The Crucifixion - comparison between Christian and Islamic views

[Thomas]

Hi Ahanu —

I normally don't post on a Christian forum ...

Quite. Had this post been made on the Islam forum, I would not have commented.

I appreciate your words, and where they are coming from. But Scripture really is unequivocal: He was crucified and died, and overcame sin, and was resurrected, and ascended, so that we might follow.
"God came to man as man," to paraphrase the Fathers, "that man might come to God."

 

[Ahanu]

Hi Ahanu —

Uh . . . you mean Arthra, don't you?

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Let's illustrate what I think is an example of what you've said here (but let me know if I haven't captured your point). The Quakers believed that slavery was wrong. But most of their contemporaries accepted slavery. Abolitionist arguments couldn't convince their opponents slavery was wrong, so they couldn't prove it. Is it a sign of the Quaker's hubris to continue having absolute faith that slavery is wrong?

An interesting analogy. It is grounded in the mortal world and within mortal morals. Slavery is a human institution. There are still similarities though. I would suggest the Quakers could prove slavery was wrong. Their proof was rejected by their opponents because they had too much to lose; their entire entitled way of life. It wasn't that they didn't know the truth, they couldn't be bothered with the truth.

It is a failing of the human condition. For example, America was built on the concept of freedom and equal opportunity. But as we know, not all men, much less women were created equal in reality. Blacks were not considered 'human' and were denied a voice. Women were denied a voice. Even most men were denied a voice as only the white male property owners were considered competent enough to make important decisions for the country. They were the only group that were allowed to vote. Over the last 200 years we have abolished most of those exceptions.

Point is as a species we are very good at altering truth to fit our needs. Our faith is often at the whim of our needs as well. And all of this discission thus far is within the human realm.

If our faith can be so easily blinded by our needs and desires even in the most mortal institutions, how much more complicated when we discuss faith of divine origins. Faith in the divine beyond our mortal frame is too great a leap to be able to say with an absolute certainty that we know we are right. Faith is too flimsy for absolute certainty. We can have a strong belief that our faith in the divine is reasonable; I don't see how we can make the leap from their to an absolute. Not if we are going to be truly honest with ourselves. From my point of view.

 

[GuruZero]

deleted

 

[Devils' Advocate]

It's not that I question it, of course, I just realised that I can't remember you ever talking about your faith. I don't know what faith is to you and what you have faith in.

I have made mention of it in passing from time to time. Perhaps it is time for an update. Not here though. Actually I would be interested in your thoughts of faith. You are nonreligious, yes? How does that affect your sense of faith. Or do you even have any?

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I have no faith and it is a bit of a mystery to me. Hope to read more on your thoughts when you have time.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

For me, at the end of the day, faith is all there is and all that matters. Those who lack faith are as much a mystery to me as those of us with faith are to them.

 

[Thomas]

Uh . . . you mean Arthra, don't you?

I do, sorry, my bad ...

 

[Thomas]

Hmmm. I'm not sure what you are saying here. There is something very wrong about this statement, and I have been pondering it and cannot put my finger on why. Could you elaborate?

Only that in a secular/consumer culture challenges the fundamental aspects of faith at almost every turn.

My acceptance that my beliefs may be entirely wrong is not based on conflicts between what my theology tells me versus what the world shows me, which is what I believe you are talking about.

Not really. The world doesn't show me my faith or my theology is wrong. Nor can it, really. It's just the constant and continuous science v religion thing. Even those who agree there's no grounds for dispute still recourse to science as if it somehow disproves religion.

It is something much more basic. I accept that my world view may be wrong because I can not prove it is right.

Quite. So you have some degree of faith in your world view.

I'm a broken record on this one I know; it just seems like hubris to believe what one accepts on faith is absolutely true. No doubts about it. It absolutely positively MUST be.

I don't know anyone who believes like that.

An ironclad belief based on faith though is not justifiable.

Of course it is. Just because it's not to you, doesn't mean it isn't.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

DA: Hmmm. I'm not sure what you are saying here. There is something very wrong about this statement, and I have been pondering it and cannot put my finger on why. Could you elaborate?

TH: Only that in a secular/consumer culture challenges the fundamental aspects of faith at almost every turn.

