'An Affair On Golgotha' -- a refutation

[RabbiO]

@RJM Corbet & @muhammad_isa -

You gentlemen, if I may use a term that I’m not sure describes either of you right now, have ceased having an interfaith conversation. Rather, you are engaging in the kind of angry, shouting, self righteous religious superiority behavior I believe this forum was meant to combat.

From where I sit, thankfully an ocean away right now, one of you has come close to, if not actually crossed the line into, proselytizing. One of you has been making remarks that could very easily be construed as antisemitic.

I would not merely hope, I would expect better from both of you.

Worst comes to worst, my response will take your focus off one another for awhile and you can unite to dump on me!

 

[RJM]

@RJM Corbet & @muhammad_isa -

You gentlemen, if I may use a term that I’m not sure describes either of you right now, have ceased having an interfaith conversation. Rather, you are engaging in the kind of angry, shouting, self righteous religious superiority behavior I believe this forum was meant to combat.

From where I sit, thankfully an ocean away right now, one of you has come close to, if not actually crossed the line into, proselytizing. One of you has been making remarks that could very easily be construed as antisemitic.

I would not merely hope, I would expect better from both of you.

Worst comes to worst, my response will take your focus off one another for awhile and you can unite to dump on me!

Thank you! I wasn't going to continue to reply ... but it's so hard
We're all locked down under house arrest here, you see, lol

On anti-semitism: I take it as directed against the Jewish race, not as disagreement with Jewish religion -- both of which I hugely respect?

 

[muhammad_isa]

It doesn't have to..

Of course it does
Why should anybody believe something to be true without a firm foundation?

It's a bit like atheists who insist that "Theory of Evolution" is true, and conclude that the Bible is made-up by men
As you know, their conclusion is flawed. That would be because some of the theory is true and some of it false.

Same with the Nicene creed. It is a corruption of faith. Constantine himself turned away from such a belief upon his death.
You make it like a contest "my scripture against yours" .. how petty, Roger
It's not about that at all .. it's about misbelief .. it's about creed.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Worst comes to worst, my response will take your focus off one another for awhile and you can unite to dump on me

I don't think so.
Neither of us are "proselytizing", imo.
We were discussing the resurrection, and it has digressed into a "my scripture is better than yours" scenario.

 

[Thomas]

Hmm .. I think that the word "faith" is often misunderstood.

OK

I was a Christian and came across the Qur'an and concluded that it was indeed true ... saying "it's a matter of faith" is not a reason at all

It's not a matter of reason, is it? I mean, you can reason it to yourself, and you accept that, but others find your logic unreasonable, and therefore choose not to believe as you do ... ergo, it is a matter of faith.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It's not a matter of reason, is it? I mean, you can reason it to yourself, and you accept that, but others find your logic unreasonable, and therefore choose not to believe as you do ... ergo, it is a matter of faith.

Hmm .. is it really about logic? I don't think it is. Something else..
There is a reason why somebody should reject the Qur'an .. what is YOUR "logic" for doing so?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Our problem lies in the fact that it is too late to erase the false path upon which the Church has been led. To do so now would mean the total collapse of Christianity as we have known it for two thousand years, for every doctrine the religion holds to is from Paul.

- excerpt from Pauline Conspiracy -

Mmm .. "it is too late" .. actually it is NEVER too late .. Almighty God guides whomsoever He wills.
We should all have an open mind. We should listen to other people's opinions and discuss them. To suggest that
they don't have to make sense, effectively means that it is acceptable to believe anything at all.

We only fool ourselves with such an attitude.

 

[Thomas]

Hmm .. is it really about logic? I don't think it is. Something else..
There is a reason why somebody should reject the Qur'an .. what is YOUR "logic" for doing so?

What I mean is, one's faith seems reasonable, and one can rationalise it to oneself.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Who responds to every sincere human soul, any time, any place, any faith

I agree, I see that is why we are here, to know and Love God.

The potential has been instilled within us all, with the choice to pursue that potential, or not to. We are all guided on that path, no soul is neglected.

