Anselm's theory of atonement is senseless...

Anselm understands it as an offense committed against God, I understand it as offense against the self as per the Qur'an, although other's can be sinned against in addition

From a Christian perspecting, why is raising another man's baby wrong that you wife had an affair with 'wrong'? Isn't God suppose to be merciful?

Christ's Crucifixion in Anselm does not change man's being directly, it appeases God, who then wipes away man's sin from his being having recieved satisfaction

Dude's gonna raise a charred baby.

Islam does not recognize adoption and in fact does not believe Mary had a husband, as that is cuckish. However even in the New Testament Joseph was going to divorce Mary when he found out she was pregnant until he learned it was a miraculous pregnancy not due to adultery

That's just not true, I don't know what to tell you. Man nature is what is healed by Christ's sacrifice. God isn't sacrificing himself to make himself a better God. I suppose Christianity is very easy to refute so long as you don't actually attention to what Christians believe.

I am addressing Anselm in particular, it is very easy to refute my OP as long as you don't pay attention to what it actually says

I'm telling you how Anselm views it. He doesn't think sin changes God and I don't know how you're getting that idea because it doesn't make any sense. Offending God doesn't change God, it changes you.

The entire point of the crucifixion in Anselm is to *satisfy God*, that is why it is called "the satisfaction theory of atonement*

Yes that's what it's called, but God isn't sacrificing himself to make himself a better God. No Christian believes that because God is unchanging. What is being changed is mans nature or mans disposition towards God.

If you look at his argument for God's existence he comes to the conclusion that God is perfect, meaning he isn't changing. You assume he immediately contradicts himself instead of entertaining the slightest possibility that you're mistaken in what you believe Anselm is saying about sin. It's ridiculous.

Would you say that God is ultimate Self ?

forums.catholic.com/t/dil-cheating-on-my-son-and-hes-ok-with-it/388138

What's up with catholics being cucks?

They can't get a divorce. Muslims can divorce their wives via WhatsApp.

Not a better God, just a satisfied one

No

As if a satisfied God wouldn't be a better God.

Though it isn't common in practice because the wife keeps the dowry (paid by the husband to her at marriage) unless he has good grounds for divorce. The dowry typically is a large sum of money or the house. So he has to pay it again if he wants another wife.

Anselm would probably say unsatisfied is better if God had not recieved satisfaction

When you're reading books, sometimes it's best to just focus on understanding the text and let any sort of refutation come later.

You're talking nonsense.

You can claim God is changing himself by doing absolutely anything as opposed to something else. You won't achieve what you're trying to do this way.

What is more significant about the Muslim God is will or won't forgive provided you are a Muslim.

Oh just a janitor of the void in your world then. You see it as an 'offense' against the 'self as per the Qu'ran' yet do not see God as Ultimate Self when we are a reflection of him. Ibn Arabi reflects this perspective by proclaiming that we are like mirrors and God the object.

You evaded the main question though, what truly makes something 'sinful'?

According to Muhammad, peace be upon him, God won't punish Muslims in the afterlife if they are punished under Sharia

The tablet on which all is written is an eternal attribute of God, so indeed everything is a mirror of Him, but the mirror is not synomous with what it reflects

Sin is harm of the self

God's essence is seen in the existent human being, as God is the object and human beings the mirrors. Meaning two things; that since humans are mere reflections of God there can be no distinction or separation between the two and, without God the creatures would be non-existent. When an individual understands that there is no separation between human and God they begin on the path of ultimate oneness. The one who decides to walk in this oneness pursues the true reality and responds to God's longing to be known. The search within for this reality of oneness causes one to be reunited with God, as well as, improve self-consciousness.

'harm of self' as defined by ? I hope not the flesh ...

All of creation is the mirror

>there can be no distinction
Come again?

>'harm of self' as defined by ? I hope not the flesh ...
I meant harm of one's spirit.

You know that one cannot harm the Spirit. As you said, he is immutable and utterly unaffected. So explain yourself ?