Okay. That does make sense to me then. Committing to a theology, or a philosophy for that matter, is a matter of choice and of dedication. It is SO easy to let belief structures get lost in the very down to earth (no pun intended) civilization we live in.

DA: My acceptance that my beliefs may be entirely wrong is not based on conflicts between what my theology tells me versus what the world shows me, which is what I believe you are talking about.

TH: Not really. The world doesn't show me my faith or my theology is wrong. Nor can it, really. It's just the constant and continuous science v religion thing. Even those who agree there's no grounds for dispute still recourse to science as if it somehow disproves religion.

As you know we are in agreement on this point. Science cannot prove/disprove religion. The challenge for me is that there is no substitute with which to measure faith. This really, Really, REALLY bothers me. How does one measure the viability of a belief structure when there is no measuring stick to do so.

DA: I'm a broken record on this one I know; it just seems like hubris to believe what one accepts on faith is absolutely true. No doubts about it. It absolutely positively MUST be.

TH: I don't know anyone who believes like that.

You don't live in America! There are a few members on this forum who seems to think that, too.

DA: An ironclad belief based on faith though is not justifiable.

TH: Of course it is. Just because it's not to you, doesn't mean it isn't.

This comment seems to be the opposite of your previous one. Or are you suggesting the possibility exists for an iron clad belief even if you don't know anyone who is like that?

My thought process on this issue is simple. There is no yardstick to measure the truth/falsehood of any particular faith. Without a measuring stick of some kind, no reasonable person can justify a iron clad belief in faith. As there are millions of people who have such faith, I have to change my statement to I just do not understand how anyone could. It is beyond my ability to comprehend.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

DA I just want to reiterate that your still only seeing this from a positivists perspective, it's going to be hard to understand other points of view if you keep the "measuring" mind. No criticism, I don't find it less valid, just a hindrance in specific circumstances.

 

[Thomas]

As you know we are in agreement on this point. Science cannot prove/disprove religion. The challenge for me is that there is no substitute with which to measure faith. This really, Really, REALLY bothers me.

That's a tough one. I think I echo ACOT, in that it seems to me you're saying 'I know science cannot dis/prove religion, but I would be happier if there was a proof that I could apply' which does rather seem like one's asking for 'a scientifically acceptable method' ... short answer is, there ain't, nor can there be, by virtue of the nature of the inquiry.

It's fundamental to the Abrahamics that God is not going to provide an unequivocal proof of His existence, because to do so would actually negate our 'humanity', if we consider that term in its broader context, beyond the empirical data that sets us apart from flora and fauna.

How does one measure the viability of a belief structure when there is no measuring stick to do so.

Reason it. That's what faith is all about dude, that's why 'faith' ain't 'fact'! Aye, there's the rub!

Take Aquinas. Starting from his first principle, and specifically Summa Theologiae, Question 1, Article 8: "... metaphysics an dispute with one who denies its principles, if only the opponent will make some concession; but if he concede nothing, it can have no dispute with him, though it can answer his objections."

So there it is. Everything about the (Catholic) Christian faith is reasonable, rational and logical, if one accepts the existence of God and Divine Revelation. If not, then there's no room for discussion.

Again this is something I have to face, the daily assertion by the world that my faith is unreasonable, irrational, illogical, mere superstition, etc., etc. Suffice to say such accusations are usually made by those who are quite happy to dismiss my reasoned argument, but are noticeably silent when asked to reason their own position!

Really the faith in science is today's 'blind faith', not that you or others here fall under that umbrella, but largely the world accepts that religion and a belief in God is Medieval nonsense 'because science says so' (when it does no such thing), especially when we have media darlings like Hawking and Prof Brian Cox (a UK phenomena) who feel capable of making such statements because they happen to know a bit of physics.

I did a survey of the media a few years ago, the presentation of a religious belief in popular drama. There were sex-obsessed priests and nuns, murderers, extortionists. Even the 'good guys' are racked by some guilt or other. The only exception is Chesterton's 'Father Brown Mysteries', set in a nice rural Middle England 50s fantasia. Other than that, the rest of the UK is, apparently, totally secular. God never gets a mention. This is in a country that, by majority, would consider itself Christian! Go figure ... in one of the most popular UK soaps there is one character who is an Anglican vicar. He never provides spiritual or any other kind of support for his community, never mentions God, is gay and is currently bouncing from one bed into the next with barely a 24 hour gap ...