Regards Tony

 

[juantoo3]

I don't reject the Bible, but you reject the Qur'an...much like the Jews reject Jesus, you reject Muhammad.

I see you have your hands full, I don't need to pile on top, but I do wish to address this.

Perhaps you personally don't reject the Bible and I'm perfectly willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, and yes I have often heard the comments that Islam recognizes "the people of the Book." The behaviour I see all around repeatedly denies this. I have only to point to the ongoing strife in the Holy Land. But it carries so much further, such as the confiscation and destruction in front of the owner of any and all Christian symbols - up to and including the Bible in places like Saudi Arabia. It is fine to destroy a Bible, but threaten to destroy a Qur'an and all hell breaks loose.

I read and hear a great deal of lip service, but then I witness or read about such overt discrimination with government approval in essentially every Sharia nation. To be in a religious minority in a Sharia nation is to be subject to discrimination that would be unthinkable in a non-Sharia nation. My Lord, look at what was done to the Yazidis, or to the girls' schools in Africa, or the young girl Malala shot for wanting to get an education. In Sharia nations the religion *is* the politics, and the politics *is* the religion, there isn't any distinction to be made. At least in a nation such as Turkey or Egypt there is ostensibly a secular government allowing separation of "church" and state, but not so in Sharia nations.

 

[juantoo3]

-Almighty God guides whomsoever He wills.

Agreed.

That would include Paul.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It is fine to destroy a Bible, but threaten to destroy a Qur'an and all hell breaks loose..

You will see all sorts of bad behaviour from human beings.
It is no defence of the issue I raise .. it is purely a diversion.

 

[juantoo3]

I agree, I see that is why we are here, to know and Love God.

The potential has been instilled within us all, with the choice to pursue that potential, or not to. We are all guided on that path, no soul is neglected.

Agreed, and have pointed to the same thing many times. G-d created all humans, including those we disagree with philosophically and religiously. G-d doesn't create rubbish or kindling for an eternal bonfire. Every person is set upon a path to find their way back to "Him," or not, but the choice belongs to the individual to travel the path before them, or not.

 

[juantoo3]

You will see all sorts of bad behaviour from human beings.
It is no defence of the issue I raise .. it is purely a diversion.

When I see enough of it, it becomes sufficient to make me think twice.

Again, your path is your path, and if that is the path that speaks to you and teaches you, then it is the correct path for you. It is not the path for me.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Agreed.

That would include Paul.

Indeed .. but one should not confuse following Paul with following Jesus.

The sacrament of Communion is from Paul.

Paul would have us believe that he received the custom from the Lord. It is agreed that he had not been present at the Last Supper. Professional theologians insist that if we take Paul’s words literally, we would have to believe with that Paul received his instructions in a vision from the risen Lord. For a more pointed statement one must read the following notations from professional theologians.

“…and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” (I Corinthians 11:25; RSV)

- excerpt from Pauline Conspiracy -

..so did Jesus teach people to "eat his body"? I think not.
Which came first? Paul's visions or the written gospels?
The gap of some twenty years between the date of the Last Supper and the writing of I Corinthians and the even longer period before the Gospels were written have led to doubts as to their historical reliability and the suggestion that they reflect the concerns and situation of the early Christians at the time of writing rather than reporting objectively events which occurred decades before

Scholars of the Jesus Seminar generally regard the gospel accounts of the Last Supper as cult legend, that is, a story that accounts for some ritual practice in the Jesus movement.

..so Christians believe "Prophet Paul" over "Prophet Muhammad" .. or maybe they just take all the dogma for granted
and think that God wants people to eat and drink human bodies .. or Divine bodies, whatever that means.

 

[muhammad_isa]

When I see enough of it, it becomes sufficient to make me think twice.

Is that all? I continue to think and never stop thinking. Humans often behave badly .. end of.
If we study human history, we will find all sorts of disgusting behaviour, regardless of people's religion.

One has to show that the bad behaviour is taught by a particular religion in order to conclude religion is to blame.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Is that all? I continue to think and never stop thinking. Humans often behave badly .. end of.
If we study human history, we will find all sorts of disgusting behaviour, regardless of people's religion.