Neither Original Sin nor Atonement are in either Testament. Both are Pauline abominations, a nightmare within a nightmare.

>Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

I don't kmow what you mean, I said you cannot harm God. The human spirit is created and mutable

The Gospels we have today were all produced by Paulines.

Moron, Anselm wasn’t a Muslim

That is correct, the Qur'an rejects the crucifixion altogether, however what I pointed out are flaws in his assertions just the same, unless you subscribe to some kind of ultra relativist theology

Shut the fuck up, you're trying to impose Islamic theology on a Christian theological discourse. You're either being disingenuous or you're as stupid as you seem.

Yeah for some reason Muslims think the crucifixion was an illusion. They believe God lies to people.

Islam is more Christian than Paul is.

Are you also going to cry foul if a Catholics brings up his theology in Protestant discourse? Truth is truth, secular philosophers are not like this

No, most likely just that Pilate used the wrong guy after beating him (the Quran says specifically the Jews were left uncertain that it was Jesus being crucified), I personally think it might have been Yeshua Barabbas (lit "son of the father") who killed Roman soldiers and advocated insurection, no way Pilate would let him go over Christ anymore than the U.S. would pardon a domestic Islamic terrorist. The visitation after the Resurrection was probably just Jesus saying I'm okay. The theory of Jesus being crucified to save humanity probably originates with Paul, who certainly started the meme about not having to follow the law to recruit Greeks to his sect, which consequently rapidly outnumbered the Ebionites. Acts says Christian did not have to eat kosher because Peter had a dream but Acts was written by Luke, a close associate and partisan of Paul

Jesus himself alludes to a coincidence of Incarnation and Docetism in John 10:17-18.

Cry more
Protestantism and Catholicism are both forms of Christianity that agree on a few fundamental doctrines. Islam doesn't accept the premises of Christian theology. Again, disingenuous or stupid, I can't tell which and I don't care.

What reason do you have to think the Romans and Jews were so incompetent that they crucified the wrong guy? How does that even happen, do you think Jesus was replaced by somebody else when he was in jail? On the face of it non of it makes sense.

John was written by some Greek who probably never met any apostle

Islam accepts a lot in common with the OT, which is the premise of Christianity

No, I think Pilate had Jesus switched out with Barabbas on purpose. The Jews did not do the crucifixion, the Romans did. Christ did not violate any Roman law whereas Barabbas was an insurrectionist and a killer

>the OT, which is the premise of Christianity
This has to be b8

>No, I think Pilate had Jesus switched out with Barabbas on purpose. The Jews did not do the crucifixion, the Romans did. Christ did not violate any Roman law whereas Barabbas was an insurrectionist and a killer
Okay, now I know what you believe. Now finish answering the question. Why do you believe it?

It is not, Christianity professes to be the fulfillment of the OT

Because Jesus was a great prophet and I don't think God would allow him to be brutally tortured to death when he begged God to save him. God would not do that to Moses or Abraham.

>Christianity professes to be the fulfillment of the OT
The Resurrection, the fundamental Event of Christianity, is not portrayed in the OT. You are being disingenuous, or you are stupid. I cannot, again, tell which, and again, I don't care.

>Because Jesus was a great prophet and I don't think God would allow him to be brutally tortured to death when he begged God to save him. God would not do that to Moses or Abraham.
Your argument is circular.

Please cite the Latin text where you derive this particular semantic 'problem' you're proferring. Please offer both the Latin and your literal translation of it below. I mean, you're not going off second or even thirdhand sources as the basis of your argument, are you, user? Please tell us you read Anselm in Latin.

Tfw you understand Christianity better than Christians

Christians think the crucifixion is portrayed throughout the OT, especially in Psalms and Isaiah

Attached: 1558636450523.png (396x385, 138K)

What difference does it make? Religions are all about obedience in following the rules set by someone else regardless of their outcome.