EXCEPTION: Inspector Morse, a favoured UK police series, had a sidekick who was Catholic and who actually knelt beside a victim and offered the prayers from the Office for the Dead! Ye-ha! In the UK's national output, that makes one instance of someone in orders, and someone in orders who is not a stereotype!

When it comes to the dead and dying, it's surprising how many secularists are quite happy and indeed consoled by someone offering up prayers for their loved one. This does not signify a submerged religious conviction, it's far more than that ... it's symbolic. It's a rite of passage ... it's the kind of thing that modernity strips from the world and humanity so desperate needs and, in the absence of, invents shallow and sentimental ersatz replacements. It's human, and the modern world is dehumanising man as it produces consumer-oriented people. We're a lot closer to Brave New World than we realise.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

No criticism, I don't find it less valid, just a hindrance in specific circumstances.

No offense taken. I freely admit my limitations and have said as much many times about this particular subject. Similarly to your comment that you have no faith and cannot comprehend it; same here for me. And again, let me be specific. I have no objection to a faith based belief system. What I cannot comprehend is an absolute 'I am right and I know I am right' attitude of someone's faith. I am not saying it doesn't exist, it does exist. It is beyond my ability to understand such a position.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

That's a tough one. I think I echo ACOT, in that it seems to me you're saying 'I know science cannot dis/prove religion, but I would be happier if there was a proof that I could apply' which does rather seem like one's asking for 'a scientifically acceptable method'

That is not the case. Science does not apply. Period. I would be happier if there were some measuring stick other than science that could in some way measure belief in faith. And there is none. I accept that as fact.

Reason it. That's what faith is all about dude

Dude? Seriously?!? Just kidding. I've been duded by the best.

So there it is. Everything about the (Catholic) Christian faith is reasonable, rational and logical, if one accepts the existence of God and Divine Revelation. If not, then there's no room for discussion.

Again this is something I have to face, the daily assertion by the world that my faith is unreasonable, irrational, illogical, mere superstition, etc., etc. Suffice to say such accusations are usually made by those who are quite happy to dismiss my reasoned argument, but are noticeably silent when asked to reason their own position!

We are always going to be at an impasse here. To suggest that your faith is entirely rational, logical and reasonable as long as one accepts the existence of God - that is a leap beyond my understanding. It is the same argument Ken Hamm is making when he says Creationism is perfectly rational, logical and reasonable - as long as one accepts that the Bible is factually accurate in every respect.

Not that I am trying to lump you in with Hamm, PLEASE hear that is not my intent. It is just a comparison that from my point of view they are similar statements in that one is asked to accept an unproven as real, and once that is accepted a rational, logical reasonable argument can be built from there. No matter how excellently researched, thought out and rational an argument is, it is problematical if the very foundation upon which the argument is built is a blind acceptance of facts not in evidence as it were.

As to your last paragraph. Your frustration is understandable and made worse in the fact that most opposition to thinking like yours is from atheists who look down on people of faith as being, by definition, idiots. The superiority complex of too many atheists severely damages their credibility.

 

[Thomas]

I would be happier if there were some measuring stick other than science that could in some way measure belief in faith. And there is none. I accept that as fact.

OK. Like you, I wish there was ... then I could waggle it under your nose!

We are always going to be at an impasse here.

Yeah ... but still friends, right ...

I suppose I don't see the possibility of God as founded on 'blind faith' but on cogent metaphysical argument. And I could argue that our current cosmologies are founded on similarly imponderable propositions ... but then Christianity steps into a greater void than even metaphysics.

I've got a New Scientist somewhere that has an article suggesting that our whole concept of the physical world is built on a priori assumptions that we've worked from the maths, and that the maths works because we've built it around our assumptions ... a chicken-and-egg situation ... and when you get into discussions about 'what is real', sheesh!

For example, I see the quantum notion of the multiverse, that somewhere Elvis is alive and well, as more improbable than God, but that's what the evidence suggests ...

In the Catholic Church, Thomas Aquinas is the go-to guy if you want a philosophical discussion. He's an exemplar of the Aristotelian method of argument: follow his pattern in your scholarly texts in any discipline, and you won't go far wrong.

My course director met a scholar who was an acknowledged authority on Aquinas. The man is an agnostic! Fr John was gob-smacked. "How come?" He asked.