One has to show that the bad behaviour is taught by a particular religion in order to conclude religion is to blame.

To which no Messenger can be accused of.

All Mesengers showed us how to know and Love God and Gave us the Laws to enable us not to to act with injustice.

There is no compulsion in religion.

Regards Tony

 

[juantoo3]

- excerpt from Pauline Conspiracy -

Mmm .. "it is too late" .. actually it is NEVER too late .. Almighty God guides whomsoever He wills.
We should all have an open mind. We should listen to other people's opinions and discuss them. To suggest that
they don't have to make sense, effectively means that it is acceptable to believe anything at all.

We only fool ourselves with such an attitude.

In your defense, I think it is a very different discussion regarding the factual and historical veracity, versus the (I might call mythos, but I know some would bristle) religious teachings and doctrine. I said at the beginning, perhaps the other thread, that any discussion is bound to be at cross purposes, science (history, sociology, etc) vs religion. This thread is the Christianity board, so it is only natural that those that adhere to the Christian faith would use Christian doctrine to support their beliefs and get ruffled feathers when their doctrine is challenged. Think if the shoe was on the other foot...if someone waltzed onto the Islam board and started laying in with all kinds of facts and figures that upset the Muslim applecart, I have no doubt there would be an uproar.

Some years ago I did an historical study of the roots of Christianity, particularly the period around the reign of Roman Emperor Constantine. I deliberately set that discussion on the history board, precisely because it is not my intent (ever!) to destroy anyone's faith. Faith serves a purpose in our lives. But history can be upsetting to those who enter unprepared, and as we see here it can evoke very strong emotive responses. The reverse is also true, the motive of so many is to undermine Christianity, and throwing the baby out with the bathwater is an inappropriate motive in my mind. I have yet to meet a Muslim willing to even consider a reciprocal study analyzing the roots of Islam - the suggestion alone is usually met with unseemly threats.

I haven't looked in depth at Mr Garaffa's list of resources, I only skimmed them sometime back. Many I recognize. Some, like the tin foil hat stuff attached to this specific Golgotha essay, are dubious at best. Some of the others he referenced as I recall are generally accepted historical scholarship, or at least made the rounds until disproven. Perhaps such a study would not seem quite so "in the face" if discussed someplace like the history board, but then the caveat would have to be to leave religious discussion out of it. That too becomes fraught, because there is precious little outside of the Bible to correlate. A lot of people just can't make the connection between an archeological site or statue or mosaic or "graffiti" and connect to what they read in a religious text.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..it is only natural that those that adhere to the Christian faith would use Christian doctrine to support their beliefs and get ruffled feathers when their doctrine is challenged..

Does that mean that Unitarians can't challenge traditional, mainstream belief?

They believe [ amongst other things ]

• Jesus is not part of a trinity and God is One.

• Though the authors of the Bible were inspired by God, they were humans and therefore subject to human error.
• The traditional doctrines of predestination, eternal damnation, and the vicarious sacrifice and satisfaction theories of the Atonement are invalid because they malign God's character and veil the true nature and mission of Jesus Christ

According to The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, atonement in Christian theology is "man's reconciliation with God through the sacrificial death of Christ."

In Christian theology, justification is God's act of removing the guilt and penalty of sin while at the same time making a sinner righteous through Christ's atoning sacrifice. The means of justification is an area of significant difference among Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. Justification is often seen as being the theological fault line that divided Catholic from the Lutheran and Reformed traditions of Protestantism during the Reformation.

..so, suggesting that it is only Muslims that challenge traditional Christian beliefs is untrue.

 

[juantoo3]

Being obtuse and misrepresenting what I wrote only underscores my earlier comment. I tried to provide a neutral way out for all to save face. That is not acceptable, it never is.

We can either move the historical aspect out of the face of the religion, or end the discussion altogether. Personally I would like to try to calm the storm somewhat, but that does not mean surrender on my part, and I am not asking you to surrender either. This is not a zero sum game.