While Modern man cannot choose the outcome they want, they can choose do act differently if they don't like the outcome they have, and through that freedom create new outcomes.

Religion is nothing more that conservatism that protects the exploiters story at the expense of those they exploit.

The exploiters know that they need the collective action to get what they want; they can't make their world themselves. So they set up systems to funnel the rewards of collective action to themselves at the expense of maximizing collective action.
Religion has never been anything but a ruse: a story for the purpose of exploitation.

The modern world was created by those who don't follow religion, thus creating a new set of norms that promote creativity, that no religion supports: diversity, freedom, fairness, cooperation, respect, and love for your fellow man.
The gods your religions make up are assholes who roast the babies of those who don't comply. They are thugs and authoritarians who have no respect for being human, just like the elitist exploiters who invented them.

Those that follow religion are the enemy of humanity.

Holy fuck dude just fuck off, nobody is fooled by your bullshit

No, not really, unless you disagree and think He would desert Moses and Abraham in such an hour

No, do you read the Qur'an in Arabic?

>MOSES: forced to wander in the desert for 40 years, dies before the Jewish people come into Israel, undergoes various traumas in his childhood before encountering the Burning Bush
bozo

Read Carl Schmitt, humanist

Seething casual Christian

Jesus does not die on the Cross in the OT, you fucking piece of waste

I'm not nitpicking semantics to refute Islamic doctrine. You are nitpicking semantics to refute Christian doctrine, and so the burden on you is to prove you even sufficiently understand the intricacies of the so-called problem you're using as the crux of your argument. As you can't even read the language--and probably wouldn't even know where to find the relevant citations--let alone properly analyse their grammar, you have no real leg to stand on. Feet of clay, I'd call it, but you don't even have the clay.

This board is beautiful.

I never said God didn't put prophets through hardship, I am specifically talking about Jesus praying for God to save him from being wrongfully tortured to death by rejectors of the message God sent Christ to bring them, it would be like the Egyptians taking Moses to be brutally tortured to death and Moses begging God to save him and God abandoning him

>You are nitpicking semantics
How? Is this coming down to what grammatical case the words in Latin are? Because I am pretty sure that wouldn't hamper my point

You have a combination of a very simplistic understanding of the concept of God and a very simplistic understanding of the role of Jesus in the Gospel narrative and the wider narrative of the Bible as a whole. Either that or you are, as I have said previously, disingenuous or stupid.

I believe the original purpose of the Torah was simply to explain to people who God is, how to worship him, and what His law is. Jesus suppprted this and sought to purify it from corruption, he stressed the importantance of the law. Paul said stop following the law in order to get his sect to appeal to Greeks.

Haha you're "pretty sure" but you can't even begin to base that on anything other than gut feel because you don't understand the grammar on which rests a small semantic twist as the fulcrum of your complaint against Anselm. I wish I could pat you on the head, wrap you in a warm blanket and lead you back into the day home so you could get some rest. Cutie.

Would you accept a Christian arguing little linguistic twists as sound refutation of the Qur'an if they couldn't even read Arabic? Better yet, if the hadn't even read a translation of the work in question just summaries online?

I don't why you're going on about linguistic twists, the grammar cases of Latin are well defined and you can look up which case a word is quite easily

What linguistic twists are you talking about? How is this even about that?

You have to demonstrate that Paul’s conversion was somehow illegitimate in order for any of this nonsense you’re spouting to make sense. Being anti-Pauline might be the cool and edgy thing to do but you haven’t given any good reasons to be anti-Pauline ITT. You are just being petulant.

I don't say he was not sincere, just that he was delusional

That’s even harder to demonstrate. Can you please stop posting?