"Oh, Thomas's argument is flawless," the Don said. "I just don't have his faith."

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I can relate to the Don...

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Yeah ... but still friends, right ...

Of course! There is this strange and bizarre concept I hold that friends can have differences of opinion. Weird, I know.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

I've got a New Scientist somewhere that has an article suggesting that our whole concept of the physical world is built on a priori assumptions that we've worked from the maths, and that the maths works because we've built it around our assumptions ... a chicken-and-egg situation ... and when you get into discussions about 'what is real', sheesh!

I am aware of this thought process. It could very well be true. Personally I doubt it is true; I have to admit it is a possibility though if I am going to be open minded. There are times where it seems to me sciences get carried away with the mathematics. Of particular concern for me in the modern world is that we build computer models on the variables as we understand them and then accept the results if they are shown to be consistent. There's an old programmer saying I'm sure you have heard. 'Garbage in, garbage out'. If the data being used is flawed or if the program written is flawed the outcome is flawed. And how do we know if there is a flaw or not when we are testing theories that are particularly out there.

My science friends would respond that we are not spitting in the dark because the abstract theories they have proven they have used to create machines that work in the real world. And they work based upon the output of these hypothetical programs. Like computers, the Internet, satellite technology and a thousand, thousand other things we simply take for granted in our technological society. Sending a space craft on a five year mission to reach a certain spot in space at an exact time to rendezvous with whatever object, planet or moon, the mission goal is to reach.

So science does have a lot of theory that they have assumed to be true that has been proven to be true because we successfully use that technology.

When we reach the frontiers of science though it does get dicier. The entire Multiverse theory still seems like a mathematical through the rabbit hole concept to me. But that is still a theory in the early processes of being verified (or negated).

 

[Razif]

Hi Thomas,

Muslims have much respect for the Holy Prophet Jesus (PBUH) and, other than Christianity, Islam is the only religion that glorifies his miraculous
birth. Any disrespect towards the Holy Prophet Jesus (PBUH) is equally painful for Muslims.

My questions;
Was the Holy Prophet Jesus (PBUH) alive or he was dead when he was in the heart of the earth as mentioned in Matthew 12:39-40?
Was Prophet Jonah (PBUH) alive or he was dead when he was in the belly of the fish?
How Prophet Jonah (PBUH) prayed to his Lord if he was dead in the belly of the fish?
If Prophet Jonah (PBUH) was alive in the belly of the fish then how come the Holy Prophet Jesus (PBUH) was dead in the heart of the earth?

Matthew 12:39-40 New International Version (NIV)
39. He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
40. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Razif —

My questions;
Was the Holy Prophet Jesus (PBUH) alive or he was dead when he was in the heart of the earth as mentioned in Matthew 12:39-40?

The Scripture says He was dead.

Was Prophet Jonah (PBUH) alive or he was dead when he was in the belly of the fish?

The Scripture says he was alive.

How Prophet Jonah (PBUH) prayed to his Lord if he was dead in the belly of the fish?

But he wasn't. The text specifically says God kept Jonah alive.

If Prophet Jonah (PBUH) was alive in the belly of the fish then how come the Holy Prophet Jesus (PBUH) was dead in the heart of the earth?

Two different people. Different events. The text says Jonah was alive, and that Jesus was dead.

The story of Jonah is not about the whale. That element is largely incidental. It could have been a raft, it could have been an airlift, and it would not change the meaning of the story one jot. The story is about Jonah who sought to flee the will of God, and could not accept the will of God is the salvation of all, even those who are the enemies of the Children of Israel. He took ship to evade his calling, when the storm overwhelmed them, the crew did everything within their power to save Jonah, even though they were gentile. They refused to throw him overboard as he suggested, only relenting when it was evident it was one man or the whole boat, and still they prayed to their God for him.

Then he's cast up on the shores of Ninevah, and when the inhabitants repent as he preached, he gets angry again that God has saved the enemies of Israel, and would rather die! He goes out into the desert but God grows a plant to shield him ... time and again Jonah resists the will of God, and refuses to accept that God's love is universal ... it's a tough lesson for him to lean, but he gets there in the end.

Our Lord Jesus Christ, on the other hand, was the opposite of Jonah. Jonah learned the lesson. Jesus is the lesson personified.