  9. “Mr. Heathcliffe wrote:
    «there is no evidence thatthe jews thought that in isaiah 53 yhwh was going to be object of punishment and reward.»

    Questions about the divinity of the Messiah aside, we do at least see an ancient Jewish understanding that Isaiah 53 applies to the Messiah in Talmud Bavli Sanhedrin 98b.”

    you want to see it as god . you want to see it as god as a punished animal sacrifice and then it gets REWARDED.
    on the other hand

    questions :

    when you say “atonement” what do you mean?

    today we see people SUFFERING . their suffering might drive us to repent and turn to God

    Are you saying that the talmud bavli sees the messiah as a SUFFERING messiah or as a SACRIFICED for sins messiah?

    what do you mean?


    Now, the Jews who tried to get Jesus crucified may or may not have held to that tradition.”

    as a suffering human messiah or as a punished and rewarded god?

    “But if, for the sake of argument, they did hold to such an understanding, I doubt it would therefore mean they were therefore allowed to attack the Messiah at any time they wished”
    :
    if jesus PREACHED to them about being a sacrifice for sins , then :
    every time the jews attempted to stone jesus, they should have been cheered. they were bringing salvation for millions of people . jesus should have preached to them “stone me please, i am an offering”

    ” (in other words, understanding that God can choose for the Messiah to suffer does not mean you are I are therefore free to attack the Messiah whenever we please).”

    the jews were only attempting to do the WILL of god. think about it, if they knew that this is yhwh himself who has come down as an animal offering, it should have been written on jesus’ forehead “no forgiveness without the shedding of blood”

    Mr. Heathcliffe wrote:
    «they had no idea that killing a blasphemer was sin»

    “Killing a mere blasphemer may not have been a sin (at least not in certain previous settings). ”

    the jews are told to kill those who perform miracles and claim to be god.

    “However, even if it was unintentional,”

    there was no torah law the jews had broken. the charge was blasphemy. the jews did not do any crime. the jews are told to HATE idolatry. jesus was an IDOLATER in their eyes.they attempted many times to take him out, but when they finally got him, they did the will of god.

    jesus did not even DEFEND himself. he actually admitted that he is blaspheming their laws.

    “i am ….”

    “killing a person for blasphemy who was not actually a blasphemer can still be a sin (i.e. unintentional crimes can still be crimes). ”

    was claiming to be yhwh in the flesh and as a sacrifice for sins blasphemy or not in first century jewish law? yes it was. your own gospels say it was.


    This becomes compounded if they were not only guided by a dispassionate desire to get rid of blasphemers but also by a deep hatred, separate from that.”

    they are TOLD TO HATE IDOLATRY . your god, in their view, was an IDOLATER.

    Mr. Heathcliffe wrote:
    «the driver of the events and the one who delivered himself to divinely prescribed execution was yhw_ himself.»

    As Abdal Hakim Murad (A.K.A. Timothy Winter) once put it, “it’s an impugning and compromising of our tawHeed to suggest that what’s happening in today’s world is not the direct will of Allah”. So, yes, the killing of a person (irrespective of whether than person is divine or not) relates directly to God’s will and God’s plan (as indeed, God knowingly created all the conditions which made such possible).

    yes, God in christianity was the driver of all the events which led up to the crucifixion which means that the jews should be shown mercy and love because they were only doing the will of god which was written for them in the torah.

    the jews broke no toratic law when they handed almighty god over to be executed.

    Mr. Heathcliffe wrote:
    «the jews cannot be accused of doing any sin, they were following guidance from their own law.»

    “Quick thought experiment: the Qur’an, in surat Al `Imran 3:50, notes that Jesus brought the arbogation of certain laws which previously existed for the Jews.”
    If Jews sought to attack Christ for teaching things contrary to the Law they had, would you say that’s okay? Or were they expected to submit to Christ’s authority? And even if they didn’t fully understand or grasp Jesus’ authority, God can still hold them accountable, right?”

    and which law of idolatry did the jews abrogate?
    why should god hold them accountable when god told them to kill miracle workers who claim to be god?
    from the ot perspective, BLASPHEMERS HAVE no AUTHORITY.

    FLESH gods DOING miracles and then claiming to be animal sacrifices /yhwh incarnate have absolutely no authority. the jews did not sin in carrying out the will of god.

    Mr. Heathcliffe wrote:
    «the jews just needed to believe that yhwh was an animal sacrifice and they could NAIL jesus lovingly and willingly.»

    “No, they could not. If God gave them a specific command to carry out such, then it would be permissible for them to do so (like Abraham and his son).”

    ” However, if they acted on their own, that’s something different (even if God permitted such to happen and intended it to be part of the divine plan).”

    they acted on their own because they saw IDOLATRY. if they were christian jews, then you must admit that they had to willingly and happily kill jesus. in other words, if messianic jew existed in the time of jesus, then it would be like taking an animal to the temple (for himself) and slaughtering it. there would be nothing wrong in doing this because “if there is no shedding of blood , no forgiveness”

    Like

    • Mr. Heathcliffe wrote:
      «you want to see it as god»

      It’s not about what I want. As for belief in the divinity of Christ, that is based on the Bible (and, for me at least, Ecclesiastical tradition), not merely my personal whim.

