[Vision2020] True Muslims and True Americans

[Taro Tanaka]

Nick Gier <nickgier at adelphia.net> writes:

[[ . . . there are many views of how Christ atones for human sin, and I 
simply expressed my distaste for one of them, actual blood sacrifice, which 
I find most objectionable. If done correctly, crucifixion draws little blood 
(the Romans wanted their victims to suffer as long as possible) . . . 
Interpreting Christianity in this way gives it primitive religion status, 
not the world religion status that it deserves. I rank Jesus and the Buddha 
as the two greatest spiritual leaders in human history. ]]

I'm almost afraid to reply to Nick, because each time he comes back with 
something nuttier than before. Yes it is true that there are many views of 
how Christ atones for sin, but "actual blood sacrifice" is not merely "one 
of them." Rather, it is the only view that is Christian. Any view that 
denies the death of Jesus upon the cross is not Christian -- period.

The assertion "If done correctly, crucifixion draws little blood" is 
irrelevant. If done correctly, circumcision draws little blood, but it is 
still a blood sacrifice. The amount of blood shed is not a criterion for 
anything. Incidentally, the whole point of crucifixion is to intensify and 
prolong the suffering of the person being killed; there is no "humane" way 
to do it. It is worth noting, however, that the suffering of Jesus upon the 
cross was mitigated and was actually less than what many people regularly 
experienced upon the cross: when the soldiers were sent to break Jesus' legs 
to speed his death, He was already dead. Jesus did not atone for the sins of 
mankind by experiencing physical pain and suffering, although it is true 
that He did experience physical pain and suffering. The atonement for the 
sins of mankind was through the eternally begotten Son being cut off from 
the Father: "Eli, eli lama sabachthani?" Therein is the true meaning of 
death. Death is a cutting off from life, and in the case of the Messiah it 
meant the severing of an eternal bond: the separation of the eternal Son 
from the eternal Father, as a substitutionary sacrifice to pay the penalty 
for our sins.

Nick tells us that this view -- which is the view that orthodox Christianity 
always has held, and always will hold, makes Christianity a primitive 
religion! Again, all I have to say is, "Well, so much for Nick's equally 
'respecting all religious beliefs'." Nick just piles insult upon insult, 
disrespect upon disrespect whenever it comes to discussing orthodox 
Christianity.

He damns Jesus through faint praise by comparing Him to Buddha, a figure 
about which very little is known except through legends compiled centuries 
later. Poor Christianity is so impoverished; it has only one sacred text, 
the Bible, whereas Buddhism has more sacred texts than any one person could 
possibly read in one lifetime (not to worry, there are many more lifetimes 
to come). Not bad for a religion which teaches that ultimate reality cannot 
be expressed through words. Mahayana Buddhism, especially the Amidha sect, 
apparently thought much more of Jesus the Messiah than Buddha, because they 
revamped their religion in imitation of Christianity. All of a sudden, like 
a bolt out of the blue, the original purely atheistic teachings of 
Siddhartha Gautama are just thrown out the window and replaced with this 
notion of bodhisatvas who act as substitute Christs. It's a classical case 
of "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." Of course pointing this out to a 
Buddhist like Daisetsu Suzuki does not fluster them: they can have their 
illogic and eat it too because the whole point is not to find the truth but 
to avoid finding it.

One could hardly ask for a more incongruous pairing than that of Buddha and 
Jesus, yet somehow it is fitting that confused Nick Gier does just that. One 
denies creation; the other claims to be the Creator of all things outside of 
Himself. One denies transcendence; the other claims absolute transcendence 
and sovereignty over all things. One claims that ultimate reality cannot be 
expressed in words; the other calls Himself the eternal Word. One denies the 
many and insists that all things are at bottom one; the other represents the 
equal ultimacy of the One and the Many in the eternal Trinity and builds 
that equal ultimacy into the very fabric of created existence. One says that 
the world is illusory; the other loved the world so much that He willingly 
died to save it. I could go on and on, but it should be clear: if Buddha is 
telling the truth, then Christ is either a liar or a madman, or both, and if 
Christ is telling the truth, then Buddha is either a liar or a madman, or 
both. And yet Nick Gier is happy to yoke them together. Nick can do this 
because the Buddha and the Jesus that Nick sees are nothing more than 
figments of his own imagination to which he has given the names Buddha and 
Jesus. Nick is a very sophisticated man. He knows that only primitive people 
make idols of stone, wood, and silver. Nick's idols are fully current with 
the latest trends, and he can no doubt cite articles in peer-reviewed 
journals to prove it. But any faint resemblance between the figment of 
Nick's imagination that he calls "Jesus" (the one he ranks as one of the two 
greatest religious leaders ever) and the Jesus of Nazareth who walked this 
earth and who is spoken of in the gospels (the one Nick despises), is purely 
coincidental.

-- Princess Sushitushi

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now! 
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/