That is not hard to demonstrate at all, Paul explicitly contradicts the Epistle of James. Paul says works are irrelevant, the Epistle of James says they save

Ok then: cite the relevant Latin passages of Anselm and your literal translation underneath. It's easy. If not, you don't understand what you're talking about. It's that simple. NB: I don't care much what are your impressions or "feelings" regarding Latin grammar if you can't show any proficiency in it. If you can't cite the relevant passages on which rest your original semantic quibble (i.e. sin against God vs. Sin against the self) you have nothing on which to rest this thread. You can't wiggle out of this: you actually know what you're talking about at a fundamental level or you don't. You've already said you don't understand Latin, and as such your quibble is meaningless to you yourself let alone to anyone else

Contradiction = delusion?

Latin is page 56 here

archive.org/details/sanselmicantuar04laemgoog/page/n80

English

>How no being, except the God-man, can make the atonement by which man is saved.

>Anselm. But this cannot be effected, except the price paid to God for the sin of man be something greater than all the universe besides God.

>Boso. So it appears.

>Anselm. Moreover, it is necessary that he who can give God anything of his own which is more valuable than all things in the possession of God, must be greater than all else but God himself.

>Boso. I cannot deny it.

>Anselm. Therefore none but God can make this satisfaction.

>Boso. So it appears.

>Anselm. But none but a man ought to do this, other wise man does not make the satisfaction.

>Boso. Nothing seems more just.

>Anselm. If it be necessary, therefore, as it appears, that the heavenly kingdom be made up of men, and this cannot be effected unless the aforesaid satisfaction be made, which none but God can make and none but man ought to make, it is necessary for the God-man to make it.

Paul was drawing from personal visions

What’s your point?

Those visions contradicted what Christ's disciples were taught

>Islamic
>doctrine

Can you prove that they weren’t authentic visions of God’s will, or at least provide some textual evidence to support your claims?

If God's Law is God's revealed will, they directly oppose it. If Christ's teachings were God's revealed will, they directly oppose it, since Christ says the law endure to the end of the world and those to teach neglecting it will be counted least in the kingdom

I see no textual evidence.

>authentic visions of God’s will
Fuck off, stinky carpet dealer.
Just fuck off to your desert.

>Stinky carpet dealer gibberish
>God's revealed will
Fuck off.

OP already admitted he can understand Latin, he didn't learn it in 15 minutes. Second of all, please even try to cobble together a fake answer: take the time to type out the Latin, and correlate it to the translation you found on a wiki. At least make the effort to pretend. But even then, this passage hardly explicates your little quibble in the first place.

OP admitted he CAN'T understand Latin, rather

Of what? Of God saying eat Kosher, or rather Christ saying what he did about the law?

The scholastics had to read Aristotle in a Latin translation. They had to read the Bible in Latin translation. This is not really a solid rebuttal on your part

You haven't posted an actual excerpt from the Bible you mouth-breathing faggot

I was referencing Matthew 5:19

Attached: 1552940446331.jpg (366x361, 30K)

How stupid are you?

Allah knows I am not gifted with a powerful mind despite what my mother says

Why are you posting this haram picture?
Is it your wife?
Why are you posting a haram picture of your wife on the Internet?
Are you a murtad or what?

there is a reason Anselm is largely ignored these days, OP.

also
>laaaaaaaanguaaaaaaaaage gaaaaaames
^this is the body of your post

>The human spirit is created and mutable

Are you stupid? You are not religious at all if you believe that.

Her shirt extends below her elbow, how is it haram?

Each human has a distinct spirit created by God

the spirit is not affected by the material, don't be foolish. the spirit is God, you are thinking of soul, which is apart of God

I know the difference between ruh and nafs, both are still created

Not sure if this is relevant, but I like to contribute. This metaphor's kind of wierd, but I think it's suitable.
Imagine all the world, if you can, written out like a tremendous scroll. The scroll is the only thing that is, and it consists of ink and parchment. It also goes on forever. At varied points along the way of the scroll, certain ink lines end. The scroll remains. Certain ink lines swerve off to the side, leaving the area meant to be read, but the scroll continues nonetheless. At somepoint during the length of the scroll, all of the scroll's height becomes readable and all the link lines either end or continue on forever.

That makes no sense desu