      Mr. Heathcliffe wrote:
      «you want to see it as god as a punished animal sacrifice and then it gets REWARDED.»

      My understanding is that the repetitive animal sacrifices were replaced by the single sacrifice of Christ (and yes, Christ is our God).

      Mr. Heathcliffe wrote:
      «Are you saying that the talmud bavli sees the messiah as a SUFFERING messiah or as a SACRIFICED for sins messiah?»

      The Talmudic text (Bavli Sanhedrin 98B) does not go into detail, but it is nonetheless applying a text which says things like “he bore our illnesses” as well as “he was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his wound we were healed” to the Messiah. That seempls to imply that the Messiah is being afflicted for the sins of others, and those others can be healed as a result.

      Mr. Heathcliffe wrote:
      «if jesus PREACHED to them about being a sacrifice for sins , then : every time the jews attempted to stone jesus, they should have been cheered.»

      Not at all. To say that at some point, Christ’s death would play a role in atonement, does not give everyone a license to try to kill Him at any time. People cannot unilaterally make such a move.

      Mr. Heathcliffe wrote:
      «jesus should have preached to them “stone me please, i am an offering”»

      Can there not be an appointed time for a death?

      Mr. Heathcliffe wrote:
      «the jews were only attempting to do the WILL of god.»

      In a sense, everyone is doing to will of God (insofar that what God permits is a reflection of God’s will and plan). But that does not not exculpate those who engage in acts God deems sinful.

      But we seem to be going off track here, a bit. Again, if, for the sake of argument, Jesus’ Jewish opponents believed Isaiah 53 referred to the Messiah, that would not be a license to attack the Messiah any time they pleased. Can we agree to this simple point? To say that God wills for a person to die, and wills for that death to play a role in God’s plan, does not mean anyone is therefore free to attempt to kill that person, at any time.

      Mr. Heathcliffe wrote:
      «the jews are told to HATE idolatry. jesus was an IDOLATER in their eyes.»

      But the conclusion is mistaken. That’s part of where the illicit aspect comes in. As I noted, it is compounded if the desire to get the person killed is rooted in a hatred for the person, separate from any belief about alleged idolatry or blasphemy.

      Mr. Heathcliff wrote:
      «was claiming to be yhwh in the flesh and as a sacrifice for sins blasphemy or not in first century jewish law?»

      It would be blasphemy for a person who wasn’t actually such. It is not blasphemy for a person to make claims about oneself which are accurate.

      Mr. Heathcliffe wrote:
      «God in christianity was the driver of all the events which led up to the crucifixion»

      So too, in Islam, God is the driver of the factors making any event possible, wouldn’t you agree?

      Mr. Heathcliffe wrote:
      «the jews should be shown mercy»

      Romans 9:15’s application of Exodus 33:19 may be relevant here: God can show mercy to whomever God pleases. Mere humans (including you or I) are not in a position to dictate to God how people are judged.

      Mr. Heathcliffe wrote:
      «which law of idolatry did the jews abrogate?»

      I never made any such claim.

      Now, please note what I wrote to you: Quick thought experiment: the Qur’an, in surat Al `Imran 3:50, notes that Jesus brought the arbogation of certain laws which previously existed for the Jews. If Jews sought to attack Christ for teaching things contrary to the Law they had, would you say that’s okay? Or were they expected to submit to Christ’s authority? And even if they didn’t fully understand or grasp Jesus’ authority, God can still hold them accountable, right?

      Do you deny that the Jews were not allowed to attack Jesus, and that they were supposed to submit to His authority (even if He was claiming parts of their law were abrogated)?

      Mr. Heathcliffe wrote:
      «FLESH gods DOING miracles and then claiming to be animal sacrifices /yhwh incarnate have absolutely no authority.»

      Do you claim Jesus had not authority? Yes or no? As you answer, also be sure to ask yourself (what is my da`wah method, here? is it helpful to constantly be sarcastic or insist on propositions I actuall reject?).

      Mr. Heathcliffe wrote:
      «they acted on their own because they saw IDOLATRY.»

      And they were mistaken. Moreover, you are in no position to speak on what was in their hearts (what unjustified hatreds guided them). Only God can determine such, and thus only God, not you, can decide what is appropriate.

      Mr. Heathcliffe wrote:
      «if they were christian jews, then you must admit that they had to willingly and happily kill jesus.»

      Not at all. They should only be willing to kill someone if God commands them to kill that person. No such command was given.

      Mr. Heathcliffe wrote:
      «it would be like taking an animal to the temple (for himself) and slaughtering it.»

      Even animal sacrifices had appointed times and contexts. People were not free to just run around stabbing any animal, anywhere, at any time.

      Like

Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: